Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[LaSainte]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Wasn’t the scope of Humanea Vitae just that, to “reaffirm the truth of an already infallible doctrine when there is dissent, disagreement or confusion among Catholics”?

Maybe that was the intention, I’m not sure. Either way, it definitely didn’t work. To give an example, I am a cradle Catholic, as is my mom, grandmother, great-grandmother- you get the idea. I went to 8 years of Catholic school, as well as CCD, RCIA, the works. Until 3 years ago, I had NO IDEA that infallibility extended to anything other than ex cathedra statements, of which there are 2 or 3. Nobody knows about this. Everyone thinks its just some optional take it or leave it suggestion and that we can just listen to our conscience and do what feels right.

IF this is an infallible doctrine (and I’m STILL not sure) the pope or somebody needs to come right out and say it, in a single statement, clear as day. No leaving it up to moral theologians to argue about or to RCIA classes to gloss over. If its true, every Catholic needs to know it with conviction and clarity, period.

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #219
So what “divinely revealed truth” does the mandate against ABC guard and expound upon? Isn’t this a bit outside of the sphere of infallibility?

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
[ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM]](http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM])

an ex cathedra statement would serve to reassure and unite the faithful

We have two ex cathedra infallible definitions as shown – the “faithful” ipso facto assent to them, to all dogma and doctrine, try to live faithfully, and are united precisely because of that.

Unless and until Catholics take the trouble to really think with the Church through study and reason they will continue to languish in confusion, as will all those others who blame the Church and indulge their own prejudices.

For those who are serious about reason and faith – about fidelity:
No. 43 Roman Theological Forum
THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE
by Fr Brian W. Harrison
“We have now carefully examined, word for word, the four characteristics of an ex cathedra definition specified in the dogmatic definition of 1870, in the light of Bishop Gasser’s authoritative explanation of the text and the subsequent teaching of Vatican Council II. We have also examined Humanae Vitae, presenting evidence that the definition in article 14 of the encyclical clearly manifests all four characteristics. We conclude, therefore, that this definition is indeed an ex cathedra proclamation - infallible and irreformable in itself.

“Finally, in article 14, the summit itself is reached, and the solemn definition is proclaimed.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #221
I had NO IDEA that infallibility extended to anything other than ex cathedra statements, of which there are 2 or 3. Nobody knows about this.

There are many Catholics who do know this. Since Catholics are human they may neglect to inform themselves; they may have been poorly catechized, especially after, not because of, Vatican II; they may have been confused by dissenting theologians or malformed priests, and they seldom get any such help from the pulpit.

Again, every papal doctrine which meets the criteria below is ex cathedra and infallible.
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

The “2 or 3 ex cathedra statements” mixes up papal Marian dogmas with papal infallible doctrines and mistakenly limits “ex cathedra” to dogmas.

A dogma is a solemn infallible declaration to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith, post #222.
There are two papal Marian dogmas:

The Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (December 8, 1854).

The Assumption, proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.

The infallible papal moral teachings are doctrines.

 

[RobbyS]

It is sad, and disappointing to see the personal comments on here. The Jewish and Christian Tradition from the Bible and practice is to avoid non-natural birth regulation, up to and including the modern version of NFP which is a scientific approach to that goal. Careful of erroneous quotes from the Fathers or saints, especially before the 19th century when the female ovum was discovered and in the 13th when little was known medically about what happens in the womb- Aquinas thought a boy soul was created before a girl soul and similar nonsense.
It is not easy for all Christians to have the discipline to respect each other and follow the female body’s own cycle of fertility. The Evangelicals do not believe in chemical and barrier birth prevention, and some Jewish rabbis offer assistance for the women who have an unusual cycle. Sadly, there has not been enough positive mention given to proper education and formation about the topic for marriage preparation and not enough medicallly informed people who can offer such teaching. HUMANAE VITAE was NOT about birth prevention, it was a warning about what would happen, and it did in torrents, when humans separate the sacramental-physical sign of a couple’s unity within marriage. Vatican 11 put the purposes of marriage together in one sentence, before that they were primary and secondary. They are for parenthood and mutual support- that covers all situations, even if infertile or past chld bearing years,

Indeed, the encyclical was about human sexuality. I notice that some posters accept uncritically the teaching of Freud and others–indeed, some theories as ridiculous as the teaching of the great Hugh Heffner.

 

[LaSainte]

Here is where I wonder whether or not this teaching even falls under the scope of something that can be infallibly taught. Not only does it have to be a matter of faith and morals(check), but " Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. "

I don’t see how the ban against ABC is necessary for guarding and expounding upon something that has been divinely revealed. It must be both. The pope can’t just say “It’s a sin to wear purple” in an encyclical and have it be an infallible teaching simply because it has to do with morality. It MUST be a doctrinal truth necessary for protecting and elaborating upon that which has ALREADY been divinely revealed. There must be somethingdale easy divinely revealed that is clarified or illuminated by the ban against wearing purple, or against ABC for that matter.

So how is it that the teaching against ABC clarifies or expounds upon divine revelation?

I follow this teaching and have studied it a LOT, I just don’t see it as being necessarily infallible, and I really wish (especially NOW that contraception is all over the media-the timing is perfect) that Benedict would issue a statement once and for all saying “Yes, this has been taught infallibly”. In one fell swoop it would be in every newspaper in the world. Everyone would know and understand. With so much dissent on the issue, and so many Catholics who just don’t understand or realize this, why WOULDN’T he?

 

[anrmenchaca47]

It is the fact of Catholic history that sex was seen as evil…

Ok…wait a tick…I had always thought that this belief was part of a heresy called Gnosticism meaning that flesh was evil and having sex has to do with sharing of the flesh…now you are saying the Catholic Church viewed sex as evil? And by evil I mean in the Gnostic sense…If this was the case, then the heresy of Gnosticism did not completely go away then from the sounds of this particular statement.

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #225
how is it that the teaching against ABC clarifies or expounds upon divine revelation?

“**Pope John Paul II has stated **(though not in an ex cathedra way) that although the norm against contraception is not explicitly formulated in Scripture, it has been so frequently asserted in Tradition that “it becomes evident” that this norm "belongs not only to the natural moral law, but also to the moral order revealed by God (Pope John Paul II, Reflections on Humanae Vitae, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1984, pp. 9-10).58

“Pope Paul in Humanae Vitae itself repeatedly uses the word “doctrine” in regard to the moral question he is deciding in the encyclical, and in article 6 he speaks of the Church’s “moral doctrine” (doctrina moralis) on marriage, thereby using the very words of the 1870 definition (doctrinam de fide vel moribus) which designate that area (or general subject matter) within which infallible definitions are possible. He asserts in article 4 the close link between this “moral doctrine” regarding contraception and revealed truth: it is "a doctrine founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation". **He then asserts in the same article that the Church’s interpretation of the natural law falls under the divine mandate to teach all of Christ’s commandments to the nations and to do so with “His divine authority” (Matt. 28:18-19). **This, of course, is one of the *loci classici *in Scripture implying the Church’s infallibility, since, if the Church could err while binding her children absolutely to hold a certain doctrine in the name of Christ, she would in fact be speaking as Antichrist: the gates of hell would have prevailed against her.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

Thus Casti Connubii and *Humanae Vitae *guard and defend that revealed moral order.

I just don’t see it as being necessarily infallible

That degrades the dogma of Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus which defined the exercise of papal infallibility, which has to be believed on divine and Catholic faith (Canon 750.1). s

In addition, a doctrine is infallible if always taught: in Casti Connubii, Pius XI refers to that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

Furthermore, it is infallible because of the “universality of the present” – because an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; because footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching.

So a denial of this infallibility has no support from any faithful Catholic, theologian or laity, who assents to this doctrine.

 

[kalbertone]

Here is where I wonder whether or not this teaching even falls under the scope of something that can be infallibly taught. Not only does it have to be a matter of faith and morals(check), but " Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. "

I don’t see how the ban against ABC is necessary for guarding and expounding upon something that has been divinely revealed. It must be both. The pope can’t just say “It’s a sin to wear purple” in an encyclical and have it be an infallible teaching simply because it has to do with morality. It MUST be a doctrinal truth necessary for protecting and elaborating upon that which has ALREADY been divinely revealed. There must be somethingdale easy divinely revealed that is clarified or illuminated by the ban against wearing purple, or against ABC for that matter.

So how is it that the teaching against ABC clarifies or expounds upon divine revelation?

I follow this teaching and have studied it a LOT, I just don’t see it as being necessarily infallible, and I really wish (especially NOW that contraception is all over the media-the timing is perfect) that Benedict would issue a statement once and for all saying “Yes, this has been taught infallibly”. In one fell swoop it would be in every newspaper in the world. Everyone would know and understand. With so much dissent on the issue, and so many Catholics who just don’t understand or realize this, why WOULDN’T he?

 

[LaSainte]

“**Pope John Paul II has stated **(though not in an ex cathedra way) **that although the norm against contraception **is not explicitly formulated in Scripture, it has been so frequently asserted in Tradition that “it becomes evident” that this norm "belongs not only to the natural moral law, but also to the moral order revealed by God (Pope John Paul II, Reflections on Humanae Vitae, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1984, pp. 9-10).58

“Pope Paul in Humanae Vitae itself repeatedly uses the word “doctrine” in regard to the moral question he is deciding in the encyclical, and in article 6 he speaks of the Church’s “moral doctrine” (doctrina moralis) on marriage, thereby using the very words of the 1870 definition (doctrinam de fide vel moribus) which designate that area (or general subject matter) within which infallible definitions are possible. He asserts in article 4 the close link between this “moral doctrine” regarding contraception and revealed truth: it is "a doctrine founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation". **He then asserts in the same article that the Church’s interpretation of the natural law falls under the divine mandate to teach all of Christ’s commandments to the nations and to do so with “His divine authority” (Matt. 28:18-19). **This, of course, is one of the *loci classici *in Scripture implying the Church’s infallibility, since, if the Church could err while binding her children absolutely to hold a certain doctrine in the name of Christ, she would in fact be speaking as Antichrist: the gates of hell would have prevailed against her.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

Thus Casti Connubii and *Humanae Vitae *guard and defend that revealed moral order.
That degrades the dogma of Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus which defined the exercise of papal infallibility, which has to be believed on divine and Catholic faith (Canon 750.1). s

In addition, a doctrine is infallible if always taught: in Casti Connubii, Pius XI refers to that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

Furthermore, it is infallible because of the “universality of the present” – because an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; because footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching.

So a denial of this infallibility has no support from any faithful Catholic, theologian or laity, who assents to this doctrine.

I’ve just never heard any pope or Catholic authority refer to this teaching as infallible. I know PJP2 said it was “definitive and irreformable”, which is a criteria for infallibility, but it’s almost as if recent popes have been trying to MAKE it infallible, through encyclicals and carefully worded statements, which seems to be doing it in reverse order.

 

[Chrono13]

Ok…wait a tick…I had always thought that this belief was part of a heresy called Gnosticism meaning that flesh was evil and having sex has to do with sharing of the flesh…now you are saying the Catholic Church viewed sex as evil? And by evil I mean in the Gnostic sense…If this was the case, then the heresy of Gnosticism did not completely go away then from the sounds of this particular statement.

You are wise to notice this.

There is a difference between early Catholics and Gnostics.

Gnostics believed all material world, including human flesh, was created by “evil god”, and all spiritual things, such as human soul, by God. When child is concieved, soul is trapped by flesh, and thus, it is a bad thing. Sex leads to this, thus, sex is evil as well. To gnostics, human sexuality is evil by itself.

St. Augustine rejected this idea, claiming that God created human sexuality, thus it must be good. However, he developed the idea that after Adam’s sin, sexual drive was damaged beyond repair (for humans). It’s a little spicy, but technically, Augustine believed that before sin, male humans were capable of controlling their intmate parts as hands or legs (they were “under rational control”) yet now they can only move them by “sensual stimulant”… lust. And since lust is bad, sex is bad as well.

For Augustine, sex was created good, but after the Fall, it is damaged in a specific way and beyond it’s initial perfection.

There were many other approaches to this topic, but generally sex was not seen as something positive in those times.

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #229
I’ve just never heard any pope or Catholic authority refer to this teaching as infallible.
I know PJP2 said it was “definitive and irreformable”, which is a criteria for infallibility, but it’s almost as if recent popes have been trying to MAKE it infallible, through encyclicals and carefully worded statements, which seems to be doing it in reverse order.

Having understood the criteria for infallibility above, this mesmerization with the attitude of degrading that fact, and the vital importance of the morality of the marital act, indicates the influence of dissenting theologians who were a dime a dozen after Vatican II and Humanae Vitae, even though Casti Connubii of Pius XI, 1930, was the watershed after the Anglican capitulation to relativism over contraception, which broke the Protestant consensus of agreement with Catholicism from Luther.

The added infidelity was the foolish statement from the U.S. Bishops in 1968, which purported to establish “norms of licit dissent” – an oxymoron – and against Vatican II as well, which taught that even for non-infallible doctrine in Lumen Gentium, 25, “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated.

We have seen that the CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires that even the category 3 truths, which are non-definitive (non-infallible) require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25), not an assent of faith.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[kalbertone]

kalbertone:
When Monsignor Lambruschini from the Vatican was iterviewed after the official release of Humanae Vitae he stated It was not infallible. Some Bishop conferences said while one should listen to the Pope, the tradition of Conscience has to be taken into account.The Scandinavian Bishops hailed “That no catholic be thought of as inferior whoever reaches a different conclusion”. Out of the 21 councils of the Church hardly any mention contraception,nowhere in scripture is it mentioned.The Vatican under the autocrat John Paul II tried to lobotamize moral theology & other areas by what theologians called creeping infallibility.Nowhere ever in the history of Catholicism did a Pope in communion with all Bishops in the world hailed contraception is always wrong in all cases to be held Definitively.Its non existant

 

[fix]

When Monsignor Lambruschini from the Vatican was iterviewed after the official release of Humanae Vitae he stated It was not infallible. Some Bishop conferences said while one should listen to the Pope, the tradition of Conscience has to be taken into account.The Scandinavian Bishops hailed “That no catholic be thought of as inferior whoever reaches a different conclusion”. Out of the 21 councils of the Church hardly any mention contraception,nowhere in scripture is it mentioned.The Vatican under the autocrat John Paul II tried to lobotamize moral theology & other areas by what theologians called creeping infallibility.Nowhere ever in the history of Catholicism did a Pope in communion with all Bishops in the world hailed contraception is always wrong in all cases to be held Definitively.Its non existant

MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

In some quarters the question has been raised regarding the recognition of a doctrine taught by the ordinary, universal Magisterium as revealed or to be held definitively. It has been said, for example, that for this recognition it is necessary that the unanimous consent of the entire Episcopate be explicitly evident not only in proposing a determinate judgement, but also in declaring its absolute and definitively binding character. Hence there is a doubt as to whether these requirements have been met regarding the doctrine about the non-admission of women to priestly ordination and about certain universal norms of the natural moral law.

However, these questions and the doubts that have been raised do not seem to take into account several factors which must be briefly mentioned.

a) The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the proclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who is the Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a question of extraordinary statements, but of the Church’s normal life, of what is preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in the everyday life of the Church. “<This ordinary Magisterium is thus the normal form of the Church’s infallibility>”.’ As a consequence, it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to be proposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non only words but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of a dogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case, usually required for very precise and particular reasons.

b) Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

 

[Abu]

kalbertone #232
The Vatican under the autocrat John Paul II tried to lobotamize moral theology & other areas by what theologians called creeping infallibility.

The smear against Bl John Paul II identifies the rabid prejudice of this dissenter. These “theologians “ are the type that have mesmerized kalbertone – the sort that dissented from Humanae Vitae, and want to wreck Christ’s Church to suit their own prejudices.

Further, he illustrates the fact that some bishops conferences are lax and fuel the dissent which he personifies, as the U.S. Bishops did in 1968 (post #231).

This is the assent required by the Australian Bishops in 1976:
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.”

The derogatory “Creeping infallibilism” was introduced by no less a dissenter than Charles Curran, fired by US Bishops in 1987 from Catholic University of America. "Curran claims ‘creeping infallibilism,’ ” in Our Sunday Visitor, September 7, 1986].

This is akin to Gaillardetz’s derogatory “ahistorical dogmatism” which he claims many theologians share. Of course, that’s why they are dissenters. It is promoted by dissenter Richard Gaillardetz in America, who promotes the idea of an abhorrence of the “creeping infallibility” phobia among his breed of theologians. The derogatory “Papal absolutism” is credited to none other than dissenter Francis Sullivan. Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, 1983, p 145].

No real Catholic dissents from doctrine – totally illicit. Further continuing to ridicule the teaching of the Catholic Church, after clear evidence, shows a persistent myopia and refusal to assent. The denigration of the teaching of the Church shown in posts, 134, 144,158,183 confirms the dissent.

When Monsignor Lambruschini from the Vatican was iterviewed after the official release of Humanae Vitae he stated It was not infallible

As Fr Brian Harrison lucidly reveals:
“The mere possibility of Humanae Vitae’s being an ex cathedra statement is often scornfully dismissed by referring to the fact that Monsignor Ferdinando Lambruschini, the Vatican spokesman who announced the encyclical to the press and the world, said that it was not infallible. As a matter of fact Lambruschini was not authorized to say any such thing, as is evidenced by the fact that this remark was conspicuously omitted from the Osservatore Romano report of his statement the following day. However, the main point is not whether or not there is historical evidence that the Pope was pleased or displeased with Lambruschini’s remark. The main point is that, from a serious theological point of view, his remark is irrelevant. In an age when our consciousness is largely dominated by the mass media, comments by people such as press spokesmen receive an exaggerated importance at times. A moment’s reflection ought to make it clear that such a grave issue as the infallibility or non-infallibility of a pontifical document could never be decided simply by reference to the mere ipse dixit of a decidedly non-infallible press spokesman!”
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

This is the quagmire that dissenters inhabit…

 

[kalbertone]

MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

Bishops must be allowed to speak freely,but are often coerced or silenced.That^s because since Vatican 1 the church has become a autocracy.Vatican II tried to restore the balance with collegiality but JPII & Benedict have refused & turned there back on it.They have also rejected (name removed by moderator)ut from the local church for priests to be bishops & imposed there own like minded people.That^s why there were protests from Vienna,Switzerland,Cologne throughout the 80-s as JPII abused his authority & put his own men in place as other Bishops retired or died.This is a recent practice where the pope alone nominates a Bishop & came early in the 20th century.As far as the other stuff goes there has never been a unanimous statement that this is to be held definitively.Councils barely mention it.However Councils do mantion Usury—Condemned in scripture ps 15:5 Neh 5:10 EX 18:13 18:17 as well as in Councils Arles,Nicae,Carthage,Lateran,2nd Lyon,Vienn in 1311-----but today the Vatican bank charges usury.In late 1800s the holy office issued a statement that those who chage usury at moderate interest are not to be disturbed.As millions of catholics got involved in charging usury due to changed economics & historical factors.The church had to change. The Sense Of The Faithful. Once again Contraception in a limited way if necessary to space births fine.People are living linger,its a industrial & not agriculture age,modern life is more complex

 

[Chrono13]

As Fr Brian Harrison lucidly reveals:
“The mere possibility of Humanae Vitae’s being an ex cathedra statement is often scornfully dismissed by referring to the fact that Monsignor Ferdinando Lambruschini, the Vatican spokesman who announced the encyclical to the press and the world, said that it was not infallible. As a matter of fact Lambruschini was not authorized to say any such thing, as is evidenced by the fact that this remark was conspicuously omitted from the Osservatore Romano report of his statement the following day.

Excuse me, but this doesn’t seem true. Article in Oservatore Romano comfirmed Monsignor’s claim.
ewtn.com/library/Theology/PRSSCNHV.HTM

Not that it matters, though. Even if they ommited it, that would not mean Labruschini had no authority for such saying.

Monsignor Lambruschini had full authority and power when he announced Humanae Vitae, and every part of that announcement is valid without question.

However, the main point is not whether or not there is historical evidence that the Pope was pleased or displeased with Lambruschini’s remark. The main point is that, from a serious theological point of view, his remark is irrelevant.

Of course it is. He announced the teaching.

In an age when our consciousness is largely dominated by the mass media, comments by people such as press spokesmen receive an exaggerated importance at times. A moment’s reflection ought to make it clear that such a grave issue as the infallibility or non-infallibility of a pontifical document could never be decided simply by reference to the mere ipse dixit of a decidedly non-infallible press spokesman!”

Mass media simply reported what a Church Official declared on official press conference.This meeting was carefuly planned, and Lambruschini was not corrected or scoulded for his remark.

 

[Abu]

The befuddled Catholic besmircher tries to pit a theologian (Lambruschini) who favoured the liberalization of the infallible doctrine against contraception in Casti Connubii, against an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, which declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; because footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching.

Further the theologian is pitted against Pius XI in Casti Connubii, which affirms that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

Over Msgr Lambruschini’s error, “Fr. Lio replies that there was considerable dismay behind the scenes about Msgr. Lambruschini’s remarks, which were purely his own personal initiative, with no official backing whatever. (He had in fact been one of the theologians favouring a relaxation of the traditional doctrine prior to the Encyclical’s publication.) Lambruschini was in effect corrected, though not in such a way as to be humiliated publicly. **Fr. Lio points out how, in the report of Lambruschini’s press conference given in the official Vatican newspaper, *L’Osservatore Romano *(daily Italian edition, 29/30 July 1968, p. 4), his statements to the journalists about the “non-infallibile” nature of Humanae Vitae are conspicuous by their absence.

“Conspicuously present in the Vatican daily a few weeks later, however, was the report of Fr. Lio’s own speech at the opening of the 1968-69 academic year of the Pontifical Lateran University. **Giving a summary of Fr. Lio’s address, L’Osservatore Romano highlighted the fact that he had twice used the word “immutable” - which logically implies infallibility - in regard to the decision handed down in Humanae Vitae. Indeed, the essential thesis of Fr. Lio’s new book can be found summed up nearly two decades earlier, on page 4 of L’Osservatore Romano, 26 October 1968. He is reported there as saying that the Encyclical reconfirms … the immutable and perennial nature of the doctrine regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

The befuddled Catholic besmircher tries to pit a theologian (Lambruschini) who favoured the liberalization of the infallible doctrine against contraception in Casti Connubii, against an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, which declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; because footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching.

Further the theologian is pitted against Pius XI in Casti Connubii, which affirms that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

Over Msgr Lambruschini’s error, “Fr. Lio replies that there was considerable dismay behind the scenes about Msgr. Lambruschini’s remarks, which were purely his own personal initiative, with no official backing whatever. (He had in fact been one of the theologians favouring a relaxation of the traditional doctrine prior to the Encyclical’s publication.) Lambruschini was in effect corrected, though not in such a way as to be humiliated publicly. **Fr. Lio points out how, in the report of Lambruschini’s press conference given in the official Vatican newspaper, *L’Osservatore Romano ***(daily Italian edition, 29/30 July 1968, p. 4), his statements to the journalists about the “non-infallibile” nature of *Humanae Vitae *are conspicuous by their absence.

“Conspicuously present in the Vatican daily a few weeks later, however, was the report of Fr. Lio’s own speech at the opening of the 1968-69 academic year of the Pontifical Lateran University. **Giving a summary of Fr. Lio’s address, *L’Osservatore Romano ***highlighted the fact that he had twice used the word “immutable” - which logically implies infallibility - in regard to the decision handed down in Humanae Vitae. Indeed, the essential thesis of Fr. Lio’s new book can be found summed up nearly two decades earlier, on page 4 of L’Osservatore Romano, 26 October 1968. He is reported there as saying that the Encyclical reconfirms … the immutable and perennial nature of the doctrine regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

============An infallible statement by the definition of Vatican 1 must be couched in those terms, the pope must invoke etc etc. The two infallible statements on dogma so far were both preceded by consultation with the world’s bishops and the FAITHFUL, the justfication for that is provided by Blessed J H Newman, with the Latin texts. No moral definition has been formally defined but the Bible’s moral teaching on killing and stealing were, and the old ban on usury which at first banned interest was modified to allow intrerest when money and investing changed, but USURY is still banned in civil and Church morality- excessive as in “loan shark” rates. Irreformable is not akin to infallible, I am convinced that a ban on barrier and chemical conception holds, except for very very few exceptional situations. One was listed in this topic earlier. Lots of ignorance about conscience and such was exposed by clergy and bishops since Humanae Vitae. The proof that he was correct is well documented by today’s rampant divorce, fornication,- gteen pregnancy, adultery and broken marriages abortions as ways of not adding to family size, and of course divorces. Marriage requires work and sacrifice and mutual concern. That is eliminated by use of un-natural contraception, the natural kind demands sacrifice and discipline and mutual reverence. . .

 

[Abu]

HOLY POOH FAN #238,
I am convinced that a ban on barrier and chemical conception holds, except for very very few exceptional situations.

There are no exceptions as taught by the Magisterium.

 

[kalbertone]

Monsingnor Lambruschini officially presented Humanae Vitae to the media/public.He was Pope Paul VI representative. He was never admonished for saying what he said. For people here it seems they don^t know there history or all of catholic teaching .Vatican 1 clearly laid out rules for infallibility.It had too because bishops were aware of the many errors & screw up of popes down the century.Humanae Vitae doesn^t have any ex cathedra statements.John Paul II,cardinal ratzinger can talk till there blue in the face by using words like “definitive”. This tactic doesn^t wash because all the criteria is not met.That^s why JPII can^t declare ex cathedra.He uses sneaky language to squash what most catholics reject.
Pope Paul VI took the issue of birth control & celibacy out of the Councils hands----because he feared they would change it. He stated a comission was looking into the matter so for the time put a brief mention of it(contraception). However they watered it down in the wordings.However as the Council teaches “this Gospel that we proclaim has a sacred reverance for the dignity of conscience & its FREEDOM OF CHOICE”, “IN LOYALTY TO CONSCIENCE christians unite…” “He must not go against his conscience,nor must he be forced to go against his conscience…” The Catechism also states “Conscience is the Aboriginal Vicar Of Christ” Why you quote fr harrison is irrelevant,he still wishes PIUS IX was still in charge