Retreat from theology's frontiers

"Humani Vitae" was issued at the height of the post-Vatican II late 1960s era when there was a mass exodus of priests and religious and open dissent by priests and religious from Catholic faith and morals and when people like Hans Kung at the height of their influence.

Not a receptive climate for such an encyclical.

Also the establising of the "birth control commission" during the time of Vatican II naturally led priests and laity to expect a change in the Church's teaching considering other areas of morals were being openly questioned unchalleged by the Pope or the Vatican.

Not everyone can handle ten children, nor should people be forced to have children that they cannot take care of. Only a fool would advocate this. The hierarchy has been wrong before and are wrong now. In the 17th century, the Vatican dabbled in astronomy and today it is gynecology. They were wrong then, they are wrong now. Until the Vatican engages in some serious critical thinking, very few people will take them seriously, on birth control and other issues.

Back in the day I wasn't sure I wanted any children at all since it looked more than likely we were going to nuke ourselves into oblivion. The 60's were about more than sex, drugs, and rocknroll and quite a number of us were not counting on living into the 80's much less planning our second mortgage.

AD105

You wrote, "No question there is a disconnected between the magisterium of Pope Pius XII and the documents and reforms of Vatican II which accounts for the polarization Vatican II occasioned."

Interesting statement! So, was Pius XII or was Vatican II guided by the Holy Spirit? If both, how could the result be polarization? If one and not the other, which one should we believe?

Excellent analysis & let us not forget that Hans Kung was a petrie dish or whatever they call it at the Council. He claims they only got half a loaf. And in terms of philosophy let us not forget that the philosophy of JPII, personalism, which comes from the phenomenology philosophy of the atheist Husserel is indeed a "reed blowing in the wind"! Why else is there such confusion over Theology of the Body which is bastardized by West?

The danger in letting non-theologians (i.e., most bishops and cardinals) guide thological studies is that they do not make the distinction Fox made: the difference between doctrine and theology.

Besides, there are very few bishops that could pass a graduate exam in either scripture or theology or liturgy.

L Kronzer

Go on, say it: St. Geraldine and the debbil made them do it!

AD105 on Aug. 29, 2011.

You stated:

("There would never have been a Vatican II if it were not for the theologians at work before the council in many areas, such as the new theology, ecumenics, liturgy, catechetics, and moral and pastoral theology."

Exactly the trends which Pius XII rejected in "Humani Generis" (1950) subtitled "Certain Errors Which Threaten To Undermine the Catholic Faith."

In "Humani Generis" Pius XII rejected "false eirenism" (aka "ecumenism").

Also targeted were those theologians who considered scholasticism "outmoded". Pius XII asserted to abandon the scholasticism of Saint Thomas which he terms the "perennial philosophy" would leave doctrine as a "reed blowing in the wind".

Foresightful considering the weakening of faith and morals in the post-Vatican II "renewal" period.

In "Mediator Dei" (1947) rejected liturgical experimentation, "reducing the altar to its primitive table form" and "excessive archaism" which translated into the "New Mass" promulgated by Paul VI.

No question there is a disconnected between the magisterium of Pope Pius XII and the documents and reforms of Vatican II which accounts for the polarization Vatican II occasioned.

Pius XII "Humani Generis" (1950):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi...

Pius XII "Mediator Dei" (1947):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi...)
-------------------------------------------
When we don't know our Church history, we can often come out stating things that are patiently untrue.

Let's take a look at the groundwork of Pius XII in laying important foundations for Vatican II.

In 1947, he issued the encyclical "Mediator Dei," in which he spoke of the laity as true, active participants in the Mass (not just observers---praying the rosary or reading a prayer book). In "Humani Generis" (1950), he encouraged Catholic theologians to use some of the benefits of modern scholarship in their research. Even though Pius was very much a conservative Italian churchman, he had keen insights into the way the modern world worked. He wanted the Church to speak effectively in that world.

Pius XII had signaled a truce in the Church's war with "Modernism" and "Americanism" when he issued the encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" in 1943.

Prior to that encyclical, the popes had been on record as opposing modern biblical criticism. Catholic scholars had to proceed as if the Bible had no texual errors in it. And they were not to probe beneath the surface of the text. They were not to concern themselves too greatly with the form or the historical context in which biblical passages were written.

In his encyclical, Pius XII changed this situation. He encouraged the application of modern methods of criticism to the study of the Bible. It was not until later that Catholic were permitted to read other versions of the Bible other than the Vulgate or its translations. But Pius XII paved the way for updated Catholic versions of the Bible.

As far as liturgy is concerned, people often forget that it wasn't the Second Vatican Council that began the reforms of the liturgy. It was Pope St. Pius X, who in 1910 reduced the age of First Communion to the age of reason and, in perhaps the most successful liturgical reform in the history of the church, restored the Eucharist as the daily food of the people.

People who don't know any church history don't understand that this was a very long process. In the decades followin 1910, pastors did everything they could to get people to go to Communion on Sunday. They had Men's Sundays, Women's Sunday, Holy Name and Christian Mother's Sundays, Family Sunday, Knights of Columbus Sunday---whatever they could do to get people to go to Communion at least once a month.

Now the vast majority of people go to Communion at every single liturgy---a great success that turned around centuries of history in which people used to go at the MOST once or maybe a few times a year.

And it didn't end there. Pope Pius XII restored the celebration of the Easter Vigin in 1951, which took the Catholic world by storm, followed by all the liturgies of Holy Week in 1955.

Pius XII also laid some groundwork for the great documents of Vatican II, namely "Lumen Gentium" and "Gaudium et Spes. There is precedent aplenty for LAY exercise of the power of governance in the church. The present canonical restriction which limits the possession of this form of authority to the ordained. Yet there is an affirmation of the ambiguous 'sharing in the exercise' of the power by laypersons is purely and merely positive ecclesiastical law, not an intrinsic limitation or one based on 'divine law'{Code of Canon Law, January 25, 1983, c.129}

It was a common and official teaching (reiterated by Pope Pius XII in 1957) that should a layperson be elected pope, upon acceptance he possessed the full authority of the office, even the charism of infallibility, before he was ordained. Similarly, a layman appointed or elected bishop received the full power of jurisdiction from the from the time of taking possession of the diocese, eve if it was prior to his ordination.

When the Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law met in its final plenary session in October 1981, this issue of lay exercise of the power of governance was the first item on the aganda. An overwhelming majority of the Commission members voted in favor of these provisions, now in the 1983 Code, which permit this exercise. {Congregatio Plenaria diebus 20-29 octobris habita, ed. Pont. Consilium de Legum Textibus Interpretandis (Vatican City: Typis Polygolottis Vaticanis, 1991) 211-12---the votes ranged from 59 in favor and 2 opposed.]

Pope John XXIII opened his pontificate by urging the Church, in his words, to "gain new strength and energies, and look to the future without fear." He criticized those in the Church for whom "the modern world is nothing by betrayal and ruination". He stated, "We feel bound to disagree with thse prophets of doom who are forever forecasting calamity." {John Jay Hughes, "The Council and The Synod: A Tale of Two Popes," St. Anthony Messenger (October 1985), p. 17.]

John declared as the Council's purpose the study and proclamation of Catholic doctrine "in the light of the research methods and the language of modern thought. For the SUBSTANCE of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing. And the WAY IN WHICH IT IS PRESENTED is another." {Ibid. p. 18]

People who complain or misinterpret the Second Vatican Council forget where it began and how long it took and how long the church prepared for it. The notion that it was done in a rush and shoved down the church's throat is simply ridiculous.

I did this once before on another topic related to Vatican II, but here are the MAJOR theologians of Vatican II---those whose work was influential BEFORE Vatican II and those who were influential DURING the Council itself.

Before the Council

Lambert Beaudin, OSB--Liturgical reformer
Virgil Michel, OSB---Founder of the American Liturgical Movement
Romano guardini--Parish priest, early liturgical reformer
Josef Jungmann, SJ---Liturgical scholar
Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP----Biblical scholar
Prosper Gueranger, OSB---Liturgical reformer

During the Council

Cardinal Augustin Bea, SJ---President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity
Henri de Lubac, SJ--Historian
John L. McKenzie, SJ---Biblical scholar
Yves Congar, OP---Theologian
John Courtney Murray, SJ---Theologian
Pierre Benoit, OP---Biblical scholar
Karl Rahner, SJ---Theologian
Edward Schillebeeckx, OP---Theologian
Hans Kung---Theologian
Godfrey Diekmann, OSB---Theologian
Bernard Haring, CSSR---Moral theologiam
Jean Danielou, SJ---Patristic scholar
And of course---Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli---Pope John XXIII

Nonsense. People would be happier if they only had more children? THis is one of the most foolish statements that I have ever read. There would be little homosexuality in the priesthood if people did not practice birth control? More nonsense. I remember the "good old days" and they were not so good either. I knew a lot of large, miserable families, and it was not good. Also, I will take the Jesuits any day, over LC/RC, Opus Dei and all the other fanatical right wing cults.

The Vatican is now engaged in freelance gynecology and how little they actually understand about women and their bodies would be amusing, except when you look at the damage they have done. From my own observation, the people who adhere to the Vatican's foolishness on birth control are often, not really normal people. Often, they appear to be simple minded fanatics, who obsess on sexuality and don't really understand human relationships, and must have someone telling them what to do, what to think. I have not yet met what I would consider a normal couple who actually lisens to Rome.

The reality of married life and what the Vatican teaches are two very different things. Most people understand this, and I think most Bishops realize this. Of course, they cannot speak the truth, but must spout the party line, lest they be slapped down. A Potempkin Village of a Church is what we have now.

Your reasoning is specious. Your idealisation of pre-Vatican II Catholicism is misplaced. You could refer to it as well as the period in which families had children they could not afford, a time in which couples were not all in a state of bliss without very serious reasons for divorce. You fail to mention that other than separation Catholic women had no way out of abusive marriages. It was their Christian duty to endure, offer it up, say the rosary. Gay Catholics who were faithful grew up feeling that they were infected with an unmentionable sin in an institution that not only had a profoundly defective view of human sexuality but concealed for decades the ignoble results of that skewed view of human sexuality. Thank God for the theologians who should have an impact on the Church hierarchy. Along with Scripture and tradition stands the third leg:reason.

Dromig10 on Aug. 29, 2011.

You stated:

"And what if we had followed Humanae Vitae? We would probably have larger families, divorce would not be running rampant in our families, and also the scandal of the homosexualized priesthood on our youth would not be on the massive scale we have today.

Instead, we have two kids, if that, living in a divorced family. Our kids are lost because it is too inconvenient for us adults to live as prescribed by Natural Law. This is the magnificence of the Catholic Faith, that it follows Natural Law. It is written on the hearts of all mankind. We know when we have skirted it, it gives us the willies, be it robbery, murder, incest, homosexual BEHAVIOUR. We transgress it when we diverged from the Ten Commandments, which were written 1,500 years before the Church was established.

With the American theologians, discussion is not hindered in any way by Rome. It is when something has been overdiscussed, all sides have been heard, AND THEN when the theologians still don't like the outcome and decision, they open it up again. They are only satisfied when their side has won the argument. Why is it that these digressions are not endemic to other parts of the world? It is probably because the American theologians have a "Jesuit" mentality, not a Catholic mentality."
---------------------------------
Sorry, my friend, Dromig10, your comments show that you are a little 'wet behind the ears'(as far as your understanding of history is concerned)---and you are NOT an American (your spelling gives you away).

Let's take LAW first. You stated that the magnificence of the Catholic Church is that it follows Natural Law. You seem to be implying that Natural Law came to us from God---written on our hearts. Not so! the Catholic moral tradition understands reason in moral matters in light of natural law. And it was Thomas Aquinas who developed the natural law theory that became acceptable within Roman Catholicism.

Aquinas taught that morality is what contributes to human goodness, fulfillment, and happiness. Morality is not a law IMPOSED on human beings from the outside by someone who wants to force the human being to do the will of the legislator; morality is based on what contributes to human flourishing.

For Aquinas, law in all its different understandings (e.g. eternal, natural law, human law) refers to an ordering of reason. Hence, WISDOM is the essential and primary virtue of the legislator.

And that brings us to the encyclical "Humanae vitae." This, by the way was the last encyclical that Pope Paul VI wrote. He was very much aware of the fact that this WAS NOT accepted by Catholics---neither clergy nor laity. Before he promulgated it, he had dismissed the findings of the committee that he organized to fact-find on contraception and to bring to him the results of its fact-finding.

Women rejected "Humanae vitae" because although it claimed to have an objective, neutral, and universalist perspective---not even one woman had been consulted to give input. They found themselves being viewed by the Church as nothing more than walking baby-making machines, whose thoughts and voices were not considered important by the official Church. They (and many in the Church) viewed "Humane vitae" to be tainted by the prejudices, blindness and limitations of the hierarchy. Paul VI forgot an important lesson that Aquinas taught (and is still not being recognized by the hierarchy of today). And that lesson is that NO LAW OR INJUNCTIVE CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE PEOPLE FROM THE TOP DOWN!

Your comments about why are only American Theologians seemingly distressed about the Vatican impositions---lack a global perspective. More than 550 theologians in Germany, Switzerland and Austria signed a letter denouncing the attempts of the Pope and the Roman Curia to blot out the developments and thrust of the Vatican Council II.

More than 145,000 people from around the English speaking world (not just America) signed a petition asking Rome to hold off with its insistence that the New Roman Missal be implemented on the 1st Sunday of Advent.

Pope Benedict and his minions have forgotten crucial points from the Conciliar 'Declaration on on Religious Freedom' ("Dignitatis humanae" 1965) and "Octogesima adveniens" 1971) Paul VI's letter to Cardinal Maurice Roy, president of the Council of the Laity and of the Justice and Peace Commission. The points are that as people become better informed and better educated, their aspiration to equality and participation (within their societies and within the Church) grow stronger. This is an expression of their human dignity and freedom. {from n.22 David J. O'Brien and Thomas J. Shannon; eds., "Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage" Maryknoll, N.Y. Orbis, 1992, p.273).

Suggesting that being homosexual is the moral (or any kind of) equivalent of incest or murder is, simply put, disgusting.

Have you read any of the documents of the Council? They have NOTHING to do with Kung, who denied infallibility. Vatican teaches infallibility.

I couldn't agree with you more, Chris. Every time I find myself getting discouraged and heavy of heart about the way Rome is trying to run the Church today, all I have to do is pull some of Kung's books off the shelf and just read and read. In no time at all my heart is lifted and I am excited again about my faith. Evidently I'm not the only person who reacts to him this way. Shouldn't this mean something in today's Church?

For all practical purposes liberation theology is a dead issue. One of the few good things that JPII did during his reign was to kill off this false theology which is simply Marxism parading around as Christian social justice! The type of violence which the liberation theologians advocated can not be justified. Good riddance to it!

God bless 'em!

It should at least be an occasion to "rethink". My wife had her tubes tied on the advice of her doctor, no conscience problem. Teach principle, teach mitigating circumstance, teach love of children, creativity, principle but above all teach the principle of decision making based upon information, discernment and love. Not domination, evil, intrinsic disorder or damnation.

This argument is not logical. Here is how it goes: 96% of Catholics may have lied at one time or another, but they mostly feel that that was the wrong thing to do. 96% of Catholics may have used birth control, but they mostly feel that it is not the wrong thing to do. That is the distinction.