Another Contraception Prophecy

We've had discussions here before about how Humanae Vitae was prophetic. It's difficult even to listen to folks try and argue that Pope Paul was somehow wrong. Granted, he wasn't choosing the PowerBall numbers, but his predictions were so freaking dead-on that you have to be pretty blind not to acknowledge it.

This post from over on Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit even puts His Holiness's oracular powers to shame. It's quoting from a book called Birth Control by Fr. Stanislas de Lestapis, a signator of the pre-Humanae Vitae minority report. How about this for accuracy?

• “We do not hesitate to say that the acceptance of contraception will produce profound changes in our civilization, these changes are already taking place in countries that have officially endorsed contraception for one or two generations.”

• “Voluntary numerous families will progressively disappear, and the large family will tend to appear as a monstrosity.”

• “Populations and families which have deliberately become less creative will experience spiritual ageing and premature sclerosis.”

• “The idea and the ideal of family happiness will be downgraded in terms of a so-called right to happiness and of what people think are the ‘techniques’ of achieving it.”

• Morality among the young will deteriorate. The unmarried will be more licentious. The sexuality of women will lose its connection with marriage.”

• “There will be a grave change in the bond of love, due to the reversal of sexual function. It will remain fixed at an ‘adolescent’ stage. Society as a whole will slip into this ‘transitory’ stage.”

• “The maternal instinct will become sterile, due to the repression of the desire for children which is innate in women. There will be a silent hostility toward life and its first manifestations: pregnancy, childbirth and even sometimes towards dolls and babies.”

• “A new concept of sex, now essentially defined as ‘the capacity for erotic play for the sake of the couple,’ all reference to procreation now being only accidental.”

• “A growing tolerance of homosexual behavior, as erotic play that succeeds in expressing personal intimacy between friends or lovers.”

• “Finally, contraception will raise hopes which it cannot fulfill, and will give rise to frustrations and deep dissatisfactions, which will contribute to:

- The crisis of divorce and instability of modern marriages.

- The deterioration of mental health, and lack of sexual desire in women.

- The abdication of parents confronted by their task as educators.

- The ennui secreted by a civilization that is entirely centered on a comfortable way of life and sexual satisfaction.”

Now that, dear readers, is well-nigh creepy in nailing the last four decades or so. The only thing that is missing is a comment about how people will actually think these things are good or funny. For me, it's hard to imagine that society was ever not like this.

I'm terrified for what it's going to be like for my kids when they're my age.

Humanae Vitae For Protestants

Looks like Natural Family Planning is gaining support among Protestants, according to Catholic News Agency.

This, of course, is good news. First, the Church's teaching on contraception is a major hurdle for Protestants seeking to convert. If they can get past this, everything else becomes much easier. An interesting bit from the article:

Historically, some Protestant perspectives grew from an antipathy towards Catholic and fundamentalist families, she claimed. The Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopal Church in the U.S., in 1930 changed its teachings which formerly forbade contraception, while Methodist literature after World War II advocated limiting the number of children to an ideally two-child, sex-balanced family.

You learn something new every day. More interesting was that word is getting out regarding the abortifacient properties of the pill.

Phaedra Taylor, 28, told the Austin American-Statesman that she ruled out taking birth control pills after reading claims that the pill can cause abortions by rendering the womb hostile to a newly conceived human life.

"I just wasn't willing to risk it," she said, explaining she wanted her faith to guide her sexual and reproductive decisions after her marriage, before which she had been abstinent.

The same thing happened to my wife. She was convinced that contraception was wrong way before she became Catholic.

Protestants supporting NFP isn't all that new. Sam and Beth Torode wrote a good Protestant book about it called Open Embrace. They abandoned the practice because, "there is a dark side we weren't aware of."

Oooooooooo. A dark side, huh? Sounds so . .. .sinister.

Anyways, they wound up converting to Orthodoxy so that their genitals could have a freer reign. Sad situation, but it is very good that other folks are seeing things from the Church's perspective and giving NFP its due. Let's just hope they don't fall prey to the Dark Side! (cue creepy music or the Imperial March, whichever you prefer).

On that note, let's close out with one of my favorite lines from one of St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Romans. For what it's worth, he's one of the most revered saints in all of Orthodoxy as well.

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility (translation- the pill), where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks.

More Humanae Vitae Wackiness

This time, it comes from some guy named David Gibson who, for some inexplicable reason, has been allowed to write for the Catholic section of Beliefnet. I'll put it this way. He quotes the ridiculous McBrien article that was discussed here earlier, calling it "excellent." If by "excellent," he means "steaming turd," then I completely agree.

Conveniently blowing off the thorough job done by Mary Eberstadt in First Things, he launches into an almost triumphant-toned discourse on the widespread rejection of the Church's moral teaching in this matter. Because if that many folks are disobedient at once, it must be a good thing, I suppose. He's really got two arguments for why the Pope got this one wrong:

1. Contraception is easier than having babies.
2. The people don't agree with it.

The first bit really isn't an argument so much as the excuse people give for dissent. Raising kids is hard! Give me a big house and a nice car instead!

I have to give him credit on the second bit. He at least tries to dress it up in Latin by referring to the sensus fidelium. Of course, Gibson doesn't really try to explain what that is, probably because he doesn't have a clue and is just playing the dummy to McBrien's ventriloquist. Here we have Mr. Gibson's thought-provoking and ocean-deep analysis of the issue.

For one thing, at the end of the day, for a teaching to be considered authentic or even close to infallible, it must be "received" by the faithful--in effect a kind of populist imprimatur. It is clearly not. The Mirror of Justice blog as discussions on the topic, and the problem of the teaching not being received by the sensus fidelium.

Wow. I daresay we have another Aquinas on our hands. Let's ignore the fact that he gives no sources for this "populist imprimatur" crap. Let's just look past the modern problems of the hordes of Catholics who don't believe in any infallibility other than there own. Mr. Gibson, McBrien, the Mirror of Justice, etc. still run into the same problem. They treat Humanae Vitae as some sort of isolated data point, rather than an affirmation of centuries of Magisterial teaching. What was the "sensus fidelium" back in 1929, when contraception was universally reprobated by every Christian denomination in the world? What about when Pius XI wrote Casti Connubii, less than 40 years before HV came out? I ask again, was the Holy Spirit lying then or is He lying now?

Just face the music on this one. If you want to be a heretic, go ahead. Don't try to de-legitimize the teaching on contraception based on this idea of the Church as some sort of attenuated democracy, though. It's a pathetic argument that smacks of desperation and an embarassing need for some sort of rationale for one's rebellion.

Just say "Non serviam" and move on.

As if the Dissent Against Humanae Vitae Couldn't Be More Repulsive

We get this from Catholic World News:

Yesterday LifeSiteNews.com published a recently unearthed letter which was sent to bishops with a pre-release copy of the encyclical. The letter, dated July 19, 1968, is signed by the late Amleto Giovanni Cardinal Cicognani, who was then the Vatican Secretary of State.

So in other words, the bishops who thumbed their noses at Pope Paul were basically ignoring a personal plea to uphold the Church's teaching on this issue. I know it probably shouldn't make a difference, but it just seems like defiance of an infallible teaching is compounded and made even worse when folks just slap away the hand of brotherly affection extended by this letter. Listen to this:

The letter begins: "When directing me to transmit to Your Excellency the enclosed document, publication of which is imminent, His Holiness strongly recommended that I draw your attention to its importance, and to the necessity of a concerted effort on the part of the entire Catholic Episcopate."

In the letter the Pope can be seen to plead for the world's bishops to stand with him on the matter, which is described as "one of the most delicate questions of Catholic morals."

Regarding the Pope, the letter says, "And now He turns to His Brothers, the Bishops of the Catholic world, asking them to stand beside Him more firmly than ever in this circumstance, and to help Him present this delicate point of the Church's teaching to the Christian people, to explain and justify its profound reasons."

The letter adds, "The Pope counts upon the attachment of His Brothers in the Episcopate to the Chair of Peter, upon their love for the Church, upon their concern for the true good of souls."

"Finally," concluded the letter, "it is necessary that both in the confessional and in the pulpit, in the press and by other means of social communication, every necessary pastoral effort be made that no ambiguity exists among the faithful or in public opinion concerning the Church's position in this serious matter."

From this, all the reports about how Pope Paul was shocked by the reaction to HV should be reexamined. This letter makes it sound like he had some idea of what was about to go down and was trying his best to mitigate the damage on the front end.

Theological Prostitutes Speak Out on Humanae Vitae

The first is Fr. Richard McBrien, who is an embarassment to the Church and to the University of Notre Dame. His article in The Tidings basically lacks anything in the neighborhood of honesty or reason, and instead focuses on his view that the resulting dissent in the Church regarding contraception is some sort of proof that the Magisterium got this one wrong.

"On the birth control issue," the column pointed out, "the Pope's present position does not seem to reflect the consensus of the Church, and static fills the air. The encyclical is at odds with the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the Pope's own commission of experts, the public resolutions of the Third World Lay Congress in Rome, the majority of Catholic moral theologians, the consciences of many Catholic married couples, and the pastoral and theological judgments of the large majority of non-Catholic Christian churches which participate in the life of the Body of Christ and in his Spirit."

Note the numerous errors in just this one snippet. First, he conveniently ignores the previous 1900 years of "static-free" assent and constant affirmation of this teaching. Somehow, I suppose, we have evolved beyond the ignorant and oppressive morality of our Fathers. This is a pretty indefensible stance he's taking without publicly announcing his Modernism (which, yes, I know he's essentially done a billion times, but just bear with me).

Second, this idea of popular opinion being the gauge for Truth is entirely heretical. At the time of Nicea I, 80% of the world's bishops were Arian. It took centuries to flush this poison out of our ecclesiastical system. Or we could just examine the opinion of all the parties he lists above from 60 years ago and see what they say. Tell us, oh wise McBrien, was the Holy Spirit lying then by keeping the static out, or is He lying now by allowing such static?

Similarly asinine statements have been uttered courtesy of the National Catholic Reporter. While appealing to popular opinion, the article basically outright rejects anything amounting to an infallible magisterium:

After all, he (Paul VI) reasoned, how could the Holy Spirit have allowed the church to be wrong for so many years on an issue of such importance? His decision, in the end, was more indicative of church hierarchical dysfunction -- the institution’s inability to look at matters, particularly sexuality, in light of new understandings and insights -- than it was seemingly of any movement of the Holy Spirit.

This is followed with the remarkable statement that:

The surveys have confirmed Rome’s worst fears, causing at times even more thunderous condemnations that have failed to win many converts.

So it seems that Truth can go out the window, just as long as we rope in some converts. It would be so great to have a bigger market share by succumbing to relativism! After all, it's just too dang hard to actually believe in something. Give me the house built on shifting sands any day.

If you'd like an article untainted by heretical ideas, check Mary Eberstadt's shpiel over at First Things. It is a thorough vetting of the entire topic.

The Humanae Vitae Q&A

My attempt to imagine an exchange between the ill-informed joe and Pope Paul.

So just what's the deal here, Pope? Do you just not "get it"? Didn't you even consider the difficulties posed by large families?

The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kinds. In the first place, there is the rapid demographic development. Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources, with growing distress to many families and developing countries, so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great. Moreover, working and lodging conditions, as well as increased exigencies both in the economic field and in that of education, often make the proper education of a larger number of children difficult today. A change is also seen both in the manner of considering the person of woman and her place in society, and in the value to be attributed to conjugal love in marriage, and also in the appreciation to be made of the meaning of conjugal acts in relation to that love.

So on what basis did you make his decision? Shouldn't you have paid attention that commission's report?

The work of these experts, as well as the successive judgments and counsels spontaneously forwarded by or expressly requested from a good number of our brothers in the episcopate, have permitted us to measure more exactly all the aspects of this complex matter. Hence with all our heart we express to each of them our lively gratitude.

The conclusions at which the commission arrived could not, nevertheless, be considered by us as definitive, nor dispense us from a personal examination of this serious question; and this also because, within the commission itself, no full concordance of judgments concerning the moral norms to be proposed had been reached, and above all because certain criteria of solutions had emerged which departed from the moral teaching on marriage proposed with constant firmness by the teaching authority of the Church.

Therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions.

Just tell me, Pope Paul, what the hell were you thinking?

Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communion of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives.

Then, this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself. Again, this love is faithful and exclusive until death. Thus in fact do bride and groom conceive it to be on the day when they freely and in full awareness assume the duty of the marriage bond. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny. The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows, not only that fidelity is according to the nature of marriage, but also that it is a source of profound and lasting happiness.

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."

Where did you get that last crap from?

II Vat. Council, Pastoral const. Gaudium et Spes, No. 50.

Vatican II? Really? Oh, ok. Please continue.

These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy," and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.

That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.

But wait. There's all sort of problems that folks might have if they opt for big families. Isn't it just better to contracept and avoid all those potentially negative consequences?

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

You don't really believe that, though. Look, the Church says that this Natural Family Planning what-not is Ok. That's the same thing! You just don't like pills and don't want people having sex!

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

So wait a minute. You're saying that the end of something can be rendered bad simply by the means used to achieve that end? Hmmm. Look, Your Holiness, can't you just cut us some slack on this one?

It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices -- amplified by the modern means of propaganda -- which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a "sign of contradiction", yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.

But we're in the mood! How is a couple supposed to make a marriage or shacking up work if they can't do it with impunity?

The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties.

Ahem. Excuse me? Asceticism? Self-denial? That's just crazy talk. After all, what's the worst that could happen if contraception becomes the cultural norm?

Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

Really? What are the odds of all that happening?

Oh wait. . .

Humanae Vitae- Forty Years Later

I had previously mentioned that Mysterium Fidei was like setting off a stick of theological dynamite. If I was to stick with the principle of that analogy, I can only compare Humanae Vitae to a global thermonuclear warfare. It was that bad.

For those who don't know, the topic of contraception was already a big deal during Vatican II. John XXIII had actually convened a commission of theologians, scientists, and other experts to study the matter. Paul VI would later expand this commission but also take conciliar discussion of the issue off the table and reserve a decision on the matter to the authority of the Holy See. The commission came back with the recommendation that the Church's stance on birth control be modified. This got leaked to the press, and folks everywhere were ecstatic over the idea of (a) sexual license without regard for child-bearing and (b) the Catholic Church caving to secuar pressures.

The problem with all this was that they forgot that the gates of hell shall never triumph over the indefectible Faith preserved by the Successor of Peter. So it sucked to be a member of this mob when Paul VI had the temerity to reiterate the constant and infallible Christian teaching that contraception is immoral. The liberal rage that followed the promulgation of Humanae Vitae can only be described as Satanic in its intensity. The entire world was swept with a chorus of voices shrieking "Non serviam!" with all the zeal that their embrace of heresy could muster. Entire groups of bishops publicly defied the Holy Father's decision. Famous theologians like Karl Rahner, Bernard Haering, and Charles Curran accused Paul VI of betraying the "collegiality" promoted at Vatican II. Even cardinals weren't afraid of blasting the Holy See's upholding of orthodoxy. Speaking of orthodoxy, it's ironic that the Patriarch of Constantinople fully supported the Pope here and that now the Easterners are starting to fall prey to the seduction of illict birth control.

Pope Paul was shell-shocked by this hostile response. His dreams of being well-liked ended that summer of 68. In the aftermath of the encyclical, he would take almost no steps at all to enforce it. Dissent was basically legitimized by his inaction, and it continues to this day as self-proclaimed Catholics will invoke the word "conscience" in an attempt to justify their sins. Shame.

If you are looking for a good resource on this topic, I recommend Notre Dame professor Ralph McInerny's book What Went Wrong With Vatican II? Don't let the title fool you. It's all about the Humanae Vitae blow-up. As I post on this over the next few days, I am going to follow Prof. McInerny's example by reminding everyone of a little ditty from Vatican II found in Lumen Gentium # 25:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that Humanae Vitae is clearly infallible by virtue of its principles being taught with absolute consistency for the last 2000 years. Let's also ignore that there are some very good arguments (that we'll examine later) for it being infallible as an ex cathedra statement. Just by examining the statement above from (gasp!) Vatican II, on what legitimate basis do the heretics of yesteryear and modern times justify their dissent?

The answer, of course, is that there is no legitimate basis.

Pope Paul's Great Stand for the Blessed Mother

I've mentioned here before about how Pope Paul got rooked into a bunch of the Vatican II shenanigans out of naivete and a misguided desire for people to like him. However, even he had his limits on compromise.

For example, a previous post discussed Mysterium Fidei and how it completely ticked off the conciliar liberals. Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at the Council, tells it this way in his book The Ecumenical Revolution:

On the eve of the fourth session, he issued an encyclical on the Eucharist, Mysterium Fidei, that seemed to most interpreters to be at best a backward-looking document and at worst a repudiation of many of the creative insights of the already-promulgated constitution on the sacred liturgy.

Here we see a perfect example of conciliar ambiguity leading prominent someones to think that there had been some sort of doctrinal shift. Another such example occurred after the liberals had managed to squash a separate proposed document on the Blessed Mother. Discussion of her would instead be included as a chapter in Lumen Gentium, the constitution on the Church. As the discussion on the Blessed Mother became more heated, the topic was raised about her being regarded as Mother of the Church. Naturally, the liberals had kittens over the very thought of such a thing. The title was taken off the table as "inappropriate."

Apparently, Pope Paul had a very strong devotion to the Mother of God and would have nothing of this attempt to degrade her glorified status. In his closing speech of the third session, he remembered that he was the Vicar of Christ and declared Mary to be Mother of the Church on his own authority. The liberals hit the roof. Brown describes the scene:

It seemed for a while as though either the conservatives had gotten through to Paul, convinced him that the council was getting out of hand, and persuaded him to recapture control after the fashion of pre-Vatican II popes, or that Paul himself had reached a similar decision. The resulting gloom lasted many months, and there were those who, seeing this as a portent of things to come, predicted that the final session would end in disaster, with nineteenth century papalism regnant and collegiality a dead letter.

Of course, this did not happen. Brown credited the fact that "many Catholics (and non-Catholics as well) raised their voices in warning that this was not the way to move forward creatively. Seldom has there been such open and healthy criticism in the Catholic press as after session three."

Woopty-doo. So in the name of moving forward "creatively," Catholics were willing to jeopardize the Faith.

Paul VI made several other timely interventions in the Council's proceedings, ranging from the corrective note preserving Lumen Gentium from heresy to multiple revisions to Unitatis Redintegratio to recognizing "Mediatrix" as a proper title for the Blessed Mother. These would ultimately prove insufficient to stop the post-conciliar pandemonium and the treachery of the liberals in the Vatican II aftermath. Things would be bad for the next few years. In July of 1968, though, all hell would break loose.

Pope Paul VI and Dei Verbum

For those who don't know, Dei Verbum is the Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation. It has a passage (already referenced in the Litany of Heresies) that reads as follows:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

If you read the documents footnoted there or have any background in the traditional teaching of the Church, you know what this means. It means that Scripture is completely inerrant. However, you occasionally have folks like those referenced in the Litany who try to say that this passage really means that Scripture is only inerrant on those things that are relevant "for the sake salvation," which is usually defined as faith and morals.

It was this ditty that actually tipped Paul VI off that the progressives were engaged in massive shenanigans behind his back at Vatican II. This text was actually a compromise between a version that held Scripture completely inerrant and a heretical submission that openly suggested errors in the Bible. Pope Paul was watching the situation rather closely and didn't particularly freak out until one of the progressives really shot their mouth off.

Fr. Ralph Wiltgen tells the story in The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber:

Then one of the extreme liberals made the mistake of referring, in writing, to some of the ambiguous passages, and indicating how they would be interpreted after the Council. This paper fell into the hands of the aforesaid group of cardinals and Superiors General, whose representative took it to the Pope. Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.

How awful. If you are wondering who the particular liberal is, Fr. Wiltgen does not say, but odds are it was Fr. Ed Schillebeecx who, though not a theological expert at the Council, wielded an enormous amount of influence due to articles and writings he circulated during its proceedings. He famously said, "We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards," which, of course, was always the liberal plan for the conciliar documents.

From this point on, Pope Paul would be on his guard against liberal elements at the Council, though even this item wouldn't be enough for him to completely crack down on the dissenters. He was living in the shadow of the guy everyone liked, Blessed John XXIII, and never could seem to gather himself to make the unpopular moves that would have secured the Church but left him crucified in the press and certain circles of popular opinion.

Paul VI: Mysterium Fidei

This particular encyclical was issued by Pope Paul in September of 1965. It was written with "serious pastoral concern and anxiety" and laid down the doctrine of the Eucharist backed by papal authority way before JPII chimed in with Dominicae Cenae and Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

However, like most of Paul VI's good efforts, it was either ignored or blasted by a large number of folks in and out of the Church. If you read some of the Vatican II histories I've mentioned thus far, you'll find that Mysterium Fidei went off like theological dynamite. Soooo many progressives thought that Vatican II was going to give them a leg up in getting rid of all that Real Presence and transubstantiation stuff. Robert Brown, writing his book The Ecumenical Revolution, sounds like he is about to cry when discussing it. Ditto for guys like Kung. After all, the worst thing for them is a forceful presentation of the Faith.

Here's the deal, as clearly laid out by Pope Paul:

To confirm what we have said by examples, it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the "communal" Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ's presence in this sacrament. Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and "transfiguration," or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present.

Take time to go through the whole thing.

Wrapping up Paul VI's Intro of the New Mass

In conclusion:

Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.

This is simply not true. Reminds me of a conversation I had with an Orthodox priest. He was commenting on how if you compare the structure of the Divine Liturgy to that of the TLM, you'll find that they are close to identical. The Pauline Mass was almost scandalous to him. He went so far as to say that there would never be a healing of the East-West schism until the Latin Rite did something to remedy the "evisceration" of our liturgy. The point is that more than a few people would dispute that the Pauline Mass retains the "outline" of the TLM.

But two indispensable requirements above all will make that richness clear: a profound participation by every single one present, and an outpouring of spirit in community charity. These requirements will help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul's relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity. Christ, the victim and the priest, renews and offers up his redeeming sacrifice through the ministry of the Church in the symbolic rite of his last supper. He leaves us his body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine, for our personal and spiritual nourishment, for our fusion in the unity of his redeeming love and his immortal life.

All true. And quite moving as well. The rest is basically some rules on implementing the new missal. I had never read this speech before, and I am thankful again that Amy Welborn brought it to everyone's attention. It is a radical thing to see the thought processes brought out this way. Almost everything Pope Paul said seemed soaked with anxiety and reluctance. I'll admit that my first read made me think he was just really naive and clueless. Upon closer examination, I am convinced that I was way off-base. There is just a tinge of optimism, but the whole thing sounds like "I hope to God that we are able to pull this thing off." Very interesting stuff.

Paul VI: The Credo of the People of God

Most folks have never heard of it, but it's one of the most succint, yet thorough, summaries of the Catholic Faith. Issued 40 years ago today by Pope Paul VI, the Credo is largely forgotten, mostly due to the decision by many Catholics of the late 60s to completely ignore it. In a bit of a twist, it's come out lately that the Credo was ghost written for the pope by Jacques Maritain.

This was sort of Pope Paul's way of trying to get a handle on the whackjobbery that was sweeping the Church. As Sandro relates in the above link:

On January 12, Cardinal Journet wrote to Maritain to tell him that he would soon be meeting with the pope, in Rome. Neither of them knew that Paul VI intended to enact the Year of Faith. But Maritain confided to Journet that a few days before, "an idea had come to me," which he describes this way:

"The Sovereign Pontiff should draft a complete and detailed profession of faith, in which everything that is really contained in the Symbol of Nicea would be presented explicitly. This will be, in the history of the Church, the profession of faith of Paul VI."

Although Maritain did not ask him to do so, Journet photocopied the philosopher's letter and gave it to the pope, when he met with him on January 18. On that occasion, Paul VI asked the theologian for his judgment on the state of the Church's health. "Tragic," Journet answered. Both he and the pope were in shock over the publication in Holland, one year earlier and with the blessing of the bishops, of a new Catechism aimed at nothing less than "substituting one orthodoxy for another in the Church, a modern orthodoxy for the traditional orthodoxy" (a comment from the commission of cardinals instituted by Paul VI to examine the Catechism, of which Journet was a member).

Of course, it wasn't too long after this that the wheels really came off Pope Paul's wagon when Humanae Vitae came out. More on that later, though.

If anyone ever asks you about what Catholics believe, pointing them to the Credo of the People of God might be a good start, assuming they know a bit of the terminology. A snippet to whet your appetite:

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory.[24] In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude.[25] By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.[26] She is therefore holy, though she has sinners in her bosom, because she herself has no other life but that of grace: it is by living by her life that her members are sanctified; it is by removing themselves from her life that they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for these offenses, of which she has the power to heal her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rolling Right Along With Pope Paul and the New Mass

From here:

If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19).

Yes. Speaking with the mind is more important than with a tongue. But doesn't that would seem to support the internal view of participation, rather than the merely external?

If we analogized this bit about the screen, we could just as easily say that the Easterners should trash their iconostases.

St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, "Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed" (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful "should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father" (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

And how often does this happen? And what of the preceding section of this document called for Latin as the norm for the rest of the Mass as well.

But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See's official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

It's disappeared as far as the laity are concerned. Ditto for most priests.

Continuing with Paul VI and the New Mass

Rolling right along from where we left off in this speech:

It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a guy being dragged kicking and screaming into this whole arrangement? This is like one of those drug ads that you see on TV where they spend 20 seconds telling you that the drug is great and then roll off about 5 minutes worth of how the drug isn't fit for anyone who eats or breathes and will kill you in 95% of cases.

Did I miss the citations to Vatican II that expressly called for Latin to remain the norm and Gregorian chant to be given pride of place?

We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values? Thus far, the whole discussion is loaded with regret, but these are all excellent questions nonetheless. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

Fire away.

Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

As our parishioner from Arizona informed us below, most folks probably don't understand the Mass now. Participation has been stripped down to rote recitation. What of the internal, spiritual engagement of the parish engulfed in something ineffable and mysterious? Would this mean that I would be completely screwed if I went to a vernacular Mass in a non-English speaking country? Whither Veterum Sapientia and the wishes of Blessed John XXIII?

Paul VI's anniversary was this weekend.

It was June 23, 1963 when Giovanni Montini ascended the Throne of St. Peter as Pope Paul VI. I came to the conclusion a while back that this man might have been the most hated guy of the entire decade of the 60s. On the one hand, you had the Catholics who were outraged by his laxity in dealing with the post-Conciliar madness that gripped the Church. On the other hand, you had heretics who despised him for his interventions during Vatican II which thwarted some of the more extreme measures sponsored by the progressives. Not to mention that little ditty known as Humanae Vitae.

Personally, I feel a great deal of pity for him. His time as pope was mostly a disaster. If you read some of the books that discuss him, he just seems to be a guy in waaaay over his head. The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber actually describes him as breaking down and weeping openly upon discovering the deceits being practiced by the progressives at Vatican II. We should be praying for him.

I'm already into the shpiel he gave on the promulgation of the Pauline Mass. I'll be doing some further digging into what we saw from Paul VI over his 15 year pontificate with a big blowout on the anniversary of Humanae Vitae in July. Stay tuned.

More from Paul VI on the New Mass

We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.

Novelty again. It is good that Pope Paul notes that the pious will be the most disturbed. This is interesting considering that it was these who were noted as being non-participatory in the Mass by virtue of their person devotion.

So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice.

Novelty again. Innovation too. Obedience to the Council. This last is especially interesting as I challenge anyone to read Sacrosanctum Conciliam and explain how the Pauline Mass fits with what was described at Vatican II. I'm not real sure what he means with the statement about "exterior forms."

This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church's prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi (cf. St. Ign., ad Eph. I, V). It is Christ's will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

These are very good sentiments. However, I think it is a bit hyperbolic to describe the Pauline Mass in terms that make it sound like Divine Revelation and/or direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the "royal priesthood"; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.

Another good sentiment, possible confusion with the ordained priesthood aside. Further example, I think that Pope Paul had good intentions but was being influenced by folks he probably shouldn't have been listening to.

Pope Paul VI discusses the New Mass

Let's look at this address one bit at a time:

We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

Right here from the get-go, we see why the New Mass was probably not going to be the great and marvelous thing everybody was clamoring for. That word "innovation." Generally speaking, innovation in the Church doesn't make for happy times.

A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

When you hear the words "change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries" with reference to the Church, what is your first reaction? This entire section is about how great the TLM is. Pretty high words of praise from the Holy Father here. If it was so great, why was it sent to the dustbin?

It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.

The moment where we begin to appreciate what we had because it is now gone. As to the feeling of "annoyance," could there be a bigger understatement? I wonder what sorts of "annoyance" there might be if the current or some future pope attempted to suppress or derogate the Pauline Mass.

Finally, Pope Paul seems to have succumbed to the canard that the only way of participating in the Mass is by doing external and visible "stuff." You hear this a lot amongst those sipping the Haterade vs. the TLM. Those poor, ignorant shmoes attending the Mass prior to the Pauline Mass didn't have a clue what was going on. They just sat there like dumb animals. I don't think the modern folks who say this have any inkling of the hubris contained in this statement, as though the faith of older Catholics was somehow inferior because they happened to attend a Mass with Apostolic roots. It's just weird.

More on this later. In the interim, a word on liturgical innovation from Blessed Pius IX, warning the Ruthenian Catholics against such things:

Gregory XVI of blessed memory wrote about these to the Armenian Catholics, "your ancestors, either admired them because they seemed more fitting and beautiful or, introduced them at various periods as a distinctive mark separating themselves from heretics and schismatics." Therefore, as this same Supreme Pontiff declared, "that rule must be absolutely observed which states that, except for the most serious reasons and with the Apostolic See, no innovations are to be introduced into the holy rites of the liturgy, even under the pretext of restoring ceremonies which may seem to be more in conformity with liturgies approved by the same See.

Omnem Sollicitudinem

I firmly believe that Paul VI had no idea what he was getting himself into.

Speaking of naive popes, let's move on to Paul VI

I was going to hold off on this as we are approaching the anniversary of Humanae Vitae, but Amy Welborn had this gem of a post that I just couldn't resist going ahead and putting it up.

It's Paul VI's audience right before the promulgation of the revised missal. Holy smokes. As one of the commenters notes, how many times does Pope Paul use words like "novelty" and "innovation"?

I'm going to read this a bit closer and post thoughts as I go.