Skip to main content

Did a Liberal "Correspondent for Time Magazine" affirm Barnhardt's Thesis that the Leftist Real Pope Paul VI "was Thwarted" by Cardinal Ottaviani by writing Humanae Vitae for him?

 September 25th Marks the 50th Anniversary of "The Ottaviani Intervention" -  FSSPX.Actualités / FSSPX.News

 Liturgical Revolution, Vol. 3: Pope Paul's New Mass: Davies, Michael:  9780935952025: Amazon.com: Books

Catholic pundit Ann Barnhardt  wrote that the leftist Pope Paul VI "was thwarted" by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani who wrote Humanae Vitae for him:

Paul VI had promised his Freemasonic-Communist-Sodomite circle that Humanae Vitae would “open the door” to contraception (sound familiar? just as Amoris Laetitia “opened the door” to “divorce and re-marriage”), and Paul VI Montini did in fact write Humanae Vitae to do exactly that.  However, when Montini’s draft was sent to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (previously called The Holy Office, and before that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition) and Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the CDF at that time, saw it, Cardinal Ottaviani immediately excised Montini’s attempt at “opening the door” to contraception, and Ottaviani himself wrote the passages that are so widely quoted today, reaffirming The Church’s consistent teaching on contraception as ALWAYS MORTALLY SINFUL, and the logical corollaries regarding how contraception would utterly destroy marriage and the family, which are now frequently described as “prophetic”.  Thomistic scholars in Rome testify that the parts of Humanae Vitae written by Cardinal Ottaviani stick out like a sore thumb, precisely because they are written in the Thomistic style...

... So, Cardinal Ottaviani re-writes Humanae Vitae, and Paul VI promulgates it.  All of Montini’s Freemason-Communist-sodomite buddies were shocked, betrayed and INFURIATED, because Paul VI Montini had promised all of them for years that HV would open the door to contraception.

At this point, I would like to point out, in case the thought hasn’t already occurred to you, that this sure does look like an example of the negative protection of Papal Infallibility as dogmatically defined at Vatican I.  Pope Paul VI, an awful, awful man, but still the Pope, wildly illicit though he was, attempted to promulgate heresy, and was thwarted. [https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/01/15/more-cutting-the-crap-humanae-vitae/]

The Jesuit trained "correspondent for Time Magazine, he won the Overseas Press Club's Ed Cunningham Award in 1962 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blair_Kaiser)," Robert Blair Kaiser, apparently affirmed Barnhardt's above thesis: 

Several months later, Reuss would get a letter from Cardinal Ottaviani, written in Ciceronic Latin. Ottaviani pointed out that if the pope were to go against the advice of his own commission, he knew that Bishop Reuss would not uphold his own previous position, but rather give religious assent to the pope. Otherwise, Ottaviani didn’t see how Reuss could be faithful to Paragraph 14 of the council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty: "By the will of Christ, the Catholic church is the teacher of the truth, and its task is to announce and authentically teach the truth which is Christ, and at the same time declare and confirm on its authority the principles of the moral order which flow from human nature itself."

Touché. The declaration on religious liberty was one of the conciliar victories of the liberals, especially over Cardinal Ottaviani. For Ottaviani to use a sentence from it now, against Reuss, was an attempt by Ottaviani to have the last laugh. But, according to the council Acta published by the Vatican’s Polyglot Press, it was one of Ottaviani’s men who had had the sentence inserted in the declaration, by leave of the liberal majority, who had wanted to appease the other side. To make an authoritative point with Reuss, Ottaviani was, in effect, quoting himself.

The note infuriated Reuss. He wanted to help people. And Ottaviani was playing games with the texts of the council. Well, Reuss would not let this article in Diakonia be his “last attempt.” He tried other ways to head off the pope. His archives are replete with copies of his correspondence in 1967 and 1968 with some of Europe’s leading bishops and archbishops, who sympathized with the views of the birth control commission’s majority. Included in Reuss’s file: copies of letters to the pope from Cardinal Suenens and Michele Pellegrino, cardinal-archbishop of Turin, urging him not to reaffirm the traditional doctrine. The pope responded to them (as he did to Reuss) through Amleto Cicognani, with form letters in the negative.

Cardinal Cicognani wrote Cardinal Suenens on August 29 and reported that “the sovereign pontiff believes that the observations favoring a new thesis ... do not seem sufficiently convincing.” Cicognani admitted the problem was causing priests, and the pope, a good deal of anguish. He added that publication of commission reports, “which ought to have remained secret,” were “a pain in the soul” to the Holy Father and “certainly did not contribute to a solution.” Suenens sent a copy of this note to Reuss, which was a revelation to Reuss, because he had practically an identical letter from Cicognani, also dated August 29.

But if Cicognani had to write a form letter telling cardinals and bishops their arguments favoring a new thesis were not “sufficiently convincing,” this would seem to indicate that other bishops were trying to warn Paul VI. Warn him about what? Warn him not to write another Casti Connubii. Nevertheless, he would have one written, based on three arguments Ottaviani gave him in a 15-page paper written toward the end of 1967:39 1) it is not possible to contradict Casti Connubii, for that would undermine the doctrinal authority of the magisterium and seriously endanger the confidence of the faithful. 2) In the existing atmosphere of general eroticism, in taking an open position, one risks opening the door to a tide of hedonism. 3) If one permits the use of contraceptives for individuals, governments will be able to claim recognition of their right to state-organized family planning.

Ottaviani and his super commission (or commissions) would go ahead now with their own encyclical. They would call it Humanae Vitae.

Scholars will certainly find other such notes in other episcopal archives of the period. The notes were stimulated, in part, by rumors then rife about a committee of twelve working under Cardinal Ottaviani, or possibly several commissions, each working on a different part of a future papal statement. The surmise is Joseph Selling’s based on a September 1983 interview with a Roman theologian who should have known. That theologian told him that after the work of the papal birth control commission was over, Ottaviani established many secret commissions, so secret that “the members of one commission did not even know about the existence of the other commissions.”

###

Chapter Ten

IT TOOK OTTAVIANI’S GROUP, or groups, at least six months to draft Humanae Vitae. According to Jan Grootaers, a Belgian scholar who has done extensive work on this question, some who helped were: Bishop Colombo, Ermenegildo Lio, Marcelino Zalba, Jan Visser, and Josef Fuchs, all consultors to the Holy Office, and possibly Ferdinando Lambruschini and Gustave Martelet, a French Jesuit who had written some almost mystical things about marriage that had caught the eye of Pope Paul VI. Grootaers added that Fuchs had only a nominal relation to the committee and did not contribute to any of its reports.

For more than a year, during the rest of 1967 and the first half of 1968, while Vatican insiders, members of Ottaviani’s commissions, were laboring over a new encyclical, outsiders continued to lobby the pope. Some thought no news from Rome was good news. Maybe the pope would say nothing and leave the matter to the prudence of each local church. Others, more naive, believed the pope was going to produce a nuanced document that would prove Rome believed in continuity through progress. Vatican II had demonstrated how easily the church could do this when it promulgated its Declaration on Religious Liberty, a statement at complete variance with Pius lX’s statements [by using ambiguity] in Quantum Cura that religious liberty was a delirium. But that question related to a real world that the Vatican had learned to live with: the pluralism of modern society.

Birth control was different. It dealt with questions about love and marriage and sex, a world that Rome had not learned to live with.

It did no good for reformers to argue for change based on new insights endorsed by a general council. Bernard Häring had proof of that. He had gotten one verbal monitum (or warning) from Pietro Parente, an official at the Holy Office, correcting him on a statement he had given to an Italian Catholic magazine: Häring had said that any future papal statement on marriage would have to look to the council and not to Casti Connubii. Wrong, said Archbishop Parente: no council document bound the pope. Later, Father Häring got a written monitum telling him the church’s doctrine on marriage was contained in Casti Connubii; the council’s constitution was “only pastoral.” To Häring, these were ominous signs that meant forces in the curia were taking back their preconciliar power. And that members of La Commissione di Dodici, Ottaviani’s twelve, would have their way.

***

On July 29, 1968, the speculation was all over. After claiming for four days that the rumors of an imminent statement on birth control were “absolutely false,” Fausto Vaillanc, the Vatican’s chief press officer, called a news conference to announce that the pope had just signed his long- awaited statement on birth control, an encyclical called Humanae Vitae, of human life.

Monsignor Vaillanc passed out copies in at least five languages. Experienced members of the Vatican Press Corps sized it up immediately as a complete repudiation by the pope of his own commission. It was addressed to all men of good will, but it propounded a particular Roman Catholic view, and, as Cardinal Doepfner had predicted, there was not even a tiny wedge in it for the crowbars of the moral theologians. George Armstrong, veteran correspondent for The Guardian, saw that it “upheld with no qualifications the Roman Catholic church’s ban on all mechanical and chemical means of birth control.” It not only ignored commission recom­mendations, it specifically rejected its findings, because, “above all,” that commission had used criteria “at variance with the moral teachings on marriage proposed by the firm, constant teaching of the magisterium of the church.”

[...]

This, he said, was “the center, the nucleus, the apex, the heart and the key of the encyclical.” No ambiguity at all.

And no novelty either. This was the church’s old act-centered approach to every sexual question. In encyclicals beginning with Rerum Novarum in 1891, the church had dealt with social questions based upon the entire person and the human community. Now, in dealing with sexual morality, this encyclical considered factors such as justice, responsibility and freedom of the moral agent to be virtually irrelevant. The encyclical paid some tribute to the contemporary and personalist insights of the council’s document on marriage, but it did not take them seriously. It considered physical, economic, psychological and social conditions affecting responsible parenthood, then removed them as considerations germane to birth control and settled for the old biological norm, itself labeled a partial perspective earlier in the encyclical.

Lambruschini added, and repeated it twice, that Humanae Vitae was not an infallible statement. But the faithful were to treat it as if it were because the encyclical was at one with previous popes and the council as well, a claim which would soon be blasted by many of the learned men who had fought the battle of Vatican II. [https://textarchive.ru/c-2727759-pall.html]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My good friend ( now deceased ), Mother Teresa of the Still River Mass convent , called me years before the McLucas story broke.

https://akacatholic.com/cmtv-vs-sspx/ Latest Comments 2Vermont JULY 30, 2019 I think the only thing I would add here is what seems like MV’S obsession with things of a sexual nature. Tom A JULY 30, 2019 He, like many, defend the institution with the zeal that should be used to defend the Faith. Sad. What Mr. Voris fails to admit is that it is the institution of the conciliar fake church that is the biggest enemy of the Faith. Lynda JULY 30, 2019 Blinded by secular values and prestige of man. coastalfarm JULY 30, 2019 Please see the article “Unmarked building, quiet legal help for accused priests” Dryden, Mich. (AP) for the priest Mr. Voris defends, Rev.Eduard Perrone of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church also known as Assumption Grotto, is co-founder of Opus Bono Sacerdotii. This non-profit organization takes in accused priests and gives them shelter, legal defense, transportation, etc. Opus Bono claims to have helped over 8,000 priests and has raised over $8 million 2002-201

Might Biden be a Liar & Predator like McCarrick?

September 15, 2020   Everyone knows that sexual predator ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick is a liar. His whole life was a lie of betrayal of the most sacred vows he took and the violation of the moral tenets of the Catholic faith which he desecrated. Most people don't realize that part of this desecration of lies included lying for "gravely sinful" Democrats like Joe Biden. McCarrick protected Biden when then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later to be Pope Benedict XVI) wrote that bishops were not to admit to Communion politicians like "gravely sinful" Biden who supports the killing of unborn babies. McCarrick lied for politicians like Biden by ignoring the important parts of the Ratzinger letter and told bishops not to ignore the Catholic Church law.  Last year, Fr. Robert Morey denied Holy Communion to the “gravely sinful” Biden following a "2004 decree signed jointly by the bishops of

The Biben Lying Machine: "Joe , do you know what else is a Sin besides Killing Babies? Lying... "

October 09, 2020   It appears that Joe Biden was even a lying machine in 2008 according to the post " Media Ignores Biden Repeatedly Lies During 'Meet the Press' Interview" on the Weasel Zippers website: Joe Biden Repeatedly Lies During "Meet the Press" Interview, Claims he Doesn't Support Taxpayer Funded Abortions.....   Joe, do you know what else is a sin besides killing babies? Lying... ... Joe Biden repeatedly made the claim in a Sunday interview on the NBC political show "Meet the Press" that he opposes taxpayer funding of abortions. However, a look at his voting record over the years reveals numerous instances where Barack Obama's pro-abortion running mate did exactly that. "I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view," he said on the program. As recently as February, Biden voted against an amendmen