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

"The West Does Not Understand the Extreme Danger from Its Arming of Ukraine The Idiot Biden Regime and Insane Neoconservatives Have the World on the Path to Armegeddon"

Paul Craig Roberts wrote: How Many More Red Lines Can Be Crossed Before Armageddon Arrives? Paul Craig Roberts The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe published on April 15, 2016, more than six years ago, a report on the torture of Donbass Russians by the Ukrainian military and police forces.   The report documents horrendous torture and it was done out of racial hatred of Russians. You can read the report here:   https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf     Few Westerners, being so poorly educated, are aware that Western Ukraine fought for Nazi Germany during World War II.   When Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014, Washington installed a Nazi government. The Nazi government in Ukraine shelled the Russian residents of the two break-away Donbass republics for 8 years while Washington and NATO trained and equipped a Ukrainian army to retake the breakaway republics. .. ... These statements from Russian leaders indicate that the I

Vox Cantoris vs. Aqua

The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol

Mainstream Media: "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?" & "Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy"

  Mainstream Media Acknowledges Biden’s “Arrogant” Sanctions On Russia Are Damning Americans:     @MaxBlumenthal Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy. His neocon policy accelerates the process of de-dollarization, diplomatic isolation & imperial decline. The mainstream new outlet asked "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?": Remember the claims that Russia’s economy was more or less irrelevant, merely the equivalent of a small, not very impressive European country? “Putin, who has an economy the size of Italy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea, “[is] playing a poker game with a pair of twos and winning.” Of increasing Russian diplomatic and geopolitical influence in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, The Economist asked in 2019, “How did a country with an economy the size of Spain … ach