Dissenting from Humanae Vitae vs Traditionis Custodes

Michael Lofton made a comparison, which is kind of at least half fair for those who accept "Paul VI" was and "Francis" is Pope.

Supposing they are Popes, and supposing the encyclicals are good, dissenting from them is bad and conservatives who dissent from TC have been caught in the act of imitating progressives dissenting from HV. That's basically Michael Lofton's point.

Now, what if they weren't / aren't Popes and what if the encyclicals aren't good?

The point is, HV seems to accomodate for using the Ogino method or the menstrual cycles method in the contraceptive intention.

§ 15 seems OK.

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

So, if giving someone (a male) haldol resulted in erectile dysfunction, this would still be OK if haldol was to cure a bodily disease - in fact, it isn't, it's to pseudo-palliate supposed mental diseases. So, this does not allow for haldol to be used on married men.

More appropriate to the actual case, removing ovaries to get rid of ovary cancer (if that is a condition) is licit.

But what about § 16?

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Does he have any preconciliar source for this teaching? Yes, a very low-key one, not an encyclical, only an adress to a profession, since note 20 gives:

(20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.

I have raised concerns whether Pius was Pope in 1950. I have also raised concerns whether he was formally Pope in 1950 after Humani Generis or just material Pope - and if such, could he have lost papacy by further sins against the faith in 1951 (allegations the earth is 5 billion years old, or as in this case, that "infertile periods" is a licit means of spacing children).

But again, suppose for argument's sake, "Paul VI" was in fact Pope, suppose for argument's sake Humanae Vitae was in fact solid Church teaching ... why did Paul VI not excommunicate those who publically dissented from it?

If he had done that, "Francis" would not have had the problem with those publically dissenting from Traditionis Custodes. Arguably, they would have been in two different Churches, and "Francis" in the one of those excommunicated for promoting the invention of Julius Fromm. Indeed, if you recall the Rabbit Gate Affair, Bergoglio seems to have a certain moral affinity with the 1930's Lambeth Conference.

To return to § 16 - traditionally, the Church does not teach that. In the Old Testament, half of each month prior to a pregnancy, all of a pregnancy and 40 days after, were banned for marital intercourse. The Ogino method was compulsory in the other, the conceptive, intention. St. Thomas teaches that while this no longer holds under mortal sin, the reason why its a venial sin to have sex at other times of the monthly cycle is, pregnancies actually do occur then. This is an indication that girls marrying young was fairly common, since in early puberty, menstrual cycles are irregular. To put it bluntly, very bluntly, the one reason why it's not a mortal sin to have sex less than one week after menstruation is, some marriages, and Swedish Social Democrats would term them "paedophilia" and they would be illegal in today's Sweden (a country I intend to avoid, if possible), have proven a married woman (whom Swedish Social Democrats would term a "child bride") can be actually fertile then.

It is also a doctrine that the means that are in and of themselves morally neutral are getting their moral value from the intention. So, suppose that we have two means, and only these two, each morally licit, namely not having sex at a fertile period, and having sex at an infertile period - according to St. Thomas this is just because one cannot be sure it's infertile! - if the intention is "contraception" (having sex, avoiding children), the act as such is illicit because of the illicit intention.

I can foresee at least one directly illicit act under such an agreement. Namely, denying intercourse to the spouse during the fertile period, with a comment like "you know what we agreed" ... it would seem, some clergy who support HV, including § 16, would want both spouses to be first so "mature" that this would not risk happening. That in turn overturning the long standing teaching of the Church via canon law (before St. Thomas Aquinas up to the 1917 code) that a boy of 14 and a girl of 12 are, generally speaking, mature enough to marry, at least as often as they aren't (it reflects, in fact, the medium age of puberty fairly well).

That is how far the actual tradition of the Church is from § 16 of HV. And that is why "Paul VI" wasn't Pope, and didn't act like a pope against those siding instead with the 1930's Lambeth Conference. And that is why "Francis" is both very reluctant to act like a Pope against those opposing Traditionis Custodes, and fairly out of his depth in even issuing it, thereby braving Quo Primum. Some have complained that Latin Rite biritualism is making the Church a "cafeteria" and in so far as this is the case, the cafeteria was opened by, again, "Paul VI" ...

If "Paul VI" had been Pope, could he have imposed a new missal as the new only genuine rite of the Latin Rite? Yes, it is at least possible (barring the tinkering with the words of consecration). If so, he could have banned as schismatics those clinging to the missal of 1962, just as the Sedevacantists refusing even 1962 (and the late Pope Michael was in that sense their heir) would by many even then have been considered as schismatics. The fact of the matter is, he didn't, since he both made provisions for celebrating in 1962 books (one of them the provision that Rev. Bryan Houghton used, "retired priests" - he retired when the New Missal came into function, so he could next morning continue, now as a retired priest, to celebrate as previously) and refused to excommunicate those who opposed his New Missal.

Monseigneur Marcel Lefebvre was very far from being censored in 1969. He left the leadership of the Holy Ghost Fathers in 1968, in 1970 SSPX was founded as a pious union, with the support of Monseigneur Charrière, in 1975, the successor of Monseigneur Charrière asked the Vatican to end the status of pious union, and up to 29 June 1976, Monseigneur Lefebvre was totally free from actual censures. When on that date he ordained priests, against the will of the local ordinary, the Vatican responded by a suspension a divinis. When I was born, and one month later, the old missal was the regularly used one, my mother stopping in Munich between Vienna, where I was born, and Södertelge, where she was visiting my grandparents with me, went to a Latin Mass, missal of 1962. When Monseigneur Lefebvre was suspended, it was the first summer vacation I had from school.*

Up to 1988, there was a friendship and alliance between Monseigneur Lefebvre, Rev. Houghton, and the Monastery** Saint Magdalen of Le Barroux. The original two monks, having left La Pierre Qui Vire with the blessing of their previous abbot, were not suspended, nor was Houghton, but lots of monks who became priests were ordained by Marcel Lefebvre, and so were suspended.

It was in fact not the idea "the suspension is against Catholic tradition and against Quo Primum and therefore invalid" that got Marcel Lefebvre, Antônio de Castro Mayer, and first four new bishops in 1988, then Licínio Rangel in 1991 - 2001 or 2002 declared automatically excommunicated. He actually served as bishop for 11 months in communion with "John Paul II" - It was solely the act of consecrating bishops without apostolic mandate. Or getting oneself so consecrated. Note, the "papal" declaration was not a sententia condemnativa, but a sententia declarativa. It didn't say "we excommunicate Marcel Lefebvre" but "Marcel Lefebvre incurred automatic excommunication" - which is a contestable statement, even for those accepting "John Paul II" was pope.

If "Francis" wants it to appear that the missal of 1969 is not just valid, but the licit expression of the Latin rite, to the exclusion of the older rite, he is doing very clumsy damage control for what "Paul VI" did. The Swedes have an expression taken from baking. "Yeast after oven" - you can't make leavened bread by putting yeast on top of already baked matsot.

The case of Pope Michael against the heritage of Marcel Lefebvre is basically "when those in the Vatican did so much wrong for so long time, over so many pretended papacies, how can you still compare it to resisting a Pope making a blunder?"

And when Michael Lofton says one should either at least in public bow down to Traditionis Custodes, or consider oneself a partner in crime with those criticising HV for its main point*** I think he is retroactively making that point for the late Pope Michael.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Elisabeth of Portugal
8.VII.2023

Sanctae Elisabeth Viduae, Lusitanorum Reginae, quae ad regnum caeleste quarto Nonas hujus mensis transivit. [4 Julii] Stremotii, in Lusitania, natalis sanctae Elisabeth Viduae, Lusitanorum Reginae, quam, virtutibus et miraculis claram, Urbanus Octavus, Pontifex Maximus, in Sanctorum numerum retulit. Ejus tamen celebritas octavo Idus mensis hujus recolitur, ex dispositione Innocentii Papae Duodecimi.

PS - for anyone knowing Sweden, I think I have just made a case of it being very unwise of me to get back to Sweden. To Mr and Mrs and Miss Medelsvensson, everything I have written above just screams weirdo in very big letters to them./HGL

* The summer vacations in Sweden are long. A joke specifies as "three good reasons to become a teacher" the months June, July and August. In fact, early days in June are still in school, so are late days in August, but it's still more than the legally required five weeks of paid vacations. ** Since then Abbey. Dom Gérard Calvet and Bryan Houghton sided with Ecclesia Dei. "John Paul II" erected the monastery to a sui juris abbey. *** Much as I respect Bryan Houghton, when he cried for relief over seing HV "perfectly orthodox" I think he was inadequately attentive to § 16.