Replies

What I encounter is just mindless relativism and wishful thinking, of the sort that leaves one staring, open-mouthed, very rudely.

Perhaps I'm not understanding you clearly enough...
All dissenting view is mindless relativism? Tell that to [some of] the Jesuits perhaps? Here's John F. Kavanaugh in an America magazine (the Jesuit's own publication) article from Dec.15, 2008 Abortion Absolutists; though he himself says he hold the view that life begins at conception, also asks,

"Do you think there might be people of good faith and conscience who think a human life does not begin until implantation? If there are, are you proposing that we impose our position on them?

. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantation_%28human_embryo%29

Going back further, please recall Avery Dulles (later made Cardinal by John Paul II in 2001) wrote of difficulty concerning Humanae Vitae near to the time of it's publication. From his first paragraph he writes guardedly, but does touch upon possibility that the teaching not be fully without without flaw...or beyond possibility of later development;

As every thinking Catholic is aware, the present polarization of opinion regarding the encyclical Human Ufe has created a dangerous situation in the church. Enthusiastic proponents of the papal position, using repressive measures in order to enforce a consensus, might unwittingly detonate a widespread revolt among intellectual Catholics, both clerical and lay. On the other hand, opponents of the encyclical, by speaking in an intemperate way, might undermine the respect that ought to be given to the teaching office in the church. In the long run, both these courses of action would produce harmful effects.
In the September, 1968, issue of Stimmen der Zeit, Karl Rahner, probably the most prestigious Catholic theologian of our day, has published some reflections that may well point a way out of the present impasse. Instead of taking a position for or against the substantive doctrine of Human Life, he addresses himself to the question of how the various groups within the church should conduct themselves in view of the present undeniable diversity of opinion. In a brief and selective summary such as this, one can only suggest a few of Rahner’s incisive observations.
In the first place, Rahner points out that Human Life cannot reasonably be considered irreformable doctrine. But this does not mean that it may be ignored. Since Catholics believe that the magisterium ordinarily operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the presumption should be in favor of the Pope’s declaration. Any such presumption, however, must also allow of the possibility that a Catholic can arrive at a carefully formed and critically tested conviction that in a given case the fallible magisterium has in fact erred. Nobody today denies that there are cases in which official, reformable teaching of the Holy See has in fact been erroneous. As examples, Rahner cites the views of Gregory XVI and Pius IX on liberal democracy, and various statements about the Bible issued in the aftermath of the Modernist crisis. It cannot therefore be assumed that a Catholic who conscientiously opposes the non-infallible doctrine of the magisterium, as it stands at a given moment, is necessarily disloyal. (In this connection an American Catholic might think of the long struggle of John Courtney Murray to obtain revision of certain papal pronouncements on Church-State relations.)
In the present case, Rahner continues, the complexity of the issue is such that no one opposed to the encyclical can claim absolute certainty for his own stand. But it is normal and inevitable that some should be unable to accept the pope’s doctrine. The encyclical, although it claims to be an interpretation of the natural law, does not in fact give very persuasive intrinsic arguments. The encyclical seems to look on human nature as something static and closed--not open to modification by free and responsible human decision. But for some time many moral theologians have been teaching that what is distinctive to human nature, as distinct from plant and animal life, is precisely man’s power to modify his own nature according to the demands of a higher good. The pope, in fact, seems to allow for a measure of rational manipulation of human fertility in permitting the practice of rhythm and the use of the "pill" to regularize the menstrual cycle. Undoubtedly this differs somewhat from the use of the pill for directly contraceptive purposes, but in some instances the distinction is so subtle that many will regard it as hair-splitting. Since a notable majority of the Papal Commission is known to have come out against the position later taken in the encyclical, one can hardly expect the majority of Catholics to find the reasoning of Human Life convincing.
On the basis of these general observations, Rahner then discusses what conduct is proper for various classes of persons within the church--bishops, priests, moral theologians and married couples.

Robert J. McCormick, in 'Humanae Vitae' 25 Years Later for which there is simply not space here to quote in full, a quote from him quoting Avery Dulles, before moving on towards further excerpt;

Summarizing in these pages (AM., 9/28/68) what had been said by several European hierarchies, Avery Dulles, SJ., issued this warning:
"In view of the American tradition of freedom and pluralism, it would be a serious mistake to use the encyclical as a kind of Catholic loyalty test. Nothing could so quickly snuff out the spirit of personal responsibility, which has done so much to invigorate American Catholicism in the past few years."

[bolding for emphasis, my own]
Similar it could be said should be extended towards Christians outside of [Roman] Catholic fold, perhaps even more so. Attempts to dictate don't work very well. Even outside of abortion clinics, the very best methodologies do not so much wave signs and banners condemning others, but instead are (as conducted by the experienced, both Protestant and Catholic, many times together... their particular "denominational" identities tending to much fall away at protest vigils, particularly after taking part in them for months and years at a time) taken as opportunity for ministry towards others. Through acts of kindness, and reasonableness on display (no shrill screaming, a refraining from hard stares of condemnatory disbelief) persons working at the clinics themselves have been converted; ie., security guards...receptionists, even Dr.'s who were the clinic supervisors. A few clinics have been closed down in this way...
That sort of thing said, back to this third Catholic theologian, himself as the other two, belonging to the self-same 'order' as the current occupant of papal office;

"For instance, Archbishop Quinn noted that the problem of many theologians is not that they view contraception as "simply something good, desirable or indifferent." The problem is the usage of "intrinsically evil" to apply to every contraceptive act. Realistic--because Archbishop Quinn was absolutely correct in saying that "this problem is not going to be solved or reduced merely by a simple reiteration of past formulations or by ignoring the fact of dissent." Courageous--because the suggestions were made in the presence of the Pope, whose views on this matter were well known and who therefore could not be thought to have called the Synod to have them questioned. I say "questioned" because Archbishop Quinn did refer to "doctrinal development" in areas such as biblical studies and religious liberty. In these contexts development meant change."[snip] The Tablet referred to "foregone conclusions virtually imposed on a so-called consultative body" (1980, p. 1059). In a word, the Synod was orchestrated, and perhaps that was a sign of things to come.
What things? The well-known fact that for some years now acceptance of Humanae Vitae has become one of the litmus tests for episcopal appointment. The fact that theologians who question it are excluded from speaking in some dioceses and seminaries, and are regularly denounced by the right wing press as "dissidents" and "disloyal." The fact that great numbers of Catholics no longer look to the church for enlightenment in the area of sexual morality. The fact that bishops do not feel free to state their opinions honestly.
At the present, therefore, we are far from Archbishop Quinns proposed worldwide dialogue between theologians and the Holy See, and from Cardinal Humes listening "to all the points of view." Rather, the atmosphere in the church on the matter of birth regulation is one of coercion. Bishop Kenneth Untener of Saginaw, Mich., adverted to this at the November 1990 U.S. bishops meeting. Of the churchs teaching on birth regulation, he said: "Many would compare us [bishops] to a dysfunctional family that is unable to talk openly about a problem that everyone knows is there."
[snip] "Indeed, the Sovereign Pontiff raises the stakes by tying the teaching to central truths of the faith (e.g., Gods goodness), a move often described in Germany as "dogmatization" (Dogmatisierung). This was protested by 163 theologians from Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland in the so-called "Cologne Declaration" (Jan. 27, 1989). The concemsof this declaration were subsequently endorsed by 130 French theologians, 60 Spanish theologians, 63 Italian theologians and 431 members of the Catholic Theological Society of America (Origins, Dec. 27, 1990).
Bernard Haring, C.SS.R., the eminent moral theologian, has pointed out that there are in the church today two schools of thought (Commonweal, Feb. 10, 1989)".
[snip] "These positions have hardened over the years, and reasoned discourse has often been replaced by the accusatory rhetoric of intolerance, especially by proponents of the first school of thought. The inability--or refusal--of the magisterium to deal with this problem except by repetition has resulted in a debilitating malaise that has undermined the credibility of the magisterium in other areas.[snip] "...At this point it would be helpful to emphasize what is not the issue. Certain apologists for Humanae Vitae assert that those who disagree with its central assertion "promote contraception" and by implication denigrate natural family planning. That is seriously to misplace the contemporary debate. ..."

It's a long article, one written by a theologian respected among his own peers as being something of an authority upon Catholic moral theology.

If you not consider these other voices, the "two opinions" McCormick summarized that were in his own view both extant, and legitimate; even as they conflicted....well then...should I, or better still some Catholic other than yourselves, look towards those who gape open mouthed at themselves, knowing they are thought of as "wishful thinking" "mindless relativists" and somehow if not passing out copies of the likes of above but still knowing full well of that and more...not then wonder what this "intellectual" quoting that is seemingly sought for be?

What will satisfy the requirement? Is such even possible?