[american colleen]

It seems (to me, anyhow!) that papal authority was at its peak under Pius XII (who started up the reform of the liturgy in the 40s - Mediator Dei), and because he was so autocratic the/some bishops & cardinals rebelled. Paul VI seemed to allow the "many voices" and wait too long to make a decision (Humanae Vitae) thereby giving the "many voices" time to gain momentum. He was orthodox - Humanae Vitae doesn't get any more orthodox - but seemed to view the papacy more as "first among equals" and did not like to rebuke those who dissented although he publicly expressed distress at the errors that were gaining ground. Things happen and people are elected for a reason if we believe Jesus when He said that the gates won't prevail and if we believe Him when He gave the "bound and loose" talk. Following Him is not easy, He told us that. And Peter was a (the) leader, not a dictator. These are turbulent times, for sure, but in the context of eternity or even the past 2,000 years, these times are a blip on the screen (seems like forever to those of us that pray for everyone to be faithful to the Magisterium, though!).

[Maximilian]

Humanae Vitae doesn't get any more orthodox

If this is the best that can be said for Pope Paul VI, then that's more like damning with faint praise. Humanae Vitae is NOT orthodox, it is a dramatic departure from the consistent teaching of the Church. Read HV side by side with Casti Connubii, and you will see the difference between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church. HV promotes a new philosophy of "personalism" that had never been seen in the 2000-year history of the Church. Casti Connubii followed the traditional teaching of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, prior popes and moral theologians.

It's true that HV maintained the distinction between natural and artificial birth control. But that's about it. The rest of the Church's teaching on marriage, family, birth, and children went by the wayside.