I think anything can be made ambiguous and equivical if one wants to make it that way. I am reading "A Generation Betrayed" by Eamonn Keane (highly recommended) and he details how more than a few ordained theologians dissented from Humanae Vitae (detailed in one of the chapters, it's not the subject of the whole book) when Pope John Paul II reiterated:
"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life, (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life."
I don't know how one can 'get around' those words but lots of theologians do, and they do it in 'good' conscience.
What an opening line for responding to about half the posts from Catholics on Free Republic. I am reading some material written by Innocent III way back in the twelfth or thirteenth century and getting quite a belly laugh as I recall the techniques used by so many on either end of the Catholic spectrum.
On one hand, I chuckle about how his words could be twisted and spun by the left end,and on the other,wondering how those on the right end could possibly call it clear and unambiguous.
I say a prayer of thanks to the Holy Spirit,Truth,for remaining with the Church,speaking through the Holy Father and the Ordinary Magisterium and staying with me as I struggle to understand it all. But understand it,I do,even if it sometimes takes longer than I'd like. Thanks Colleen.