Yeah, I guess so. But, the "critical examination" is to be performed by the schismatic right? I thought that "Roma Locuta est, Causa Finita est was "Traditonal" Catholicism." I thought that Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia was "Traditional" Catholicism. Now, we are being told by various and sundry groups with at least one foot in schism that THEY must critique the Encyclical because Rome has been the locus of all manner of revolutionary thought, masonic activity, poorly-reasoned Encyclicals, valid but poorly-theologised Masses, accepting of and promoting the "wrong" philosophy, blah, blah, blah.
The orientation this "reassessment" is built upon is private judgement. At one time, prior to 1960, "Traditional Catholics" would no more have taken upon themselves the "authority" to critique Encyclicals, Ecumenical Councils, Catechisms, Canon Law, and the Pope's philosophical orientation anymore than "The Federalist Society" would criticise the Constitution as deficient.
Richard Nixon once famously said, "We are all Keynesians now" after he rejected the Gold Standard. "Traditional Catholics" ought to admit "We are all protestants now" having abandoned "The Keys" given to the Pope as the gold standard of Catholicism.
"Traditional Ctholicsm" has been revolutionised since 1960 yet, in a pathetic irony, it is they who charge Rome with being the victim of all manner of revolutions while they, the mini-media of "dissident-orthodoxy" has preserved the limpid doctrine of "Traditional Catholicism" and their philosophical orientation is pellucid and irreformable."
Roma Locuta est - NOW, Hear "The Angelus," "Catholic Family News," "The Fatima Crusader," "The Remnant," The Latin Mass Magazine" to hear how Rome has gotten it wrong and how the gates of Hell WILL prevail unles you re-subscribe to our periodical today.
Their charges against Rome are but psychological projections. The "Traditional Catholics" appear to have lost the Faith. It really is that simple. They have no Faith in Divinely-constitued authority so they usurp legitimate authority and act like protestants while preening they are the only reliable source for truth.
It is as though Jesus were referencing the mini-media of the self-annointed and self-appointed, soi disant "Traditionalists" when He said "He who hears you hears me."
I think that you may be underestimating the amount of turmoil that has attended the development of Catholic teaching over the centuries. There have been controversies surrounding the teachings of popes, which took time to gain acceptance, and for controversy to subside. As a result, I think that you may be overestimating the controversy surrounding artificial contraception (if that's possible).
Popes have not always had immediate, universal acceptance for their teachings, even from all who would eventually assent to them. Popes have engaged in debate with others in the Church, in defense of what they taught. Individual popes have not always taught well the truth of Catholic faith.
Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968, and was counter to what was expected at the time. We're only 34 years removed from it. In my own little world, where 10 years ago, nearly everyone laughed at Humanae Vitae, today, it receives a much more respectful hearing. Whereas 10 years ago, I knew almost no one who didn't practice artificial contraception, and who didn't think that NFP was a joke, today, I know more folks who shun artificial contraception, and see much more openness to NFP, especially on the part of younger Church-going Catholics. The artificial birth controllers are on the defensive, if not yet on the run.
I think that folks ought to wait a little longer before judging it a failure, and also, folks ought to look at the entire body of contemporary Catholicism, not just the US and Western Europe.
But it wouldn't be a "protestant" thing to do to say that the encyclical doesn't teach the doctrine well. In Catholic history, there have been times when individual popes did not teach doctrine well. It isn't denying any authority to the Chair of Peter to say otherwise.
Infallibility is a negative charism. It assures that a Bishop of Rome will not pronounce authoritatively, for the entire Church, false doctrine. It doesn't promise that popes will positively teach what is true (at times, popes have been silent when they might have taught), or even that they will teach well when they teach what is true. Don't be anxious to extend infallibility to that which it doesn't cover, otherwise, you join the Protestants when they mistake the human errors, sins, and failings of an individual pope with a failure in infallibility. With regard to Humanae Vitae, let's not try to be more "Catholic" than Pope Paul VI. I understand that he specifically declined to declare the teaching of Humanae Vitae as infallible, leaving it open to possible development in the future (though make no mistake, it is authoritative teaching, ordinarily binding on all Catholics).
Much of the article posted takes place far above my head, and it's hard for me to say whether or not Humanae Vitae is flawed or heroic (or both?). I know that I've read it repeatedly over the years, and find it unsatisfying and unconvincing. On its own, apart from its author, it does not induce me to assent to the teaching on artificial contraception. In fact, Humanae Vitae for me has been a real stumbling block in accepting the Church's teaching in this regard. Humanae Vitae, as I would read it, didn't draw me deeply into the history of the teaching. And, even I can recognize that an argument from consequences is logically very weak. Only when I looked outside of this encyclical did I discover the consistent teaching of the Church.
Ultimately, I accepted the teaching, but only because it is the teaching of Pope Paul VI, and because it is clearly consistent with the teaching of the Church back to the days of the catacombs. The content of the teaching, divorced from who made it, divorced from the history of the Church, is, for me, unconvincing. And frankly, looking at it apart from the teaching authority of the Church, and from Sacred Tradition would be Protestant, indeed.
sitetest
That said, I've always had some undefinable anxiety about Humanae Vitae, because I couldn't refer to it exclusively when dealing with protestants. Its arguments were not cehesive nor comprehensive enough. So, despite the leaning towards schismatic position of this author, his arguments resonated with me.
I teach NFP, and many of our couples are non-Catholics. While I refer to Humanae Vitae extensively in the part of our class referring to the theology of marriage and procreation, I find that the arguments based upon "unitive and procreative must not be separated," in a vacuum, are simply not convincing to those who do not first accept the authority of Humanae Vitae or Vatican II. There must be a much longer, deeper examination of scripture, and traditional understanding of that scripture, the Church Fathers, and thoughts of the reformers, before non-Catholics and fallen away Catholics embrace the teachings of Humanae Vitae. And I personally include schismatic traditionalists in the camp of "fallen away" Catholics.
Despite your (accurate) impression that this article comes from a traditionalist who teeters precariously close to schismatic arguments, his arguments do have some merit, and it is not inappropriate to address the concerns others (including myself) have had about Humanae Vitae.