Actually, you'll note that I'm loathe to directly criticize Humanae Vitae, itself. I've pointed out that I needed more to be brought to docile acceptance of the teaching.
But I agree with you that it isn't a just criticism that an encyclical doesn't recapitulate the entire historical treatment of an issue within itself. Otherwise, every encyclical on a subject would have to be longer than the teaching document before it, until no one would be able to read any of them. ;-)
I'll confess, I finally accepted this teaching some years ago, and haven't re-read Humanae Vitae since, so my memory's a little vague. But I just don't remember being pointed to Sacred Tradition, to the historical context of this teaching by Humanae Vitae. It may be in there, but I'm kind of slow and thick-headed, and I wish there had been language strewn throughout like this, "This encyclical isn't exhaustive of this subject - YOU WILL NOT GET IT IF YOU DON'T READ CAREFULLY X Y AND Z."
I really believe that Pope Paul VI meant for large numbers of laypeople to read the document. I remember copies of the encyclical being available in the vestibules of the churches when I was younger. It would have been good to have provided a little more explicit instruction to non-theologians like me pointing me in the right direction. It would have been good if Pope Paul VI had suggested that pastors who made copies of the encyclical available to their parishioners accompany these copies with copies of the Didache, of Casti Connubii, etc. This is especially true considering that Pope Paul VI could have easily foreseen that many theologians and pastors might oppose his encyclical (heck, most of his commission opposed it), and that the laypeople might need more of his direct instruction than usual.
I read the articles beginning this thread. It's actually the second time I read them. I forgot where I first read them. If what you're saying is that the content of their criticisms is over the top, and ultimately, that they fail, I agree. I think that the more extreme arguments fail utterly. One reason is that I think that ultimately, Humanae Vitae is going to succeed. I said as much in my first post.
But I don't think that all criticism of the encyclical is unwarranted. And I don't think that the act of offering such criticism is unCatholic, or "protestant". Even if the criticism is ultimately judged wrong, it isn't wrong to offer it in good faith.
sitetest
While I can see your point, I don't think it makes sense for us to be blaming Pope Paul VI for omitting from an Encyclical what "we" think was necessary to convey the message fruitfully.
Maybe it was the case that Pope Paul, faced with his own Commission rejecting Catholic Doctrine, and learning that many Bishops also opposed Catholic Doctrine, concluded that the proper response was to compose Humane Vitae just as he did.
It just seems to me that there is a "hermeneutics of suspicion" (Steven Hand's felicitous phrase)that has fallen over the Catholic world (especially in America) and from the extreme left to the extreme right, Ecumenical Councils, Catechisms, Encyclicals, Canon Laws etc are viewed suspiciously as though the Popes since Pius XII have been deviously drawing us away from the truth and as though Vatican Two was irrationally and wrong undertaken by a deluded Pope and allowed to continue to fruition which yielded all manner of questionable results if not outright errors - from the Mass of Paul VI to the, oh, I don't know, to the popularity of Disco music.
Oughtn't we, as Catholics, view Rome,Popes, Encyclicals, Ecumencial Councils, reformed Masses, etc with a heremneutics of belief and acceptance?
I think, too often, we have allowed ourselves to be seduced into thinking it acceptable to criticise Divinely-constituted authority. I don't think it helpful, in any way, for highly fallible Americans, who are perhaps the most revolutionised folks ever, to criticise and denounce as inadequate Encyclicals and/or decisions of the Papacy.
It is just possible that Rome and the Pope knows more then self-directed American laity. We delude ourselves if we think we can read and criticise Encyclicals as though we were sola encyclical Christians who could read and decide for ourselves and withold our acceptance if they don't appeal to our intellects (that makes each of us the final and Supreme authority, BTW). I know the Sola Traditio folks think they can - but I don't
While I can see your point, I don't think it makes sense for us to be blaming Pope Paul VI for omitting from an Encyclical what "we" think was necessary to convey the message fruitfully.
Maybe it was the case that Pope Paul, faced with his own Commission rejecting Catholic Doctrine, and learning that many Bishops also opposed Catholic Doctrine, concluded that the proper response was to compose Humane Vitae just as he did.
It just seems to me that there is a "hermeneutics of suspicion" (Steven Hand's felicitous phrase)that has fallen over the Catholic world (especially in America) and from the extreme left to the extreme right, Ecumenical Councils, Catechisms, Encyclicals, Canon Laws etc are viewed suspiciously as though the Popes since Pius XII have been deviously drawing us away from the truth and as though Vatican Two was irrationally and wrong undertaken by a deluded Pope and allowed to continue to fruition which yielded all manner of questionable results if not outright errors - from the Mass of Paul VI to the, oh, I don't know, to the popularity of Disco music.
Oughtn't we, as Catholics, view Rome,Popes, Encyclicals, Ecumencial Councils, reformed Masses, etc with a heremneutics of TRUST? Rome and the Papacy really isn't the enemy.
I think, too often, we have allowed ourselves to be seduced into thinking it acceptable to criticise Divinely-constituted authority. I don't think it helpful, in any way, for highly fallible Americans, who are perhaps the most revolutionised folks ever, to criticise and denounce as inadequate Encyclicals and/or decisions of the Papacy.
It is just possible that Rome and the Pope knows more then self-directed American laity. We delude ourselves if we think we can read and criticise Encyclicals as though we were sola encyclical Christians who could read and decide for ourselves and withold our acceptance if they don't appeal to our intellects (that makes each of us the final and Supreme authority, BTW). I know the Sola Traditio folks think they can - but I don't