Did Pope Francis appoint a commission to overturn ‘Humanae vitae’?

Humanae-VitaeI’ve been receiving angry, anxious, frustrated and even panicky emails about a “commission” which was allegedly appointed by Pope Francis to “reinterpret” Paul VI’s important and prophetic (as well as hated by libs and feared) encyclical Humanae vitae.

My sources tell me that there is a “work group” but that it is not a commission and it was not appointed by Pope Francis or any other dicastery of the Holy See.

Marco Tosatti has written about a “secret commission” appointed by Francis.  Roberto de Mattei also has written about a “commission” appointed by Francis.  On the other hand,   while DeMattei identifies the correct list of people, my spies tell me that this is a unofficial, even perhaps a self-formed group.

I’m certainly open to evidence to the contrary.  If someone has a link to an official announcement that this group was appointed by Pope Francis, please send it to me.

Mind you: I’m not saying that this group is not dangerous.  No group with a goal of overturning the infallible teaching of Humanae vitae can be looked upon with joy.  Alas, this seems to be a sign of the times: let’s do crazy fan dances to convince people that 2+2=5.  I found de Mattei’s phrase about one the experts of the work group, Gildredo Marengo (who teaches at the John Paul II Institute – what irony…) to be apt: “appartiene … alla categoria di prelati che sono convinti di poter conciliare l’inconciliabile… he belongs to that class of prelates who are sure that they can reconcile the irreconcilable.”  After all, 2+2=5 on their planet, and square pegs don’t have problems with round holes.  That Italian, by the way, with the heavy “conciliare”, suggests the notion of compromise, finding a balance between opposites, a middle path.  However, we know how libs work, don’t we: it’ll be their truth as the only truth in which we are free to believe.

Like I said, just because the group isn’t official, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t dangerous.

At this point, however, it doesn’t seem to have an official mandate.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. MrTipsNZ says:

    If this is true, even without a mandate, then Mt 12 seems pertinent and should be pondered by this group before they start. And they should go to confession!

    [31] Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. [32] And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. [33] Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known. [34] O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. [35] A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

    The threshing table is operating in full swing it would seem.

  2. thomas tucker says:

    That is reassuring. I certainly hope your spies are correct.

  3. This brings me a modicum of peace. Yet put beside the recent changes to Academy for Life I am more and more worried about our Holy Father and where he might like to take the Church. I pray for him during the rosary every day. May the Mother of God protect us (and your assets within the Vatican).

    PS what about the open letter sent to the Holy Father last Advent (https://gloria.tv/article/ADAuphPenRie4avxfP6h39JMT)?

  4. Mike says:

    Considering the recent evisceration of the Pontifical Academy for Life, would one more or one fewer commission even matter at this point?

    [Short answer: Yes.]

  5. anilwang says:

    Well I can think of dozens of cases from every field from chemistry to social sciences where 2+2 really does equal 5. However none of them equal 5 in the same sense that 2+2=4.

    This is the key poison in modernism: using equivocation to make it appear that something false is the same as something that is true. So the statement in Gaudium et Spes statement that sexual relations can promote the fidelity of a couple and the good of their children within marriage are equated with sexual relations outside of marriage in Amoris Laetitia’s footnote 298 and is used by some to promote communion for adulterers. Eventually everything is the same as everything else and the only “falsehood” is that Indifference and Relativism are heresies.

  6. Papabile says:

    I’ve heard something similar from my contacts in Rome. However, I hear the plan is to put together a report that the Pope will receive. Then he will engage in reflection in consultation with others. And after that, we can expect a decision.

  7. Hidden One says:

    Sounds like orthodoxy needs a work group.

  8. Ave Crux says:

    It would seem that the “official” group is the newly reconstituted (very official) Academy for Life, which has been emptied by Pope Francis of its former orthodox members, who now have been replaced by those who hold heterodox positions on sexual morality, as reported on Gloria TV News:

    This is another case of conquest by stealth, obfuscation and ambiguity, just as we see with the horrific, diocesan level moral compromises now happening in the wake of Amoris Laetitia.

    Still-faithful Catholics are now like the proverbial frog being slowly boiled to death while insisting we mustn’t overreact, nor do so prematurely.

    Our Lord cautioned us against such complacency in more ways than one, as did St. Peter:
    “Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith….”

  9. chantgirl says:

    Well, if the teachings of JPII were fair game, what makes us think that the teachings of Paul VI are safe?

    After AL, what makes us think that any constant teaching of the Church isn’t up for a merciful reinterpretation?

    I’m surprised anyone is surprised. However, we’ve seen round one of the rodeo, and we know what the tactics will be for the second round. If we are caught unprepared this time, we have only ourselves to blame.

    I just wonder, what is it going to take for prelates to finally start speaking plainly and publicly about the shenanigans? At some point, silence becomes consent.

  10. Ave Crux says:

    @chantgirl: so true – however, this is precisely how satan paralyzes with his venom: the poisonous errors are introduced slowly under the cloak of repeated and intentional ambiguities, so the moral defenses of those who should speak up are disarmed in the midst of canon law hair-splitting and cries of “over reaction!”, “not at all!”, “merciless doctors of the law!”, ad nauseum, until the venom (which ones sensus catholicus rightly suspected at the outset) has spread apace and paralyzed any and all justified moral resistance among the prelates whose responsibility it is to protect and preserve the Deposit of Faith and the teachings of Christ, Himself.

    Cardinal Burke’s “Dubia” – in which we had placed so much hope – is a prime example of that paralysis.

    Burke has effectively been treated like a traitor and silenced for issuing them, and the correction he promised nearly a year ago would follow if the confusion caused by AL were not addressed by Pope Francis himself, never has.

    Meanwhile entire dioceses are publicly embracing the distribution of Holy Communion to those living openly in unlawful sexual relations.

    In the spirit of AL, my own diocese just hosted a well-publicized “pilgrimage” of the LGBT communities to our Cathedral where they were welcomed with Mass and by the Cardinal himself, who said it would be “backhanded” to remind them that active homosexuality is contrary to God’s law.

    So, let’s grant he is cowardly and couldn’t say it to their faces….why did he host this pilgrimage to the Cathedral with great fanfare to begin with?

    The frog is officially boiled. Every heterodox teaching, proceeding and maneuvering by the members of the Church hierarchy is explained away by splitting hairs and putting a smiley face on it, while those good and faithful Prelates and Catholics who raised warnings beginning years ago – asserting that this is exactly where modernism would unavoidably end – have been marginalized and villified and labeled as “mean” reactionaries.

    These so-called “reactionaries” have been 100% correct all along, tefusing to succumb to moral paralysis and doctrinal relativism; but their warnings were belittled.

    I know because I heard these warnings beginning over 40 years ago, shortly after Vatican II “opened the windows of the Church to the world” to let the “new Spring” in, and embraced the world it once feared as an enemy to Her teachings.

    Now the mask has been ripped off to reveal “the Prince of this world” nestled in the Bosom of Holy Mother Church.

    This is why Our Lady gave such grave warnings at Fatima, and referred to a crisis in the Faith….underlining its importance with the most stupendous public miracle since the splitting of the Red Sea.

    It seems that now God alone, through the Blessed Virgin’s promises at Fatima, can deliver this Church from the infestation of error starting at the very top.

  11. Ave Crux says:

    P.S. AMBIGUITY itself in Church teaching, documents and praxis warrants and requires outright and vigorous condemnation, for these very reasons.

    Holy Mother Church is under the strictest obligation to be perfectly clear in Her statements and moral guidance.

    Ambiguity and moral confusion are the hallmarks of satanic influence and interference in these matters, as we clearly see from the fruits.

    However, instead of condemning treacherous ambiguity outright and from its first appearance, we see Catholics and bloggers everywhere straining to interpret the ambiguity in the best possible light.

    It should simply be condemned outright because of the clear and certain danger such ambiguity poses to the good of souls and of the Church.

    Ambiguity is NEVER an option! To struggle to interpret it according to the “hermeneutic of continuity” instead of condemning it outright for that very fact, is to be complicit in the treachery, even unintentionally, since it permits the ambiguity to stand as “official” Church teaching which will then be interpreted the way it suits the hearer and twisted more and more to the point of deforming and clouding consciences in the entire, universal Church.

    Whenever I read pre-Vatican II encyclicals and spiritual treatises, I am amazed at their lucidity and luminescence.

    There is no ambiguity, only perfect clarity, the fragrance of Christ, and a clearly marked path to salvation.

    Paul VI said rightly that “smoke of satan had entered the Sanctuary.”

  12. Fr. Kelly says:

    I hope Fr. Z ‘s sources are right about this.
    Lifesitenews is carrying it as well — relying on Marco Tosatti and some other, unnamed source who they call sound.
    In any case, whatever its origin, it cannot be good.

  13. stephen c says:

    It is all in God’s hands. Almost all Catholic married couples believe they have the right to contracept if they think they should. Not just “most”, almost all. And almost all Orthodox couples believe that, too. Now I have great respect for the faith of many Protestants but they are generally no better when it comes to even a minimal level of love in their hearts for the unborn. And our poor elderly Pope wants people to think he is ushering in a new Pentecost, or something like that – and God bless him – but when he visits countries which are suffering under liberalized abortion on demand laws, the poor old man does not have the minimal goodness of heart to say even a single word against those wicked laws. How ridiculous is it of us to say we have a right to live in this world, and a right to contracept and abort at will, and then to expect our organized churches to prosper? To expect our Popes and our Bishops and our pastors to be good people with kind hearts? How can a church prosper when there is so little concern for the most vulnerable – those who should be the subject of the most concern? How can we happily live together as Christians while brutally ignoring the next generation of Christians, as if they were less than unwanted animals, unless we actively choose that they be born? We need to pray for our old foolish Pope, and for our foolish Orthodox brethren, and for our contracepting pro-abortion neighbors. Things will get better if we do. I won’t live to see it – I am not naive – but some of the younger Christians in this world might see the joy of a renewed faith in a better world.

  14. Ave Crux says:

    New article at the Catholic Herald with background on this topic.

    These are the kinds of individuals Pope Francis has appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Life after first gutting it of those who are faithful to Catholic moral teaching.

    This is heart-wrenching and doesn’t seem even possible, given it is the express actions of the Holy Father which have brought this about….

    Dear God, what is happening….?

    “Avraham Steinberg has approved of abortion in some cases, while Fr Maurizio Chiodi says contraception may be permissible….

    “…new member Fr Maurizio Chiodi has questioned Church teaching on artificial contraception. According the newspaper L’Avvenire, which reviewed a book to which Fr Chiodi contributed, he believes that “the use of artificial birth control techniques can be moral”. The newspaper quotes Fr Chiodi as saying that “the moral norm on responsible procreation can not coincide with the biological observance of natural methods”. L’Avvenire also say that for Fr Chiodi, “It is not the method itself that determines the morality, but the conscience of the spouses, their sense of responsibility, their genuine willingness to open themselves to life.”

    “Rabbi Professor Avraham Steinberg, one of 45 ordinary members of the Pontifical Council for Life appointed this week, has argued for the permissibility of ending a pregnancy in some cases.

    “Steinberg told Australia’s Radio National in 2008 that an embryo has “no human status” before 40 days. After 40 days it has “a certain status of a human being, not a full status”.

    “As a result, Steinberg says, “Abortion is not permissible by Jewish law, but if the situation of the mother is in a psychological upset to a degree that it may cause her serious trouble, then abortion may be permissible despite the fact that for the foetus’s sake, we would not allow it.

    “So case by case, occasionally abortion might be permissible, something which is probably unheard-of in the Catholic point of view.”



  16. Pingback: More concerning the alleged “commission” to reinterpret ‘Humanae vitae’ | Fr. Z's Blog

Comments are closed.