WHY I OPPOSE THE CANONIZATION OF PAUL VI...

Sainthood is based on the personal holiness of the candidate and not on a list of accomplishments. So on the basis of personal holiness, Paul VI may most certainly qualify. 

However, in their rather hobbling attempt to counter the sexual revolution 40 years after the fact, the neo-conservatives in the Catholic Church have already lionized (if not canonized) Paul VI, solely for his penning Humanae Vitae, which they like to enthrone as prophetic.

Humanae Vitae, as most know, is the 1968 encyclical in which Paul VI reaffirmed the Church's traditional ban on contraception. The encyclical, almost immediately, effected the exact opposite of its intent, and it is believed today that almost all Catholics use or have used contraception.

There has been much blame to go around: the culture, the time (1960's), the advent of the sexual revolution, the population explosion (myth), post Vatican II confusion, progressive clergy, and Catholics themselves. However, there are three reasons why Humanae Vitae backfired that can be laid at the feet of Paul VI himself.

1. The expansion of the birth control commission. Paul VI's predecessor, John XXIII, had established a six person commission to study questions related to population and birth control, particularly in light of the recent advent of "the pill". John XXIII had removed the question of birth control from the Council (Vatican II) and had reserved it to himself. Pope John had originally envisaged a very short Council. "Over by Christmas" he had said after opening the Council in October of 1962.

So originally the study was meant to be small, short, and essentially under the radar. However, the Council mushroomed into something John had not planned; and rather than the three short months John had thought it to be, it labored on for three long years during which John died.

And then Paul VI made what we now know to be a fatal move: he expanded the commission from 6 to 72 members.

The surprising expansion of the commission juxtaposed with the ever more revolutionary tone of the Council immediately led many to believe that a change in the church's ban on contraception was about to be lifted, and teachers and pastors around the world began anticipating that change in their lectures, sermons, counseling, and especially in the confessional.

This episode in Church history is important to review in light of the recent synod wherein similarly weighty sexual issues were discussed. Ultimately, as Paul VI was to show us in Humanae Vitae, the Church's fundamental moral teaching cannot be changed even by a pope.

However, the very perception that it could be changed proved to be all that was needed for most people to believe that it was. 

The same is true for the current synod. Like Paul VI, Francis wants to study the issues and encourage discussion. But publicly encouraging the discussion also publicly encourages the idea that fundamental moral teaching can be changed. And while it cannot be changed, actual practice can.

And so it did and so it will. Like Paul VI discovered after writing Humanae Vitae, Francis will discover that the horse has already left the barn through the door that HE left open. 

With the expansion of the commission, the actual business of Vatican II took a back seat to an ever more breathless anticipation of an announcement from the pope declaring the ban on contraception lifted. 

2. 1964 address to the papal commission on birth control. In the midst of this, Paul VI made his second seriously bad move. And it is quite interesting that most of his champions have no clue that he actually said this:

"We say frankly that so far we do not have sufficient reason to consider the norms given by Pope Pius XII on this matter [of contraception] as out of date and therefore as not binding. They must be considered as valid, at least until We feel obliged in conscience to change them." - Paul VI Acta apostolicae sedis (AAS) 56 (1964) 588-59, 1964 address to the special papal commission on the use of contraceptives.

This was huge. There it was: the word "until" - "until We feel obliged in conscience to change them."

Paul VI had just stated that the Church's "norms" on contraception could be changed if "We (meaning the Magisterium) feel obliged to change them." Even using the word "norms" gives the impression that the ban on contraception was just a disciplinary norm and not an unchangeable doctrine. 

The average person didn't hear this. But the people paying attention, most of whom were aching to hear this in the first place, went nuts. More importantly - or tragically - Paul VI was speaking to the members of the commission and the pope's words (particularly his magisterial use of the first person plural "WE") gave them blanket permission to vote for a change: and vote for a change they did, voting 65 to 7 in favor of lifting the ban on contraception.

This left Paul VI in a thick stew of his own making. His expansion of the commission and his own words to the commission had produced exactly what the world was waiting for. However, what "the world was waiting for" was also exactly what the pope knew he could not give. So why did he suggest that he could give it?

Again, this is important to review in light of Francis and the recent synod.

Both popes may have simply wanted to appear that they were sympathetic, anticipating that in the end they could rely on the hardliners to speak up and the decision not to permit the change could be laid at their feet and not their (the popes) own, which would allow them (Paul and Francis) to still be loved and seen as at least sympathetic. 

That's a great strategy for a politician but not for a pope, and in Paul VI's case, it monstrously backfired. He now had to say NO and not only NO but NO in the face of an overwhelming decision by a commission he had expanded and encouraged.

3.  The argument from "complete agreement". And now here is where Paul VI really goes off the rails. And it is amazing that so many of those ready to canonize him on the basis of Humanae Vitae being "prophetic", MISS THIS. The pope appears to still believe he can blame someone else and he opens the encyclical actually doing just that (emphases added):

In paragraph 6, the pope writes:

"...the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain...because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed."

The full quote is filled in with papal-type qualifiers, but the essence of this statement is this:

The conclusion of the commission cannot be considered definitive because the commission's decision was not unanimous ("complete agreement"). 

This is staggering. First of all the commission's decision (65 -7), especially given the moral weight of the topic, could effectively be considered to indeed be unanimous; and second, the pope essentially says that Church moral teaching is up to a vote, it just needs to be "unanimous."

It doesn't matter what Paul VI says next, and he has been proved to be right about everything else he wrote.

What matters is what he said first. 

And since he said it was up to a vote, some, if not most Catholics, were led to believe that Humanae Vitae was not authoritative, that it was just a papal opinion, and, in fact, the teaching will change someday, we just need more votes. 

WHY THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE CANONIZATIONS OF THE TWO POPES

There are 4 steps involved in the canonization of a saint. Note the words "canonization of a saint". "Canonize" means to regularize or order. The person in question is already a saint. The Church simply officially recognizes this fact allowing the person to be publicly venerated as a saint.

The 4 steps are:
1. The Vatican issues a Nihil Obstat (nothing hinders)
2. It is proved that the candidate lived "heroic virtues"
3. The first miracle
4. The second miracle
For more detail go here.

I personally believe that both John 23 and JP2 were saintly men and are in heaven and have no problem with their canonizations. However, I can see why there is a problem.

The canonization of both popes at the same time has the appearance of being about something other than the saintliness of these men. It has the appearance of being a statement, but a statement about what?

The short answer is that it is an attempt to shore up the dyke around Vatican II, a dyke that has been hemorrhaging Catholics since before it even ended.

Quite apart from the question of whether this was a Spirit-led Council is the glaring empirical fact the much expected "springtime" has not only never arrived, it has been "always winter and never Christmas", to steal a phrase from C.S. Lewis.

But now to the popes and specifically Item No. 2: heroic virtue.

In the case of John XXIII, we have a man who was pope for a very short period of time 1958 to 1963. Aside from being much loved there is little to point to in the way of "heroic virtue" (emphasis on "heroic"). In fact, though he was mostly thought of as a loving pastor, he in fact never was a pastor, spending all his days, prior to his elevation to the papacy, as a Vatican bureaucrat.

Pretty much, outside of being a nice guy, his credits amount to his calling the Second Vatican Council. I suppose that could be seen as heroic, however all his plans for the Council (the schema), as promulgated at the Roman Synod of 1960, were thrown out by the bishops on the very first day of the Council. And then he died. The end.

JP2 occupied the Chair of Peter for nearly a quarter of a century and a case for his heroic virtues, particularly in his last years, can certainly be argued. However, there are some who believe that in his waning years, he was taken advantage of and the Church began to fall into disarray, a disarray that the already old Benedict inherited, and eight years later admitted he couldn't handle. This caused some to believe that the "heroic" thing to do for JP2 would have been to step aside as Benedict did. But he didn't.

JP2 is credited with the aiding the collapse of Communism and the U.S.S.R. However, in the wake of that collapse the world quickly became a much more dangerous place and ancient tribal hatreds (particularly in the Balkans), held in check by the iron fist of Moscow, were soon let loose and morphed into genocidal campaigns and the worldwide unrest we are even seeing more of today.

I admire both men, and even named my store after John Paul II, calling it John Paul the Great Bookstore. And I am sure both are saints. However, while I do not question their canonizations, I, like many others, question the reason.

THE POPE AND THE DIVORCEE

A man in Argentina receives a phone call from someone identifying himself as Father Begoglio.

The caller asks to speak with the man's wife.

The call is reportedly in response to the woman's letter to the pope, 6 months earlier, complaining that her parish priest had told her that because she was divorced and remarried, she was sinning by taking communion.

The caller tells her that she is not sinning.

The wife tells her husband of the news. The husband posts the news on Facebook. The "press" reads the man's Facebook page. The story reaches the Italian publication La Stampa. The story is re-reported by the British publication the Telegraph and then out to all the world. 

The story is coincidentally timed with a synod that will soon be discussing the issue of divorced and remarried Catholics. 

So at the root of this, we have nothing more than a posting on a Facebook page by a guy in Argentina.

(The above details recorded here.)

However, HERE'S THE REAL PROBLEM. When the Vatican was approached about the story by the Telegraph, the Vatican spokesman said: "We would neither confirm nor deny that - this was a private telephone call made by the Holy Father and we would not divulge the details." 

And as Fr. Z says in his blog: "Sheesh! ….at least uphold Catholic teaching."

Of course this mad confusion will be blamed on the press. But the press attempted to get the story straight. And the Vatican essentially told them it was none of their business. 

But now let's look at the variables. Here is where the pope would be correct in his advice:

1. The woman's first husband is dead.

2. The woman's first husband was not a baptized Christian.

3. The woman's second husband was not a baptized Christian at the time they were married.

4. None of the above but the woman and her current husband are "living as brother and sister." 

5. There are a multitude of other factors including the complex problems with obtaining an annulment which might necessitate a particular pastoral solution.

However, the larger problem - as this is just one of several now that have cropped up since Francis is in the driver's seat - is captured in an interview with Cardinal Meisner who said:

“At my last meeting with Pope Francis, I had the opportunity to talk very open to him about a lot of things. And I told him that some questions remain unanswered in his style of spreading the gospel through interviews and short speeches, questions which need some extended explanation for people who are not so involved. The pope looked at me “with big eyes” and asked me to give an example. And my response was : During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t. In the orthodox church you can marry twice. And then he talked about mercy, which, according to my view, is seen in this country only as a surrogate for all human faults. And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name. Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

To this, Fr. Z responds: "From this we can perhaps glean that Pope Francis may not be entirely aware of the havoc (¿lío?) that some of his home-spun, off-the-cuff comments in the mainstream media have caused."

Tequantlaxopeuh and the Immaculate Conception

Today, December 8, is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. I've never heard anyone make the connection, but it is fitting that this solemnity be so close to the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, December 12.

The appearance of the Virgin in Mexico in 1531 to the Aztec, Juan Diego, is the only apparition in which the Virgin leaves an image of herself, but more importantly, her name: Tequantlaxopeuh (pronounced “Tequetalope”), which translates: “She who crushes the stone serpent.” The stone serpent was the dreaded Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, to whom were offered tens of thousands of still beating hearts gouged out of living chests. 

The name correlates directly with the woman of Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, and she will crush thy head while you lie in wait for her heel."

Genesis 3:15 provided the basis for the belief in Mary's sinlessness and was eventually dogmatically enshrined in 1854:

“...so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Sadly, post Vatican II translators, in order not offend other Christians, retranslated our modern bibles to to read "he" (not she). Here's the reading you will hear rom the pulpit: "he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” In fact, Satan is not even crushed in this version. 

Regardless of the scriptural revisionists, the Virgin has most often been depicted in every form of art standing on the head of the serpent, crushing the devourer - literal translation of Genesis 3:15 etched in stone, you could say.

The revisions didn't end there though. Post Vatican II translators got rid of the words "full of grace" from Luke 1:24, and replaced them with "favored one" or something similarly innocuous.  In fact, until 1997, when John Paul II made us put them back, the words "full of grace" were not even used in the Gospel of December 8, the very day we celebrate her being "full of grace." 

But the mandate was only for the readings of that day. Your Catholic bible probably still just says "favored one." What a mess we have been given by the church of "We know better than you. " 

Related articles and references:

Quetzalcoatl the Devourer

The Return of the Devourer

Our Lady of Wolf River

RUSH LIMBAUGH ON POPE FRANCIS' EVANGELII GAUDIUM

From RushLimbaugh.com

"It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists)".

"I mean, if he wants to portray himself as still from the streets where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic. If he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican, okay, cool, fine.  But this that I came across last night totally befuddled me.  If it weren't for capitalism, I don't know where the Catholic Church would be." (He's pretty darn right about that. BusinessInsider.com has the Catholic Church listed as the 3rd largest landholder in the world, behind only Queen Elizabeth and Saudi Arabia.)

"...somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him.  This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope."  (He even gives him the benefit of the doubt that someone else wrote this.)

"Now, as I mentioned before, I'm not Catholic.  I admire it profoundly, and I've been tempted a number of times to delve deeper into it.  But the pope here has now gone beyond Catholicism here, and this is pure political." (This document went way beyond traditional church social teaching. It specifically battered a singular economic system.)

MY NOTE: I have listened to Rush for 25 years. He has always spoken glowingly of Catholicism to the exclusion of every other religion. His respect for John Paul II and Benedict was profound. Thus I have been praying for his conversion. Guess I'm going to have to keep praying.

Rush is not wrong. This letter from Francis was an erratic attack on the free market economy, which has historically lifted more people out of poverty and feudalism than any other economic system. (We can have this discussion another time.)

But there is hope. The Vatican has since taken down the infamous interview with the atheist. The Pope is reported to have "regretted" the publication of the interview...even though it was proudly published and defend on the Vatican's own website.  It's going to be harder to walk away from this one though.

WEALTH AND POWER

There is many a storied Catholic saint who is lauded by Christian writers, teachers, priests, and prelates, for renouncing wealth and power and embracing poverty (Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua, Frances de Sales, et. al.). However, let them be reminded that they could not have renounced it had they had not had it to begin with. Let there be more wealth and power. For if good people do not claim it, bad people will.

EVANGELII GAUDIUM: FRANCIS AND ISLAM

While almost all of the conservatives seem taken aback by the pope's bashing of the free market, the real trouble lies in what he says in par. 253 (Evangelii Gaudium):

"Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence."

Let's read that again: "...authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence." And how are we to reconcile this view with the actions of Mohammed himself? According to the pope, Muhammed was not an "authentic" Muslim.

AUTHORITY OF CHURCH DOCUMENTS

The recent Apostolic Exhortation by Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, which contains some troublesome passages, as well as many of the things he has said since taking office, require us to check the authority of papal and/or church documents.

EWTN has the following:

HOW CATHOLICS "PRAY" TO MARY

In today's Opinion section of the Pacific Daily News, Diane tells us why we shouldn't pray to Mary. I responded in the comment section and am copying the reply here:

Dear Diane, 

Let's review. Our prayer to Mary goes like this:

"Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." 

At this point we are simply quoting Scripture, Luke 1:28. Yes, I know your bible probably does not say "full of grace", but the original Greek (Luke wrote in Greek) does: kecharitoméne. Let us go on.

"Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." 

Again, except for the addition of the name "Jesus", we are still just quoting Scripture: the words of Elizabeth in Luke 1:42. And I'm assuming saying the name "Jesus" is okay. 

Let's go on.

"Holy Mary, Mother of God." 

Okay, stop right there. How dare we refer to Mary as the Mother of God, right? 

Well, there's a lot to that, but the easiest way to understand this is that we are simply restating what Elizabeth says in the very next verse. After Elizabeth says "Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb", she says in Luke 1:43: "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Elizabeth calls the child in Mary's womb "my Lord". As a good Jew, Elizabeth could not have addressed anyone as "My Lord", other than God. So, we Catholics simply say the obvious along with Elizabeth. 

And in case you have trouble with the word "Holy" as in "Holy Mary". "Holy" simply means "set apart." In Latin, it's "sancta" as in "sanctuary". Mary was chosen to be a "sanctuary", set apart, singled out, etc. So we simply call her that. Going on.

"Pray for us now and at the hour of hour death." 

Up till now, we have only been quoting Scripture, and simply restating who Scripture says she is (Holy, Mother of God), but now we ask her to pray for us. Do you ever pray for anyone? Has anyone ever asked you to pray for them? Do you say "Oh no, don't ask me, ask God"? I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you pray for them and pray fervently. But then aren't you, by your definition of "pray", coming between them and God? Are you not interceding in their behalf? Of course you are. But you are not wrong in doing so. In fact you are being obedient to the many commands in Scripture to pray for one another. 

James 5:16 is one of those scriptures. James exhorts us here to not only pray for each other, but to even confess our sins to one another. Wait a minute, I thought we were supposed to confess our sins only to God? Well, we'll get back to that another time. Let us look at the very next thing James says in 5:16: "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much." This means that prayer are effective relative to the degree of righteousness of the person doing the praying. Thus we ask particularly holy and "anointed" people to pray for us, believing, and believing rightly, as per James 5:16, that their prayers are particularly effective. 

Thus because of who Mary is, "Mother of my Lord", we believe that her prayers for us are uniquely powerful. In the Scriptures, the Scriptures you tell us to search, we see Jesus even upsetting the divine order of things by performing his first miracle at Cana ("my hour has not yet come") simply because it was his Mother's desire. Here we see Mary interceding for the bride and groom and for all the people at the wedding. In fact, Mary doesn't ask Jesus to do anything. She essentially expects him to do her will by saying to the servants "Do whatever he tells you." That's pretty powerful.

And it is because of this power, the power we find in the Scriptures you tell us to search, that we continue to seek Mary's "intercession" ("pray for us now and at the hour of our death"), simply because we have in Scripture the clear fact that Jesus listens particularly to (and even obeys) his mother. 

So you see, Diane, when we "pray" to Mary, we are, for about 3/4 of the prayer, simply quoting Scripture, and the last bit, is simply asking for prayers. We hope that is okay with you. 

However, we Catholics, do owe you an apology. I am willing to guess that what I have just explained was never explained to you, even though you were a Catholic for 50 years. Sadly, there is a disconnect in our Catholic faith between what our Church officially teaches (which is what I have just shared) versus what Catholics actually are often taught, which is often very little. Shame on us for not sharing the riches of the Catholic faith, as found in our true teachings. We will be held accountable for that. 

If you would like to know, though, what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and get beyond what you think it teaches (again, not your fault), it's extremely accessible. I operate a Catholic bookstore in the Cathedral. You can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church for as little as $10 (or even access it free online). No, don't worry, the ceiling will not cave in if you walk in. That's reserved for Catholics who know better but do not do what they know. 

In fact, I'm going to give you one for free. Come by our store. I probably won't be there, but I'll set aside a Catechism with your name on it and leave it behind the counter. I'm going to give you the more accessible version. It's called the Compendium to the Catechism. Kind of breaks it down into more bite size chunks. I'll leave it there for a week. Just give the clerk your name and it's yours. 

Feel free to contact me if you have further inquiries. I'm at timrohr.guam@gmail.com. God Bless.

On Purgatory

"There is not one baptism only. One is that which the Church administers here by water and the Holy Ghost. Another is the baptism of suffering, whereby each is cleansed by his own blood. There is also a baptism at the entrance of Paradise. This last baptism did not exist in the beginning; but after the sinner was driven out of Paradise, God set there a fiery sword… But though there be a purgation here, there must be a second purification there, that each of us, burnt but not burnt up by that fiery sword, may enter into the delight of Paradise. But this fire whereby involuntary and casual sins are burnt away… is different from that which the Lord assigned to the devil and his angels, of which he says, enter ‘into everlasting fire.’”- St. Ambrose of Milan, Doctor of the Church, Explanation of Psalm 118, c. A.D. 380

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire."- St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69, A.D. 421

“Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgment, because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ, the Truth, say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come' (Mt 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions.”- Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, Dialogues, 4:39, A.D. 594

A RESPONSE TO BISHOP LYNCH'S ATTACK ON THE POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Bishop Robert Lynch attacks the Population Research Institute. Read his blog post here:

http://bishopsblog.dosp.org/?p=5837#comment-12951

My response follows:

It is curious that a post alleging a lack of evidence would impugn its target with a post lacking evidence. We are only told that PRI and others slander the CCHD (Catholic Campaign for Human Development) and the CRS (Catholic Relief Services), we are not given documented examples. But we don't really need to go there. CRS admits that it funds CARE - an organization which actively promotes contraception - but such funding is "carefully restricted to morally acceptable purposes." (CNA, 7/30/13). Isn't that a bit like giving money to Planned Parenthood but only for breast exams?  

But beyond that, isn't this really about the majority of Catholics, including bishops and priests, once again winking at Humanae Vitae? I've been personally counseled most of my married life to believe that the use of contraception was really a private choice. My wife and I only needed to pray about it. Why should we not think that Catholic institutions like CRS have not embodied, and in fact, instituted said "winking" into its practices? 

A RESPONSE TO AN ATTEMPT TO DEFINE THE "SERIOUS REASONS" OF PIUS XII

In this post, a Catholic blogger attempts to define the "serious reasons" which allow for the use of periodic continence (NFP) within marriage. 

You can only use NFP for serious reasons…What are these reasons?

by Dr Taylor Marshall

My comment follows:

Because the "Church" never defined "serious reasons", it was left to us to fill in the blank, and apparently this is an attempt to fill in the blank. And even with this attempt, the author implies that our attempt to fill in said blanks will fall short without the guidance of a "solid spiritual director versed in these matters." Well good luck finding one of those. But beyond that, let's examine a few things:

The author says that artificial contraception is "intrinsically evil because they (condoms, pills) intervene in the natural process", but periodic continence is "morally neutral." I would argue that condoms and pills are not intrinsically evil things because they are things. Their use becomes problematic when they are employed with an evil intent: to prevent conception. 

Likewise, periodic continence becomes problematic when it is employed with an evil intent: to prevent conception without "serious reason.". In fact, periodic continence, since it is an act of the will (I will not have sex with my spouse), is NEVER morally neutral. It can be morally good or morally evil, but it is never neutral.

I also find it curious that the central moral dilemma of modern man - the control of procreation (let's face it) was addressed by our Church via a pope in what appears to be a sidebar to an already obscure address to an even more obscure group (Italian midwives). 

One could argue that the moral application of periodic continence had been addressed earlier in more prominent addresses by Pius XI (Casti Connubii) and later by Paul VI (Humanae Vitae), but both encyclicals do not enumerate the "reasons", as does Pius XII,  who in fact provides the grounds for the morality of the method. 

JPII gets into it in his Theology of the Body, but TOB is way down there on the scale of authoritative pronouncements. 

Thus, we are apparently left with a scramble to unpack the four reasons left us by Pius XII in a tiny address that carries relatively little magisterial weight. 

Actually, the Catechism rescues us by its use of the word "just" as in "just cause". However, I've yet to read or hear any attempt to unpack this, so let me give it a go. 

When the Church uses "just" relative to moral issues it generally does not mean "just figure it out for yourself". The best parallel would be the use of the word "just" in defining "just war". 

There are several key provisions which must be in place for a war effort to be considered "just" and therefore morally "inbounds". One of the key provisions for a Just War is "proportionality": the benefits must equal the damage.

Denying God souls to love (children) - by whatever means - is serious business and demands proportionate (just) cause. And when it comes to marital relations the discernment of that cause cannot be reliant on a list, or anyone's attempt to define that list - which is probably why no pope ever has. 

Personal holiness is your only aid in this regard. Total submission to the Holy Spirit and union with God in and through his sacraments is all there is. Throw away your charts and get out your rosaries. 

Disclaimer: Father of eleven who thought one was enough and is so glad things did not go as I planned.