Academy for Life Member Uses Amoris Laetitia to Justify Contraceptive Use

[KMG]

Academy for Life Member Uses Amoris Laetitia to Justify Contraceptive Use| National Catholic Register

 

[tseleehw]

Saw this coming ever since AL came out. This is only the beginning. Beware of statements coming from the Pontifical Academy for Life. Ever since its reorganization last year members are no longer required to believe in or uphold Catholic moral teaching on life issues. Orthodoxy can no longer be assumed when reading statements from its membership, even clergy, as this statement demonstrates.

 

[DustThouArt]

I pray I am wrong, but it does seem we are headed toward a breaking point. Bishop vs Bishop, Cardinal vs Cardinal, etc. Sounds familiar.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The story came out of Lifesitenews.

That being said, NCR stated this; “artificial contraception in some circumstances”

We already know that there are some circumstances where artificial contraception can be licitly used, when it’s for medical purposes and not for prohibiting pregnancy.

Jim

 

[_Abyssinia]

The story came out of Lifesitenews.

That being said, NCR stated this; “artificial contraception in some circumstances”

We already know that there are some circumstances where artificial contraception can be licitly used, when it’s for medical purposes and not for prohibiting pregnancy.

Jim

In one if the quotes I just read, Fr Chiodi was talking about contraception in regards to the bearing of a child.

If the reported quotes are accurate and if Fr Chiodi was using Amoris Laetita as a defence for possible cases to use contraception for purposes which seek to to prevent pregnancy, that would be very worrying and it would not help in tampering down the concerns that various people have expressed in regards to how Amoris Laetitia is being interpreted by some.

 

[JimG]

From the Catholic Herald:

“The Catholic philosopher Josef Seifert, a former member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has called on one of its new members to revoke his “grave errors” or resign. Seifert was referring to Fr Maurizio Chiodi, who recently defended the use of artificial contraception.”

“Seifert, an Austrian philosopher and an associate of St John Paul II, said in a statement said that Fr Chiodi’s view was “in radical and direct contradiction to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church””

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...ogian-must-revoke-his-grave-errors-or-resign/

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Seifert said, “that a wonderful and deep link exists between the conjugal loving union and procreation, such that any single contraceptive act that separates the unitive from the procreative meaning of the conjugal act is intrinsically wrong in any situation.”

And here Seifert is wrong in my opinion.

Hormone therapy is often used in helping a woman to regularise her cycle. Sometimes this can take a few months.

So, according to Seifert, the couple could not use the hormone therapy, or they’d have to refrain from having sex ?

Either way, it’s unrealistic and probably what Fr Chiodi is referring to.

Seifert doesn’t get to decide who’s appointed or rejected on the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Jim

 

[billy15]

There’s nothing inherently wrong with hormone therapy. So no, Seifert is not saying that such a couple could not use the therapy to regularize cycles. But why would it be unrealistic for such a couple to refrain from having sex for several months? Many couples must do so after complicated pregnancies. Is it hard to abstain? Of course it is. But to separate, as Fr. Mike Schmitz puts, “the two B’s: babies and bonding”, is intrinsically evil. It’s sinful and can never be called good or responsible in any situation.

This is where I find Fr. Chiodi’s comments to be extremely scandalous and gravely in error. I don’t know how it could appear that he is “probably” referring to hormone therapy. It’s obvious he’s suggesting something that is flagrantly at odds with the infallible teaching of the Church on this matter. He is very clear (and against the teaching of the Council of Trent, reiterated by St. John Paul in Veritatis Splendor) in his point: sometimes it’s too hard to utilize methods of NFP. Therefore, according to Fr. Chiodi, there are times one can use artifical contraception. His words are indeed disturbing, especially in light of he being a pastor of souls:

"[N]aturally, we need to ask if natural methods can and have to be the only form of responsible parenthood, or if this doesn’t need to be interpreted more broadly…

“[W]e can understand how, in situations when natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found. There are circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.”

There is never a situation where natural methods are unfeasible, because one natural way of postponing birth is prolonged abstinence. It’s a heavy cross to bear, I completely recognize that and wouldn’t wish it on any married couple. But, if we love Jesus, we will keep His commands, even if it entails suffering. It appears that Fr. Chiodi would rather not speak about this. But as St. John Paul so bravely and eloquently put it:

“Even in the most difficult situations man must respect the norm of morality so that he can be obedient to God’s holy commandment and consistent with his own dignity as a person.” (VS 102)

 

[DustThouArt]

Thousands of Catholics are now learning how incrementalism works. I wonder when the frog realized it was being cooked?

 

[Ender]

Read this article. It cites a document written by Joseph Seifert, a friend of JPII and a former member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. He predicted exactly what we are seeing in regard to contraceptive use, but his words are even more cataclysmic.

However, if the title question of this paper must be answered in the affirmative, as I personally believe to be the case, the purely logical consequence of that one assertion of Amoris Laetitia seems to destroy the entire moral teaching of the Church.

 

[DustThouArt]

This needs to be corrected quickly! We are living in strange times.

 

[Imdaman]

Seifert said, “that a wonderful and deep link exists between the conjugal loving union and procreation, such that any single contraceptive act that separates the unitive from the procreative meaning of the conjugal act is intrinsically wrong in any situation.”

At the same time CHoidi does get to change what is moral and what isn’t.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Choidi isn’t trying to change what is moral.

Being part of the Academy for Life, the members discuss and debate the various issues
of the current age.

He’s merely opening the discussion which needs to be addressed.

Jim

 

[De_Santo]

That being said, NCR stated this; “artificial contraception in some circumstances”

We already know that there are some circumstances where artificial contraception can be licitly used, when it’s for medical purposes and not for prohibiting pregnancy.

Given that artificial contraception has been classified as a category 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization… I think women should steer clear from using it even for medical purposes. There must be a better way to help women with menstrual issues without pumping cancer causing chemicals into their bodies.

 

[Genesis315]

It seems a lot of Catholic theologians and clergy have an unhealthy attachment to contraception and other sexual immoralities–they seem obsessed with trying to justify them. Why can’t they just let it go and be about their Father’s business?

 

[Imdaman]

I just don’t understand what there could possibly be to discuss. The Church teaches that Contracepting is intrinsically evil. One does not use artificial means to disrupt conception.

Using these same drugs for other issues is completely licit.

What would be the point of opening this conversation up other than to give the laity license to sin.

irresponsible and naive at best.

 

[Imdaman]

Choidi isn’t trying to change what is moral.

Being part of the Academy for Life, the members discuss and debate the various issues
of the current age.

He’s merely opening the discussion which needs to be addressed.

Jim

I’m not sure how you can understand this comment for the article:

   "But Father Chiodi, a professor of moral theology at the Northern University of Italy in Milan, clearly argued for contraceptive use, saying that in some cases where “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible,” it would be an act of “responsibility” to use artificial contraception."

That does not sound like someone merely opening the topic up for discussion. What pray tell could be an excuse for using contraception. How on earth could natural means be impossible or unfeasible???

 

[billy15]

I agree. There really isn’t anything else to possibly discuss because the conclusions regrading the liceity and moral worth of artificial contraception has already been determined: the deliberate use of such chemicals, barriers, or implants (outside of medical necessity) are never to be permitted on account of such actions being intrinsically evil.

St. John Paul II pointed out, during an address to participants of a conference on responsible procreation, that the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception is so clearly defined that the subject is no longer even open to discussion by theologians. We have our answer already. The whole address is pretty short, and I’d rather quote the entire thing, but here’s the most relevant portion, bolded emphasis added:

It is well known that often - as the Second Vatican Council also noted (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 51.1) - one of the main difficulties that the spouses encounter is constituted by the difficulty of realizing in their married life the ethical value of responsible procreation. The same Council puts [forth]… the truth that there can not be a real contradiction between the divine law concerning the transmission of human life and true conjugal love (cf. GS 2). To speak of a “conflict of values or goods”, and of the consequent need to perform some sort of “balancing” of the same, choosing one and rejecting the other, is not morally correct, and generates only confusion in the consciences of the spouses. The grace of Christ gives the spouses the real capacity to fulfill the whole “truth” of their conjugal love. You want to witness this possibility concretely and thus give married couples a precious help: that of living their conjugal communion in fullness. Despite the difficulties you may encounter, it is necessary to continue with generous dedication.

The difficulties you encounter are of various kinds. The first, and in a certain sense the most serious, is that even within the Christian community voices have been heard, and are still being heard, which cast doubt upon the very truth of the Church’s teaching. This teaching has been vigorously expressed by Vatican II, by the encyclical Humanae Vitae, by the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio and from the recent instruction “The Gift of Life”. A grave responsibility derives from this: those who place themselves in open conflict with the law of God, authentically taught by the Church, guide spouses along a false path. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not belong to the category of matter open to free discussion among theologians. Teaching the contrary amounts to leading the moral consciences of spouses into error.

 

[goout]

The story came out of Lifesitenews.

That being said, NCR stated this; “artificial contraception in some circumstances”

We already know that there are some circumstances where artificial contraception can be licitly used, when it’s for medical purposes and not for prohibiting pregnancy.

Jim

Catholics please…we need to know what contraception is. It is important to understand the terms in a moral sense and make the distinction between moral senses and medical terms.

Contraception is an act that prevents conception. “contra-ception”. It has a moral content. Contraception may or may not involve a drug like a hormone. It might also involve a device.

Hormone therapy is a medical procedure with a medical intent. Hormone therapy might involve the same drug as used in contraception. Hormone therapy might render a person infertile at the same time as it treats a condition. That is not contraception.

Folks: it’s not the substance that is evil, it’s the moral act.
Hormones are no more evil than is a gun.
So it’s not proper to say that

there are some circumstances where artificial contraception can be licitly used, when it’s for medical purposes…

Not so.
This is the source of a tremendous amount of unnecessary confusion especially among young people and non-Catholics (and Catholics for that matter)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sorry, but there are medical reasons where pregnancy must be avoided because of the health-risk to the mother.

Ask any doctor.

Then ask if it’s reasonable that such a married couple must abstain from having sexual relations for the rest of their lives.

Jim