T
theCardinalbird
Guest
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward...ris-to-justify-contraceptive-use#.WnIEwsmvA0M
Humanae Vitae is believed by its proponents to have been prophetic, as it foresaw that widespread use of contraception would lead to a breakdown of the family, and a greater dehumanization of society.
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.
He partly grounded his argument in the fact that the “urgency of this issue [contraceptive use]” seems “gradually to be diminishing” to the extent that many pastors don’t talk about it any more, which is also why he believes it’s hardly mentioned in Amoris Laetitia, nor explicitly referred to as “intrinsically evil.”
He believes that artificial contraception “could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.”
What he drew from Amoris Laetitia was the “objective relevance of extenuating circumstances and subjective responsibility of the conscience” and “the constitutive relationship between norm and discernment.”
The Italian theologian, one of a number of dissenters of Humanae Vitae to be made members of the Pontifical Academy for Life last year, insisted “it’s not a matter of abolishing the norm” that banned contraceptive use but rather “of demonstrating its meaning and truth."
How can contraceptives be used without it being evil? How is it justified?
Humanae Vitae is believed by its proponents to have been prophetic, as it foresaw that widespread use of contraception would lead to a breakdown of the family, and a greater dehumanization of society.
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.
He partly grounded his argument in the fact that the “urgency of this issue [contraceptive use]” seems “gradually to be diminishing” to the extent that many pastors don’t talk about it any more, which is also why he believes it’s hardly mentioned in Amoris Laetitia, nor explicitly referred to as “intrinsically evil.”
He believes that artificial contraception “could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.”
What he drew from Amoris Laetitia was the “objective relevance of extenuating circumstances and subjective responsibility of the conscience” and “the constitutive relationship between norm and discernment.”
The Italian theologian, one of a number of dissenters of Humanae Vitae to be made members of the Pontifical Academy for Life last year, insisted “it’s not a matter of abolishing the norm” that banned contraceptive use but rather “of demonstrating its meaning and truth."
How can contraceptives be used without it being evil? How is it justified?
Last edited:
