Contraception in cases of life of the mother?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I found an old thread from the “Ask an Apologist” section that I wanted to open up for discussion.

The questioner asks whether, in situations where the life of the mother is at risk due to another pregnancy, birth control other than NFP is allowable:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104551

The apologist answers unequivocally, “no,” effectively interpreting the proscription of b.c. in the same light as that on abortion.

A potential problem with this: NFP, despite assertions to the contrary, is not as effective as the Pill, and the life of the mother has value from a pro-life point of view.

I have read that situations where the “life of the mother” is at stake can constitute a legitimate exception to the ruling against b.c. other than NFP, including for such phenomena as post-partum depression. Under such circumstances, the Pill may be allowable.

Are there, in fact, alternative perspectives on this from an observant Roman Catholic point of view? Can a faithful Catholic chose a form of birth control for its effectiveness, particularly the Pill, when the life of the mother is at stake?

Please note that I’m not asking a general question about the morality of birth control–that’s a separate thread–just for an interpretation of issue from a technical perspective.

“Can a faithful Catholic chose a form of birth control for its effectiveness, particularly the Pill, when the life of the mother is at stake?”

No, if one makes a decision to take a medication or use a particular artificial method for the specific purpose of preventing conception that is the issue.

 

[JReducation]

The question is a painful one, but other issues have to be considered. One cannot narrow the issue down to the life of the mother and put aside the other issues. The Church, in her compassion, is sympathetic to the situation of the mother and hopes and prays that other means to protect the mother’s life can be found. But morality has a hierarchy. The rights of God cannot take second place to the rights of man.

God has the right to create life and to bring life into the world. God also has the right to take a life, even if it’s the life of a parent. Man cannot trump those rights.

In the case of the pill, the use of the pill for any other purpose, but to prevent conception, is legitimate. To prevent conception, using the pill, is morally unjustifiable. The only natural couse to take is abstinence, either for a period or for an indefinate time until another profilactic method can be found that does not directly interfere with conception.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Corki]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

I must say that my own individual conscience, formed by the magisterium on pro-life issues, thinks that there is a major tension between respect for the dignity of life (of the mother) and the teaching on b.c. as applied in HV. I would be particularly curious to find whether Benedict has written anything on this conundrum.

I found an excellent book by a Benedictine monk, Philip S. Kaufman, called **Why You Can Disagree **and Remain a Faithful Catholic, that uses probabilism to address difficult issues like contraception when a couple receives medical advice that they should have no more children. He leans heavily on the the thought of Karl Rahner, the greatest Catholic theologian of the the 20th century (to my mind), to find that there is a role for the individual conscience, formed by the magisterium, on decisions about b.c.

The two bolded statements seem to be directly contradictory. Either you are going to form your concsience by magesterial teachings OR you are going to dissent. Even using a primacy of conscience argument, Catholics don’t have license to sin. You can say that in your formation of concsience, you don’t agree, but that doesn’t remove culpability if you chose to act on that disagreement.

As for Pope Benedict, I don’t know if this is what you are looking for but here’s an except from his comments on the 40 year commemoration of HV.

“What was true yesterday is true also today. The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does not change . . . . The transmission of life is inscribed in nature and its laws stand as an unwritten norm to which all must refer. Any attempt to turn one’s gaze away from this principle is in itself barren and does not produce a future.”

-Pope Benedict XVI

Who decided this? You? Please cultivate some humility and re-think your tone. I am going to offer up my answer to your ad feminam attack as to why I am asking the question, but I will say that your posts here have intemperate and uncharitable.

ad feminam

1ke, I believe was referring to Phillip Kaufman’s book. Even if ad feminam was a real word, it would mean an attack on a woman’s character.

1ke stated that Kaufman’s book was not authentic Church teaching. As far as I can tell, the book does not even have an imprimatur. If you are going to form your conscience using the Magesterium, that means authentic Church teaching, not unendorsed speculation.

Kaufman’s book title specifically references ‘diagree’. Disagreement means dissent. Granted not all dissent is sinful (for example, you can disagree with the Church’s discipline on ordaining married men) but your description (and the online reviews) indicate that he is advocating a more serious form of dissent.

That assumption is further solidified by a Google seach of the book title. They love him over at VOTF and We Are Church.

How did you get from wanting to follow church teaching to following a dissident? You’re kidding right? The church has always taught the minority opinion in the world. We are to live in the world but not be of the world. Of course a bunch of people are disagreeing.

Exactly! A Catholic who seeks to form his/her own conscience by the magesterium would look to the magesterium for documents and guidance, not to an author who disagrees with the Church. As Brother JR also stated, care must be taken not to confuse opion and theological speculation, no matter how academically arrived at, with authentic Church teaching. (I hope I paraphrased you correctly Brother )

 

[JReducation]

Having read Kaufman’s work, I can see that it has been abused and used to defend a position that he is not promoting. He is promoting the development of conscience. He does promote that formation of a proper conscience in line with the Church. He also understands that there are times when an individual conscience finds it difficult to align with the Church and in that case the person has the moral obligationt to follow conscience.

What he does not say is that one can form one’s conscience outside the Church or away from the Magisterium of the Church. This is extrapolated by some who find it convenient to say that one’s conscience does not align with the Church therefore, one can always act outside of the Church. Kaufman does not say this. Kaufman makes room for the rare occasions when a person of good faith cannot reach the same understanding of an issue as the Church. But notice that I’m using he word “rare”. This is not the norm, nor should it be. Kaufman does not promote a conscience that becomes its own magisterium.

Kaufman introduces the reader to the history of how some magisterial teachings are arrived at. But does not deny the truth of those teachngs. In other words, some teachings were arrived at under presure. But is it a falsehood, because it was under presure? No. There are many situations when the person is under the gun to give a response to a question. Even though the person is under the gun, the answer is valid. He does not try to impress upon the reader that these teachings are any less valid than those that come to us through a smooth process.

He also raises some questions about birth control, abortion and the proper understanding of infallibility. However, he does not pose his responses as those of the Church. They are his responses. Any writer, especially a theologian, is expected to throw some monkey wrenches on the table. That’s one of the many jobs of a theologian, to help the Church try to understand truth more deeply and explain it more clearly, not to change truth. A good theologian is not out to change truth, but to discuss it further and see where the discussion leads.

Some who have read Kaufman have taken his hypotheses as the final answer to some very important questions and are running with it. I don’t know him, but from what I know about him, he does not want to set himself up as a parallel magisterium. He is trying to get people to think, not to disobey. If after reading Kaufman one disobey’s that is not the author’s fault. That is one’s choice. The author has not set out to teach a course on how to fly under the radar.

I wish people would stop using theologians to support their agendas or as respondents to their pastoral needs. Theologians are not pastors. We are scholars. We do not care for souls, as in perform pastoral care, when we are doing theology. When we do theology, we are letting our creative minds loose on a subject and throwing all the ideas on the table with the good intention of reaching a better understanding of something that we also believe to be true, but that we believe needs further clarification or to be said in better language so that others may understand it. If you want pastoral advice from us, then ask for it. But don’t read out works and them blame us if you go to hell in a hand-basket. They are not written as pastoral guides. They are written as academic exercises in the pursuit of a better understanding of truth.

The only one that has authority to offer official and formal pastoral guidance is the Church, led by the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of Rome and your local bishop in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The rest are scholars or charlatans and sometimes there is a fine line that separates the two.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tjm190]

Please do not do this. If this is your personal position, no one can stop you from having it. But you are still morally bound to teach what the Church teaches. You cannot morally give such advice, especially not on a Catholic forum or to another Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I disagree- I clearly stated that the advice I was going to give was not coming from someone inline with church teaching, and made only the statement that permanent sterilization is not a prudent option.

 

[JReducation]

I disagree- I clearly stated that the advice I was going to give was not coming from someone inline with church teaching, and made only the statement that permanent sterilization is not a prudent option.

But Catholics are not allowed to give advice that is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Even if you personally are not inclined to believe what the Church teaches on contraception, you must still obey. The Church does not ask for agreement, but she demands obedience.

The Church is very clear that dissenting positions cannot be offered as advice to anyone. They can be used in an academic discussion, but no further than that.

I will give you an example from the writings of St. Francis de Sales. When he writes to the Protestant reformers he asks a very poignant question, “Who sent you?” He proceeds to explain, that to guide another in faith and morals, one must be send by the Apostles. He proves it using the scriptures. The successors of the Apostles are the bishops. Unless a bishoop says that you can make this statement to another Catholic, you and I cannot make it. We are not authorized to make such a statement, because we have not been sent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tjm190]

But Catholics are not allowed to give advice that is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Even if you personally are not inclined to believe what the Church teaches on contraception, you must still obey. The Church does not ask for agreement, but she demands obedience.

The Church is very clear that dissenting positions cannot be offered as advice to anyone. They can be used in an academic discussion, but no further than that.

I will give you an example from the writings of St. Francis de Sales. When he writes to the Protestant reformers he asks a very poignant question, “Who sent you?” He proceeds to explain, that to guide another in faith and morals, one must be send by the Apostles. He proves it using the scriptures. The successors of the Apostles are the bishops. Unless a bishoop says that you can make this statement to another Catholic, you and I cannot make it. We are not authorized to make such a statement, because we have not been sent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As much as I hate responding to a post minutes before I go to sleep-

But we know now that the protestant reformation benefited the church by forcing it to change- the church has proven itself to more than capable of errors (I’ll ask the question I always ask- Are Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion gravely sinful?), and if errors are allowed to exist on the basis of authority, they run the risk of not being corrected. Do I know I’m right on any particular issue? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean that the Lemming logic you seem to be enforcing is the way to go.

Btw, I’d rather not create a series of off topic posts in this thread so if you wish to continue this discussion further I ask you to do so in the contraception related thread I’ve got going. Otherwise, feel free to stay here and have the last word.

 

[Corki]

As much as I hate responding to a post minutes before I go to sleep-

But we know now that the protestant reformation benefited the church by forcing it to change- the church has proven itself to more than capable of errors (I’ll ask the question I always ask- Are Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion gravely sinful?), and if errors are allowed to exist on the basis of authority, they run the risk of not being corrected. Do I know I’m right on any particular issue? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean that the Lemming logic you seem to be enforcing is the way to go.

Btw, I’d rather not create a series of off topic posts in this thread so if you wish to continue this discussion further I ask you to do so in the contraception related thread I’ve got going. Otherwise, feel free to stay here and have the last word.

The Protestant Reformers did bring change to the Church and, IMO, the Catholic Church is better for it. However, they also ripped apart Christianity. Christianity is not better for the work of the Reformers.

And as for Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion. Who care?!? Are you going to commit a sin because you believe or disbelieve in them? Not likely. But there are millions of Catholics who are faced with decisions involving contraception. Any advice other than obedience to the Church is folly.

 

[1ke]

But we know now that the protestant reformation benefited the church by forcing it to change-

We “know” no such thing.

the church has proven itself to more than capable of errors

It is not capable of teaching error regarding faith or morals. The Church (the Magesterium plus the Pope speaking ex cathedra) is infallible.

(I’ll ask the question I always ask- Are Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion gravely sinful?),

The Church has no teaching on Kepler’s Laws or any other scientific laws, nor can scientific laws be “sinful” as they do not pertain to morality.

(and if errors are allowed to exist on the basis of authority, they run the risk of not being corrected.

Again, the Church is infallible. She cannot error in the teaching of faith or morals.

( Do I know I’m right on any particular issue? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean that the Lemming logic you seem to be enforcing is the way to go.

Are you denying that the Church is infallible, that it has authority over us to which we must assent, or both?

 

[tjm190]

The Church has no teaching on Kepler’s Laws or any other scientific laws, nor can scientific laws be “sinful” as they do not pertain to morality.

But since in the past works by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler we’re declared sinful, their book banned, and their respective authors excommunicated the Church was clearly under the impression that said things (Kepler’s Laws included) were immoral- immoral to the point of excommunication. Are these things still sinful, or has the church reversed its stance?

 

[kage_ar]

The Galileo Controversy

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.

Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

Clinging to Tradition?

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a “tradition.” They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the “sensible demonstrations” needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this “new science” was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

cont’d next post

 

[kage_ar]

cont’d

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

Galileo “Confronts” Rome

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “imprisonment” when he reported to the Tuscan king: “The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another” (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and “*n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible” (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of “witches” subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, “the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof.” Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.

cont’d next post*

 

[kage_ar]

cont’d

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

 

[tjm190]

Rather than weed through all that, could you just point out the parts that show how Galileo being excommunicated for his beliefs was not an error on the matter of faith and morals?

And if you finish with that, be sure to let me know why usury isn’t a sin anymore

 

[1ke]

But since in the past works by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler we’re declared sinful,

This is a false statement.

their book banned,

This is a false statement.

and their respective authors excommunicated

This is another false statement as none of these authors was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

• Copernicus was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church.
• Johan Kepler was a Lutheran and was excommunicated by the Lutheran Church, so you’ll have to take that up with them.
• Galileo was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

the Church was clearly under the impression that said things (Kepler’s Laws included) were immoral- immoral to the point of excommunication. Are these things still sinful, or has the church reversed its stance?

False premise = false conculsion

 

[1ke]

Rather than weed through all that, could you just point out the parts that show how Galileo being excommunicated for his beliefs was not an error on the matter of faith and morals?

And if you finish with that, be sure to let me know why usury isn’t a sin anymore

You’ll have to prove Galileo was excommunicated first. Which you can’t. Because he wasn’t.

 

[1ke]

be sure to let me know why usury isn’t a sin anymore

Whatever gave you that idea?

 

[tjm190]

This is a false statement.

see below

This is a false statement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

This is another false statement as none of these authors was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

I thought one of them was a Protestant- this is what I get when I don’t do my research

 

[tjm190]

Whatever gave you that idea?

The fact that the Catholic church has no opposition to its practitioners working for bank/charging interest one loans and that the originally any such interest was sinful

 

[yablabo]

---

The fact that the Catholic church has no opposition to its practitioners working for bank/charging interest one loans and that the originally any such interest was sinful

Also, something to ponder, is that we are bound under assent of faith to the infallible pronouncements of several Ecumenical Councils which prohibit usury.

**The Third Lateran Council

Canons**

Nearly everywhere the crime of usury has become so firmly rooted that many, omitting other business, practise usury as if it were permitted, and in no way observe how it is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

**The Second Council of Lyons

Constitutions II

On usury **

Wishing to close up the abyss of usury, which devours souls and swallows up property, we order under threat of the divine malediction that the constitution of the Lateran council against usurers be inviolably observed.

Since the less convenient it is for usurers to lend, the more their freedom to practise usury is curtailed, we ordain by this general constitution as follows.

Neither a college, nor other community, nor an individual person, of whatever dignity, condition or status, may permit those foreigners and others not originating from their territories, who practise usury or wish to do so, to rent houses for that purpose or to occupy rented houses or to live elsewhere.

Nobody is to let houses to them for usury, nor grant them houses under any other title.

If the sum owing from usury is openly known, we wish this sum always to be expressed in the pledge, if the amount is not clearly known, the sum is to be determined by the receiver of the pledge.

Nobody is to assist at the wills of notorious usurers or hear their confessions or absolve them, unless they have made restitution for their usury or have given a fitting guarantee, as far as they can, as described above.

**The Council of Vienne

Decrees**

We therefore decree that in cases concerning elections, postulations, or provisions, concerning dignities, parsonages, offices, canonries, prebends or any other church benefices, concerning tithes, even when those obliged to pay them have been admonished and can be corrected by ecclesiastical censure, and concerning matrimony or usury and anything connected with it, that a simple, easy process shall be valid without the noise and rhetoric of a court of justice.

Serious suggestions have been made to us that communities in certain places, to the divine displeasure and injury of the neighbour, in violation of both divine and human law, approve of usury.

By their statutes, sometimes confirmed by oath, they not only grant that usury may be demanded and paid, but deliberately compel debtors to pay it.

We, therefore, wishing to get rid of these pernicious practices, decree with the approval of the sacred council that all the magistrates, captains, rulers, consuls, judges, counsellors or any other officials of these communities who presume in the future to make, write or dictate such statutes, or knowingly decide that usury be paid or, if paid, that it be not fully and freely restored when claimed, incur the sentence of excommunication.

Furthermore, since money-lenders for the most part enter into usurious contracts so frequently with secrecy and guile that they can be convicted only with difficulty, we decree that they be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to open their account books, when there is question of usury.

If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic; and we strictly enjoin on local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy to proceed against those they find suspect of such error as they would against those suspected of heresy.

They sometimes meddle with settlements involving usury or unjust acquisition and the restitution to be made.

**The Council of Basel

Union with Greeks, Conversion of Pagans**

But if his goods were acquired by usury or illicit dealings, and the persons to whom restitution ought to be made are known, it is absolutely necessary that this restitution be made, since the sin is not forgiven unless the illegal object is restored.

**The Fifth Lateran Council

On Reforms and the Pragmatic Sanction**

For this reason they cannot avoid the crime of usury or injustice, that is to say a clearly defined evil, since our Lord, according to Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we ought not to expect any addition to the capital sum when we grant a loan.

For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.

We commend the zeal for justice displayed by the former group, which desires to prevent the opening up of the chasm of usury, as well as the love of piety and truth shown by the latter group, which wishes to aid the poor, and indeed the earnestness of both sides.

– Nicole