I’d like His Holiness to clarify this.
Anyone with even one day of study in moral theology would recognize that the two situations aren’t even in the same ballpark, let alone comparable from a moral standpoint.
Situation A: Nuns in the Congo may or may not have been given permission to use oral contraceptives because they were being systematically raped. In this case, the contraceptive is NOT being used to prevent conception through a loving act of marriage. Rather, it was being used more as a defense mechanism than anything. Morally speaking, it would be more similar to using mace to ward off an attacker. There’s nothing immoral at all about using mace to ward off an attacker. There’s something gravely immoral about using mace on someone who is doing nothing wrong just to get a laugh.
In other words, whether or not Pope Paul VI gave them formal permission to use contraceptives is beside the point. Basic logic and moral reasoning tells us that there would be no moral issue in using contraceptives in this case.
What if the contraceptive in question was/is abortafacient? That’s a different question for a different day. However, we have to be careful when discussing this. For instance, Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P., published an article in the Winter 2007 edition of National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly arguing that Plan B was not abortafacient, and therefore, the Connecticut bishops were justified in approving its use in Connecticut hospitals, even Catholic ones, to comply with a law that was passed on October 1, 2007. Others, however, have argued against Austriaco’s position. The point is that there are reputable scientists and moral theologians suggesting that Plan B (as opposed to specific abortion-inducing drugs, such as Ella and RU-486) is not abortafacient, based on scientific study of what the hormone levonorgestrel does to the woman’s body.
Situation B: The pope, seemingly, is giving tacit approval to using contraceptives to combat the zika virus. Again, morally speaking, these two situations are not at all similar. Arguing that contraception should be permitted in this case is taking a consequentialist approach, which, again, any first year moral theology student could tell you is wholly incompatible with a Catholic understanding of morality. But, leaving that aside, in this situation, there is a very easy solution…abstain! Believe it or not, you won’t die from lack of sex! I’m 34, a virgin, and a consecrated celibate. I’m still very much alive!
In situation A, contraception is being used as a defense against an attack. In situation B, it’s being suggested as a means to an end, being able to still have all the sex I want without any of the negative consequences. Again, every first year morality student knows the basic principle that the ends do not justify the means.
I love our Holy Father, and I will follow him, be obedient to him, and faithful to him. But, I hope he clarifies this statement, or we see the entirety of what he said in it’s context. Certainly, I give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s the Vicar of Christ! But, to be sure, at least as the MSM is reporting it, this statement needs clarification.
