R
Rence
Guest
Of course the pope is infallible when it is convenient, I get it. However, if his memory was in error, we would have heard a correction from the Vatican. I have not seen such a correction yet.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Suggested what? No- you will not find where he suggested directly any such thing. His main focus there was about abortion and that it can never be done.My question is posed to anyone who can make sense of it all. Are we to follow infallibly defined doctrine of the Church since Her inception or what the Pope, Fr Lombardi, and the Philippine bishops are now espousing?
Fr. Lambardi did not espouse such.
The Philippine Bishops also did not espouse such (best not to get one info regarding such things from media articles).
The noting that there can be such cases as can happen as in the case of the Nuns - and that each case must be looked at and judged - is not saying “go ahead” in this case.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
If one could not " go ahead and do it, then there would be nothing for the holy father to tell people to dicern.Suggested what? No- you will not find where he suggested directly any such thing. His main focus there was about abortion and that it can never be done.
Fr. Lambardi did not espouse such.
The Philippine Bishops also did not espouse such (best not to get one info regarding such things from media articles).
The noting that there can be such cases as can happen as in the case of the Nuns - and that each case must be looked at and judged - is not saying “go ahead” in this case.
Once we get past the denial of what was said we can have discussions about it which we most definately will for decades to come now.
How do you think this plus Scalia will affect the outcome of the sisters before the Supreme Court about the very subject of health care and birth control?
K
kevin1313
Guest
If you didn’t understand the Pope to mean contraception might be allowed for prevention of Zika, that’s hopeful, maybe others didn’t either. Referencing Paul VI approving contraception for African nuns didn’t help. Fr. Lombardi clarifying the comments said the Pope did mean contraception and condoms -is Lifesite news not trustworthy? The Philippine bishops agreeing that contraception was allowed for prevention of Zika was also on various news feeds -yes, could be inaccurate.
However, the news is splashed all across the headlines to the contrary of your impression and has not been corrected by the Pope or any other Shepherds.
Please post any evidence that refutes the erroneous impression that contraception is licit!
However, the news is splashed all across the headlines to the contrary of your impression and has not been corrected by the Pope or any other Shepherds.
Please post any evidence that refutes the erroneous impression that contraception is licit!
B
Bookcat
Guest
Answering a question - and he was actually focused on showing the great evil of aborting Children with such disabilities - on they fly and in flight…is just that.If one could not " go ahead and do it, then there would be nothing for the holy father to tell people to dicern.
He does not conclude that one can use contraception in the case at hand…
B
Bookcat
Guest
Jimmy Akin ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-speaks-on-hot-button-issues-9-things-to-know-and-sharePlease post any evidence that refutes the erroneous impression that contraception is licit!
“He appears to affirm Paul VI’s reported decision regarding nuns in the Belgian Congo, but he does not draw any application for the contemporary Zika virus.”
Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-speaks-on-hot-button-issues-9-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz40wPTBwUr
R
Rau
Guest
I do not understand what prompts people to take an informal statement, a snippet of a conversation, and then draw and hold conclusions which if accepted, stand in absolute and unquestionably stark contradiction with considered, black and white doctrine. Surely it is evident that the Church is not prone to reversals of doctrine? Surely the events suggest an error or poor expression, or that we are missing something?If you didn’t understand the Pope to mean contraception might be allowed for prevention of Zika, that’s hopeful, maybe others didn’t either. Referencing Paul VI approving contraception for African nuns didn’t help. Fr. Lombardi clarifying the comments said the Pope did mean contraception and condoms -is Lifesite news not trustworthy? The Philippine bishops agreeing that contraception was allowed for prevention of Zika was also on various news feeds -yes, could be inaccurate.
However, the news is splashed all across the headlines to the contrary of your impression and has not been corrected by the Pope or any other Shepherds.
Please post any evidence that refutes the erroneous impression that contraception is licit!
Frankly, I am not clear what idea the Pope intended to convey relevant to the question of Zika (other than the desire to see a vaccine which he stated plainly). In answering a question, he unambiguously stated that abortion is not a possible “solution”, and then remarked:
*Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape. . . .
[A]voiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.*Now - whether Paul VI did or did not himself do this, we don’t really known (and doubtful that Francis knows this for a fact either, given the timeframes), but he presumes it to be so. I personally see no wrong in the nuns taking a drug with contraceptive intent (or wearing a barrier device) because it is plain to see that doing such - for fear of rape - is NOT the moral wrong of contraception. It is a defence against the threat of rape. As the Pope says - it is preventing a pregnancy and this is not always immoral.
The Congo nuns event involves a “contraceptive” drug, but has nothing to do with the immoral act of contraception (properly understood). The idea that a rape is over the moment the perpetrator withdraws, and that from this point some good and holy process is in play that must not be interrupted, is absurd, preposterous, not taught by the Church and, in fact is repudiated by the US Bishops in the approvals they have given (in writing) for the care and treatment of rape victims in Catholic hospitals. HV is couched in terms of the free choice to engage in sexual relations (and is even more specific to marriage, by reference to conjugal relations). Terminating the on-going course of rape, which may lead to pregnancy, is no more the immoral act of contraception, than is heaving the perpetrator from one’s body prior to ejaculation.
K
kevin1313
Guest
Rau, you’re in the minority of believing the Pope’s comments aren’t taken by majority of people to condone contraception in limited cases, or at least, to not be confused by his interview.I do not understand what prompts people to take an informal statement, a snippet of a conversation, and then draw and hold conclusions which if accepted, stand in absolute and unquestionably stark contradiction with considered, black and white doctrine. Surely it is evident that the Church is not prone to reversals of doctrine? Surely the events suggest an error or poor expression, or that we are missing something?
Frankly, I am not clear what idea the Pope intended to convey relevant to the question of Zika (other than the desire to see a vaccine which he stated plainly). In answering a question, he unambiguously stated that abortion is not a possible “solution”, and then remarked:
*Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape. . . .
[A]voiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.*Now - whether Paul VI did or did not himself do this, we don’t really known (and doubtful that Francis knows this for a fact either, given the timeframes), but he presumes it to be so. I personally see no wrong in the nuns taking a drug with contraceptive intent (or wearing a barrier device) because it is plain to see that doing such - for fear of rape - is NOT the moral wrong of contraception. It is a defence against the threat of rape. As the Pope says - it is preventing a pregnancy and this is not always immoral.
The Congo nuns event involves a “contraceptive” drug, but has nothing to do with the immoral act of contraception (properly understood). The idea that a rape is over the moment the perpetrator withdraws, and that from this point some good and holy process is in play that must not be interrupted, is absurd, preposterous, not taught by the Church and, in fact is repudiated by the US Bishops in the approvals they have given (in writing) for the care and treatment of rape victims in Catholic hospitals. HV is couched in terms of the free choice to engage in sexual relations (and is even more specific to marriage, by reference to conjugal relations). Terminating the on-going course of rape, which may lead to pregnancy, is no more the immoral act of contraception, than is heaving the perpetrator from one’s body prior to ejaculation.
All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Peter -not just authority in the Catholic Church, but in the whole world. His moral obligation is to confirm his brethren in the truth -including that contraception use for the Zika virus is not licit and put an end to this controversy caused by his statements. Pray that he does so soon! Eternal life or death is at stake!
Regarding the fable of nuns being authorized to take contraception, let’s assume Paul VI (although he wasn’t Pope in "61 when Studi Cattolici published the article by 3 theologians opining that Pope John XXXIII should allow for its use) is true how does the act of using a condom (what violent sex offender is going to stop mid attack and use it?) or in using a chemical contraception (possibility fertilized egg will be expelled causing a death) protect the woman from the evil (rape)? Two wrongs (rape and contraception) cannot justify the right (prevention of nun’s pregnancy). wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/
R
Rau
Guest
I take no view on what the majority of people may have understood, but I agree that many people have drawn a conclusion not justified if one has benefit of a greater understanding of the theological issues than is the case for the ordinary man in the street.Rau, you’re in the minority of believing the Pope’s comments aren’t taken by majority of people to condone contraception in limited cases, or at least, to not be confused by his interview.
If his statements are misunderstood widely, then I concur.… His moral obligation is to confirm his brethren in the truth -including that contraception use for the Zika virus is not licit and put an end to this controversy caused by his statements. …
I think I adequately explained this. The rape does not end with withdrawal of the man. The victim has a right to terminate the process in train (though not to choose to kill the offspring, if any). To do so is not the moral wrong of contraception, though it is that physical act. I may kill a person (intentionally) without being guilty of the moral wrong of murder.…how does the act of … using a chemical contraception … protect the woman from the evil (rape)? …
If you wish to discuss, I am happy to, but please start with finding error in how I have already explained the matter. And you will also need to explain how the US bishops have errored in the after the event treatment of rape victims they have approved.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Contraception will not prevent Zika. Contraception would allow people who fear Zika will cause birth defects in a child they might conceive to avoid the solution of abstinence.
D
dans0622
Guest
Does it matter that Pope Francis did not say the words “as in this one”? Such is the case in the Italian and Spanish versions of the answer.…
Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape. . . .
[A]voiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. … .
Dan
R
Rau
Guest
In the context of my post, entirely lost in you response, no, not really.Does it matter that Pope Francis did not say the words “as in this one”? Such is the case in the Italian and Spanish versions of the answer.
Dan
B
Bookcat
Guest
Jimmy Akin ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-speaks-on-hot-button-issues-9-things-to-know-and-share
“He appears to affirm Paul VI’s reported decision regarding nuns in the Belgian Congo, but he does not draw any application for the contemporary Zika virus.”
Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-speaks-on-hot-button-issues-9-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz40wPTBwUr
D
dans0622
Guest
I just wanted your opinion, that’s all.In the context of my post, entirely lost in you response, no, not really.
Dan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.