G
GEddie
Guest
And given that most average-sinners equate “conscience” with “personal feelings”, the square button has just been pushed on the confusion.
ICXC NIKA
- Status
ICXC NIKA
K
kyrie03
Guest
It is not just the CCC, but official Church teaching for past 2000 years that has always defind contraception as “intrinsically evil”. In Casti Connubii, Pope Pius IX responding to Protestants changiing their position on the “evil of contraception” proclaimed, "No reason, however grave, can make what is intrinsically contrary to nature to be in conformity with nature and morally right. And since the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose are acting against nature, and are doing something that is base and intrinsically immoral"…** “The Catholic Church … raises her voice as a sign of her divine mission, and through Our mouth proclaims anew. any use of marriage exercised in such a way that through human effort the act is deprived of its natural power to procreate human life violates the law of God and of nature, and those who commit such an action are stained with the guilt of grave sin”.**
Notice, the Pope called contraception “intrinsically evil” and a “grave sin”.
Let’s forget history, invent and repeat a story about nuns in Africa permitted to use contraception, ignore that chemical contraception is also abortafactant, imagine a greater good exists to prevent zika (not scientifically proven to cause birth defects) to allow women to use contraception, and LISTEN…to the deafening silence of Pope Francis.
Notice, the Pope called contraception “intrinsically evil” and a “grave sin”.
Let’s forget history, invent and repeat a story about nuns in Africa permitted to use contraception, ignore that chemical contraception is also abortafactant, imagine a greater good exists to prevent zika (not scientifically proven to cause birth defects) to allow women to use contraception, and LISTEN…to the deafening silence of Pope Francis.
C
Cider
Guest
Exactly.
The thing I can’t fathom is why they make these types of statements that are so easily misinterpreted. It just boggles my mind.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
I’ve always read and understood that the sexual revolution and all the evils that came later were started by accepting artificial contraception. Once that first step is taken in agreeing that the marriage act can be tampered with artificially, every other sexual evil follows. That sounds like a very cogent sexual theology to me, but now it seems things are changing.
A
Augustine
Guest
I disagree with you that this would be a case of double effect, because I agree with you that #1 is not the case when an abortifacent is used, in the case of the pill, or an immoral physical barrier is used, in the case of a condom.
Francis lost a golden opportunity to raise the perennial teaching of the Church that only natural methods of preventing pregnancy are morally licit.
Besides, much more common illnesses may also cause birth defects in contracted by pregnant women, like chickenpox, which infects many more adult women than Zika every year.
Pax Christi
D
dans0622
Guest
What I mean is that since it is clear that Pope Francis admires Paul VI and thinks he was right about the issue of artificial contraception (something he has said a few times, if I recall correctly), I think it makes sense to look at what Francis says from the perspective that he is not intending to go against what is stated in *Humanae vitae *or the Catechism.
Besides that, I tend to think statements that are the result of years of prayer, thought, collaboration and revision (such as Humanae vitae and the Catechism) are more “weighty” than off-the-cuff responses.
Dan
T
TMC
Guest
The “whole thing” is not predicated on the “fable” of the Congo nuns. First, Pope Francis made his own determination and only pointed to the Congo situation as an example, not as justification. He is Pope, after all, just like Paul VI. Second, I have yet to see proof that the Congo situation is a “fable.” I have seen bloggers deny that the Pope knows what he is talking about and demanding “proof.” I am willing to credit the Pope over bloggers until there is “proof” on the other side.
T
TMC
Guest
That never seemed like cogent sexual theology to me, but I agree that is seems like things are beginning to evolve.
R
Rau
Guest
Rule #2 is broken. A Zika baby is avoided by first preventing pregnancy.
R
Rau
Guest
No. His remarks in a plane deserve a level of thoughtfulness and consideration matching that applied by himself to the remarks. It was an impromptu response to a reporter.
R
Rau
Guest
The fable in question was that some nuns were authorised to take a drug with a contraceptive effect for fear of rape. I, and numerous theologians, contend that in the situation of the nuns, and in the context of rape, where there are no conjugal relations, only violence and violation, the moral wrong of “contraception” is impossible. The act is one of defending one’s body from abuse and misuse. The rape, the violation, does not cease at the moment the perpetrator withdraws. This position is also that held by the US bishops who have authorised Catholic hospitals to take measures to assist a rape victim to avoid pregnancy, subject always to fully respecting any new life.
Contraception is an act in the moral sphere - and the moral character of human acts are often not able to be recognised by purely physical signs.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Papal clarity is needed here IMO.
I think people tend to confuse “intrinsic evil” with "“mortal sin”. They are not the same thing.
Someone who is starving might commit theft from a grocery store. The action of stealing is intrinsically evil. There is no getting around that. However, the culpability of the action of stealing depends on the situation.
It might be the same thing here, but I, like others, are not sure.
I think people tend to confuse “intrinsic evil” with "“mortal sin”. They are not the same thing.
Someone who is starving might commit theft from a grocery store. The action of stealing is intrinsically evil. There is no getting around that. However, the culpability of the action of stealing depends on the situation.
It might be the same thing here, but I, like others, are not sure.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
Sometimes we speak of something and the rebuttal is “That’s consequentialism”; some opine that this seems to be like “consequentialism”.
R
Rau
Guest
To sat that it is better to do this wrong act, rather than another good act (or no act) because the resulting state of affairs seem to be a superior one - is indeed consequentialism or proportionalism. It is utterly rejected by Catholic moral theology. See Veritatis Splendor. (75).Sometimes we speak of something and the rebuttal is “That’s consequentialism”; some opine that this seems to be like “consequentialism”.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html
Sometimes, what might look like Consequentialism is not. It is simply that the contemplated act is NOT the moral ill first thought, but a different act entirely. Much as the treatment afforded to rape victims in Catholic hospitals is not contraception, but bears a physical resemblance.
A
Augustine
Guest
Indeed, there is not good effect either, for the killing of a fertilized human egg by the chemicals in the pill is the killing of a human being.
If there’s any lesser evil it is to not contracept and to receive any child in whatever state of health. As a matter of fact, this is the greater good!
Pax Christi
F
fred_conty
Guest
In the case of the example of stealing food, the starving person has more right to the food than the person who has it. This right to life is higher than ownership of food. God owns all food and all life. So it is not intrinsically evil to take what is absolutely necessary to sustain life, but rather it is a responsibility to do so.
A
ArielRussu
Guest
You do realize the areas heavily affected by the Zika virus are areas with poor medical care, if any at all, right? These people do not have access to the medical care we take advantage of in a 1st world country. It’s actually a huge disservice to the affected child to be to born to parents unable too properly care for them. Love can only go so far. Not to mention, an entire population of people could exist from this that are completely dependent on others for there very survival, which inevitably puts a strain on communities and families now obligated to care for them there entire life. One or two sure but potentially tens or a hundred or more? That’s a different story. And that is the case these people are up against, sadly.
Yes, life is good but there are many factors in play as a whole in this situation that have to be considered, that I don’t think you are comprehending. This is not a situation that a “throw all caution to the wind and see what happens” decision should be made, God won’t do everything, people do have to take actions as well, which pope Francis sees, he is looked at the whole picture, not just settling for one narrow minded view.
R
Rau
Guest
Did Pope St John-Paul 2 then fail to consider the whole picture when he repeated long held Catholic tradition that one may not do moral evil for a good cause?
G
GEddie
Guest
Presumably this virus has always existed? Why then, is our now greater knowledge of it a justification for rewriting moral values?
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
A
ArielRussu
Guest
Maybe yes, maybe no. Everything’s is not black and white. There are the hard cases, like the Zika virus which has the potential, if not kept under control, to become a major problem/epidemic in the areas affected. I mean these poor people are born with severe cognitive and physical problems caused by underdeveloped brains that lead them to need someone to care for them 24/7 for the rest of there life! I think the question is more of, do you think it’s ok for people to procreate irresponsibly and cause a health crisis there countries medical and financial funds are ill prepared to deal with?
- Status