Philippine Bishops Back Pope's Remarks on Zika Contraception

[Rau]

Presumably this virus has always existed? Why then, is our now greater knowledge of it a justification for rewriting moral values?

ICXC NIKA

It may not have existed in the past, or never have been encountered. The better observation is that other medical risks, of equal severity, have always existed.

 

[Rau]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Everything’s is not black and white.

Sure - the question is - is “anything” black and white? Are fundamental Catholic moral tenets black and white?

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?

That’s an entirely different question. It is not OK to act irresponsibly.

 

[Phemie]

This is actually classic Catholic moral theology being applied…the rule of “double effect”. It is always wrong to do evil so that good may follow.

However, an action would be permitted, even if one of the outcomes is evil (barrier to the life giving act) under the rule of double effect if the following 4 conditions are met:

1. The action in itself must be good, or at least indifferent
2. The good effect must result immediately and directly form the action placed, not from the evil effect.
3. Only the good effect must be intended
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason for placing the act.

I personally believe rule #1 is broken in the case of contraception/Zika. However, I’m not a moral theologian and would be interested if someone more educated than me could explain how rule #1 is satisfied and therefore the act is moral.

#3 is also broken since the effect intended is the frustration of the natural result of intercourse: pregnancy.

Taking ABC to correct a specific disorder is OK if the intent is to correct the disorder and the side effect is that pregnancy will not occur. In this case the direct intent would be to prevent pregnancy which is intrinsically evil.

 

[Phemie]

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?

Well, there is a way to prevent pregnancy that is cheap, doesn’t violate natural law, doesn’t involve chemicals and doesn’t have the potential to destroy life that has already been created. That’s right, abstinence.

 

[asd72]

Once more, the Pope has shown his sensitivity to complex human situations, allowed the world see the merciful face of the Church – the sacrament of a Merciful Lord – as he has remained the faithful steward of the message of the Gospel.

I have to disagree.

There are many others, apart from those with the zika virus, that must avoid pregnancy for a serious medical reason. It is not a new situation. The Church has never taught that they may resort to artificial contraception for this reason.

Was the Church before now teaching moral truth? Was the Church before now insensitive and unmerciful?

 

[ArielRussu]

Sure - the question is - is “anything” black and white?

No, life is full of gray areas where a “one-size fits all” approach does not work, for way A may work for some people but not all, instead way B, C, D, etc… will work.

Are fundamental Catholic moral tenets black and white?

Yes, there is a “our way or the highway” and “one-size fits all” approach that is ill equipped to deal with tough issues.

That’s an entirely different question.

No, its not a different question. Everything in life has a cause and effect and if a large group of handicapped individuals (tens or hundreds) are born to an area without the appropriate medical care, or even the money to pay for appropriate care (the cause), the result aka (the effect) will either be, or a mix of, abuse of these individuals and lack of funding and money to care for them. I mean, these countries could just build institutions and throw all the affected people in it, then leave the institutions to run on donations or a very low income from the government, which still leads to abuse of these individuals. Don’t believe me? Countries in Europe, Asia, and Middle East do this to there handicapped. Why not South America too?

 

[Rau]

No, life is full of gray areas where a “one-size fits all” approach does not work, for way A may work for some people but not all, instead way B, C, D, etc… will work…

Yes, there is a “our way or the highway” and “one-size fits all” approach that is ill equipped to deal with tough issues…

No, its not a different question. Everything in life has a cause and effect and…

Your position, in summary, is that “ends can justify means”. Thus, you reject perhaps the most fundamental principle of Catholic Moral Theology - that some acts are intrinsically evil and no intention or circumstances can justify committing that act. Or alternatively, you simply reject the teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil. Which one is it?

Feel free to hold either of those views, but be sure not to present it as Catholic.

 

[ArielRussu]

Your position, in summary, is that “ends can justify means”. Thus, you reject perhaps the most fundamental principle of Catholic Moral Theology - that some acts are intrinsically evil and no intention or circumstances can justify committing that act. Or alternatively, you simply reject the teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil. Which one is it?

Feel free to hold either of those views, but be sure not to present it as Catholic.

I’m not presenting it as Catholic, as like I said I find the Catholic view of sexuality a “our way or the highway” and very “black and white”, as this is one of those tough cases I was referring too that the church is not prepared too deal with, as it really depends on the situation about whether the “end justifies the means”.

For instance, (although it is not related to Zika) is it intrinsically evil for a woman who is miscarrying to have a fetus, under 22- 20 weeks (or which ever the age of being able to survive outside the womb is) aborted so she can live, as the fetus would die anyway and if left inside her until the baby no longer had a heartbeat, both individuals (mother and child) would inevitably die? (This has happened! Catholic hospitals, especially in Ireland, are known for doing this. There have also been cases in America as well, though the women whose stories were told fortunately survived. However, one woman did spent 10 days in the ICU and her doctor, who performed the abortion against the hospitals wishes because they couldn’t stand to watch the woman die on there watch, (she was turning gray) due to the hospitals limiting beliefs, left because they were upset with the hospitals practice of patient care).

Ireland case: gawker.com/5960436/woman-in-ireland-dies-after-being-denied-abortion-was-told-this-is-a-catholic-country

American case:ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/
"Some doctors have decided to take matters into their own hands. In the following case, the refusal of the hospital ethics committee to approve uterine evacuation not only caused significant harm to the patient but compelled a perinatologist, Dr S, now practicing in a nonsectarian academic medical center, to violate protocol and resign from his position in an urban northeastern Catholic-owned hospital.

(I’ll never forget this; it was awful—I had one of my partners accept this patient at 19 weeks. The pregnancy was in the vagina. It was over… . And so he takes this patient and transferred her to [our] tertiary medical center, which I was just livid about, and, you know, “we’re going to save the pregnancy.” So of course, I’m on call when she gets septic, and she’s septic to the point that I’m pushing pressors on labor and delivery trying to keep her blood pressure up, and I have her on a cooling blanket because she’s 106 degrees. And I needed to get everything out. And so I put the ultrasound machine on and there was still a heartbeat, and [the ethics committee] wouldn’t let me because there was still a heartbeat. This woman is dying before our eyes. I went in to examine her, and I was able to find the umbilical cord through the membranes and just snapped the umbilical cord and so that I could put the ultrasound—“Oh look. No heartbeat. Let’s go.” She was so sick she was in the [intensive care unit] for about 10 days and very nearly died… . She was in DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulopathy]… . Her bleeding was so bad that the sclera, the white of her eyes, were red, filled with blood… . And I said, “I just can’t do this. I can’t put myself behind this. This is not worth it to me.” That’s why I left)"

NOTE: I am NOT referring to people who just don’t want a baby so they consider abortion easier.

 

[Rau]

is it intrinsically evil for a woman who is miscarrying to have a fetus, under 22- 20 weeks (or which ever the age of being able to survive outside the womb is) aborted so she can live…

Murdering the child (if that’s what the above entails) is always wrong. But necessary medical attention to save the woman that have a deleterious side-effect on the baby are not wrong.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

How does apostasy look like? Like this.

Pax Christi

The prohibition against the use of artificial birth control, isn’t dogma.

So, apostasy would be incorrect.

Jim

 

[Wandile]

The prohibition against the use of artificial birth control, isn’t dogma.

So, apostasy would be incorrect.

Jim

Heresy is still correct though

 

[twf]

The prohibition against the use of artificial birth control, isn’t dogma.

So, apostasy would be incorrect.

Jim

It isn’t dogma, this is true. Yet it is still binding as the perennial teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as most recently clarified by Pope Bl. Paul VI.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It isn’t dogma, this is true. Yet it is still binding as the perennial teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as most recently clarified by Pope Bl. Paul VI.

Being it isn’t dogma, it can change.

Dogma can not change.

Jim

 

[Rau]

Being it isn’t dogma, it can change.

Dogma can not change.

Jim

The teaching on contraception has not been “dogmatised” but rather taught consistently under the ordinary magisterium. Is this an insufficient condition for the teaching to be regarded as irreformable? Do you contend therefore that it can be changed?

 

[twf]

Being it isn’t dogma, it can change.

Dogma can not change.

Jim

It would be a pretty difficult argument to make considering how consistent the Ordinary Magisterium has been on this front. If something is demonstrated to be the consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium it is infallible…of course, if required, defining dogma is what ultimately clarifies whether a particular doctrine was infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

I don’t think I am qualified to express an opinion on this particular situation…but I have to wonder whether using contraceptive to protect one’s spouse from disease is, when it comes down to it, morally equivalent to using contraception for the sake of simply avoiding conception. There is already some flexibility when it comes to pastoral practice. If my Protestant wife insists on contracepting and takes measures into her own hands, I do not sin if I have relations with her… this is the Church’s current position. I doubt that would have been the case a century ago.