Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[TMC]

When the dust settles there will be dire ramifications of the pope’s words “presser” or not. Not the least of which will be the nfp world and the disabled world. This idea of something so bad that abc can be dicerned because of a potential disabled human life will shatter many “Catholic” ideas about things like Down syndrome and the like will suffer. As will the theology behind quality of life discussions,
Perhaps one reason I feel so disheartened by it is because if you take the popes words and apply it to my own marriage it is obviously contrasting everything we have known about moral theology. It’s bad enough when priests in the confessional have told you to use ABC but when the pope says it… Devastating.

This is far from over. Apologists and catechists will be dealing with this for decades.

Why is it that the enemy seems to be one step ahead of our church right now? Catholic countries going gay marriage, Zika offering a platform for a battle that was already defeating the church, all of this coming before after and during the synod on the family,

This pope has the ability to speak clearly about issues. He minces no words when chastising the rich rule followers, where is that passion and clarity where we need it the most? The family.

I think that the reality is that we are seeing a doctrine evolve.

I don’t see any dire ramifications. As I said in an earlier post, this is not even getting top of page attention in Catholic news outlets. I understand your point about the NFP community (although I am not sure I agree), but I don’t see any impact on the disabled community.

This is not an issue that can or will defeat the Church. The Church has gone through much more radical evolutions in doctrine, and come out the better for it.

 

[kevin1313]

Contraceptive use - taking a drug with a contraceptive effect - need not be contrary to doctrine. The “contraceptive” effect of a drug is constantly confused with the moral wrong of contraception. However, taking the drug for fear of “Zika baby” is in the latter category.

Are you aware of any contraceptive that has no side effect of expelling a fertilized egg? www…onemoresoul.com gives overview of birth control.** The Pill consists of one or more types of artificial hormones called estrogens and progestins. It works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm transport and by changing the lining of the inside of a woman’s uterus (called the endometrium) so that implantation of a newly conceived embryo is unlikely.**. I’m just curious if you in fact do know, I haven’t read all of the package inserts to trust your belief that such a contraception actually exists.

 

[10gr8kids]

When the dust settles there will be dire ramifications of the pope’s words “presser” or not. Not the least of which will be the nfp world and the disabled world. This idea of something so bad that abc can be dicerned because of a potential disabled human life will shatter many “Catholic” ideas about things like Down syndrome and the like will suffer. As will the theology behind quality of life discussions,
Perhaps one reason I feel so disheartened by it is because if you take the popes words and apply it to my own marriage it is obviously contrasting everything we have known about moral theology. It’s bad enough when priests in the confessional have told you to use ABC but when the pope says it… Devastating.

This is far from over. Apologists and catechists will be dealing with this for decades.

Why is it that the enemy seems to be one step ahead of our church right now? Catholic countries going gay marriage, Zika offering a platform for a battle that was already defeating the church, all of this coming before after and during the synod on the family,

This pope has the ability to speak clearly about issues. He minces no words when chastising the rich rule followers, where is that passion and clarity where we need it the most? The family.

Exactly!!

 

[10gr8kids]

I think that the reality is that we are seeing a doctrine evolve.

I don’t see any dire ramifications. As I said in an earlier post, this is not even getting top of page attention in Catholic news outlets. I understand your point about the NFP community (although I am not sure I agree), but I don’t see any impact on the disabled community.

This is not an issue that can or will defeat the Church. The Church has gone through much more radical evolutions in doctrine, and come out the better for it.

I don’t believe the issue can defeat the Church, but it can sure be used by the devil to defeat souls.

I’m trying to think of a doctrine that was defined as an absolute evil and then walked back.

To me this is like saying when the stakes are high for following the Truth, turn your back on it. How would that look when people are asked to die for the faith. Christians will be put to death…Jesus who?

 

[TCEL]

I think that the reality is that we are seeing a doctrine evolve.

I don’t see any dire ramifications. As I said in an earlier post, this is not even getting top of page attention in Catholic news outlets. I understand your point about the NFP community (although I am not sure I agree), but I don’t see any impact on the disabled community.

This is not an issue that can or will defeat the Church. The Church has gone through much more radical evolutions in doctrine, and come out the better for it.

Do you think it will evolve to the point where married couples may use it without committing mortal sin? Initially, the Anglicans first allowed it only in very rare circumstances and only between the married. This goes against two thousand years of Christian moral teaching, unless I’m committing an egregious oversight.

What about all the Catholic doctors who follow Church teaching? HHS Mandate? Promoters of the family at the UN? People who lobby for contraception will use this to undermine the relevancy and credibility of the NFP community.

What Pope Francis said, in this case, wasn’t authoritatively binding. I’m not saying there would be no attempts to make it so, but that we shouldn’t elevate this to the top level of authoritative proclamation.

 

[TMC]

I don’t believe the issue can defeat the Church, but it can sure be used by the devil to defeat souls.

I’m trying to think of a doctrine that was defined as an absolute evil and then walked back.

To me this is like saying when the stakes are high for following the Truth, turn your back on it. How would that look when people are asked to die for the faith. Christians will be put to death…Jesus who?

There are a few doctrines that experienced similar evolution. Usury - lending money at interest was once considered always evil, not it is recognized that only exploitive lending is sinful. EENS - it was once taught that formal membership in the Church is required for salvation, that teaching has evolved considerably.

I think that the stakes are always high for Truth. Sometimes what is required is the courage to recognize that the doctrines need to evolve to better reflect Truth.

 

[TMC]

Do you think it will evolve to the point where married couples may use it without committing mortal sin? Initially, the Anglicans first allowed it only in very rare circumstances and only between the married. This goes against two thousand years of Christian moral teaching, unless I’m committing an egregious oversight.

What about all the Catholic doctors who follow Church teaching? HHS Mandate? Promoters of the family at the UN? People who lobby for contraception will use this to undermine the relevancy and credibility of the NFP community.

What Pope Francis said, in this case, wasn’t authoritatively binding. I’m not saying there would be no attempts to make it so, but that we shouldn’t elevate this to the top level of authoritative proclamation.

I don’t know where this ends, and I could be wrong, but I think a shift is underway. Its not a major shift, in my opinion, at least not yet. The Pope is simply pointing out that the teaching on contraception can be subject to the dual effect doctrine. That does seem to be a shift, however, as Humanae Vitae did not really leave room for dual effect.

 

[clem456]

There are a few doctrines that experienced similar evolution. Usury - lending money at interest was once considered always evil, not it is recognized that only exploitive lending is sinful. EENS - it was once taught that formal membership in the Church is required for salvation, that teaching has evolved considerably.

Understanding is elastic, obviously, as we are human beings and we see imperfectly.
When you were a child, did you know things imperfectly, then come to more complete understanding as you matured?
Not much different here.

EENS for example, was never in error. It was simply incomplete in it’s fullness of understanding and expression. Still today as yesterday, and as tomorrow, everyone saved is part of the Catholic Church.

 

[TCEL]

I don’t know where this ends, and I could be wrong, but I think a shift is underway. Its not a major shift, in my opinion, at least not yet. The Pope is simply pointing out that the teaching on contraception can be subject to the dual effect doctrine. That does seem to be a shift, however, as Humanae Vitae did not really leave room for dual effect.

That makes little sense to me when there is already a Church approved (and natural) way of avoiding pregnancy. It’s a false dilemma to say, “pregnancy or contraception.” Isn’t it? All the people who say contraception equates to NFP are then correct. Heck, one method is as good as the other, except with one you get to have sex all on your own terms.

 

[EmeraldOak]

I am tired of pretending that as a Catholic I have to agree with everything Pope Francis (or any pope) says, does, or believes that is outside of official teaching. I have accepted that I disagree with Pope Francis on this one. I will not defend, justify, or make excuses anymore as to why he said what he did.

I was ridiculed by a family member shortly after the birth of my third child for defending the Church’s position against ABC. Well don’t you know I got a call yesterday afternoon from this individual wanting to inform me what the pope had said about the nuns and the zika virus. I never in a million years thought I would have to try to explain that a pope’s words are not in accordance with existing teaching. It made me sound crazy. And I am left disheartened and bewildered by all of this.

My conscience in this area was formed by Humane Vitae and I am at full liberty to continue living my life according to those teachings and so that is what I will do. But I do fear for the wives and husbands who will use ABC because of this and for the Church as a whole, because this sends a very muddy message. It is the cracking open of a door I never thought would have been opened by the pope himself. Help us Lord.

 

[kevin1313]

Is there any chemical contraception that is known to never also be an abortafactant?

Is contraception already infallibly defined to be intrinsically evil? (Catholic Answers tract on birth control says it is)

 

[TMC]

Understanding is elastic, obviously, as we are human beings and we see imperfectly.
When you were a child, did you know things imperfectly, then come to more complete understanding as you matured?
Not much different here.

EENS for example, was never in error. It was simply incomplete in it’s fullness of understanding and expression. Still today as yesterday, and as tomorrow, everyone saved is part of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is what the Church says about all doctrinal developments. That is likely what the Church will say about future doctrinal developments, too.

 

[TMC]

That makes little sense to me when there is already a Church approved (and natural) way of avoiding pregnancy. It’s a false dilemma to say, “pregnancy or contraception.” Isn’t it? All the people who say contraception equates to NFP are then correct. Heck, one method is as good as the other, except with one you get to have sex all on your own terms.

I understand that there are some who feel as you do. I respect that understanding, while pointing out that most disagree with it.

 

[EmeraldOak]

Is there any chemical contraception that is known to never also be an abortafactant?

I asked my OB/GYN if there was a birth control pill that did not contain abortifacient properties to it and I was told no, that they all contain such properties. He told me notice they are called birth control pills and not pregnancy control pills. It was an ah ha moment for me. Barrier methods would be pregnancy control. Now this was about 5 years ago, so I do allow for new pills to have come along since I had this conversation that I am not aware of.

 

[TCEL]

I understand that there are some who feel as you do. I respect that understanding, while pointing out that most disagree with it.

Lol. You don’t have to remind me that most disagree with it. What’s important is whether it’s true and whether the Church teaches it, not how I feel about it. Contraception would surely be easier to feel good about, at face value.

 

[Tablefor9]

I asked my OB/GYN if there was a birth control pill that did not contain abortifacient properties to it and I was told no, that they all contain such properties. He told me notice they are called birth control pills and not pregnancy control pills. It was an ah ha moment for me. Barrier methods would be pregnancy control. Now this was about 5 years ago, so I do allow for new pills to have come along since I had this conversation that I am not aware of.

Life begins at conception. Hormonal birth control and non-hormonal IUDs do not prevent conception, in every instance, nor always implantation. Babies are born to moms who conceived with IUDs or taking ABC every day. Fear of birthing and caring for a disabled child does not make using these products okay.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I accept your apology and ask you to reflect on why categorising 1000 years of church history as being a ‘cult of legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonabiity’ is not so polite or balanced.

I have no desire to attack you. I don’t believe i have despite your strong protestations to the contrary. I have only objected to your words which could easily be interpreted not as observations but as showing contempt for 1000 years of clergy, especially since you have not retracted your comment.

You quite clearly stated that the church for a thousand years was a ‘cult of legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonability’. I ask you for a third time, without any malice, ill will or aggressive tone - do you retract those remarks?

If someone had said that Francis was turning the church into a cult of whatever kind, be it legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonability or something else then you could make the case that this was showing contempt for Francis. If you describe the church and its popes for the last 1000 years in the same way, you cannot escape similar scrutiny. I hope we can get past this matter and as stated above i do accept your apology.

Thank you and God bless.

Abucs I wasn’t apologising for the expression ‘cult of legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonability’ as I didn’t say that. I am afraid that is your distortion of what you think I said.

If you believe “cult of impersonality” is pejorative then your “cult of personality” applied to Pope Francis must also be just as pejorative.
In fact I believe neither are, in themselves, pejorative.

“Impersonality” is not by itself an insult. Legal systems and judges are meant to be impersonal (Oxford: “not influenced by feeling”).

As I said previously I believe we need to restore balance. Pope Francis is displaying a more personable Pastoral side to impersonal justice that is influenced by compassion and explicit feeling for those innocents known to be disadvantaged by this impersonal justice.

Sure, a cult of personality often attaches to such saintly leaders - we don’t get them very often. I am sure Pope Francis is above that, just as Jesus was above the adulation he received on riding into Jerusalem.

We all know what is coming, not least Pope Francis.
That is the nature of things and how it must be.

 

[Rau]

I think that the reality is that we are seeing a doctrine evolve.

I don’t see any dire ramifications. As I said in an earlier post, this is not even getting top of page attention in Catholic news outlets. I understand your point about the NFP community (although I am not sure I agree), but I don’t see any impact on the disabled community.

This is not an issue that can or will defeat the Church. The Church has gone through much more radical evolutions in doctrine, and come out the better for it.

Evolution, and a repudiation of existing doctrine, are quite different.

 

[Rau]

Are you aware of any contraceptive that has no side effect of expelling a fertilized egg? www…onemoresoul.com gives overview of birth control.** The Pill consists of one or more types of artificial hormones called estrogens and progestins. It works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm transport and by changing the lining of the inside of a woman’s uterus (called the endometrium) so that implantation of a newly conceived embryo is unlikely.**. I’m just curious if you in fact do know, I haven’t read all of the package inserts to trust your belief that such a contraception actually exists.

I spoke of a contraceptive effect, not an abortive effect. I make no reference to any specific drug. You drift far from the theological point I was making.

 

[kyrie03]

I spoke of a contraceptive effect, not an abortive effect. I make no reference to any specific drug. You drift far from the theological point I was making.

Theologically speaking, when did the Church start to teach that contraception, even for non-abortive reasons, is licit? Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, all of the Church Fathers, and even Protestant teaching until 1920 always maintained that contraception is illicit. Sure, certain theologians, churchmen, and even USCC must not have taken the Oath Against Modernism and dissented from infallibly defined doctrine.

Read at thecatholicthing.org/2015/03/21/contraception-conscience-and-church-authority/. Until 1930, all Christendom agreed that contraception was an intrinsically disordered act –in other words, a sin. Martin Luther was as clear on this point as Saint Thomas Aquinas. Laws against the sale of contraceptives were enforced in Catholic and Protestant countries. We may also include the Orthodox world…In 1930, the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops famously broke from Christian teaching when it approved “methods of conception control” other than abstinence for married couples burdened by the prospect of a baby. This was odd, because the previous Lambeth Conference of 1920 had uttered “an emphatic warning” that contraception was morally illicit. One might asked how human nature had changed in ten years…Pope Pius XI was upset enough about the Anglican shift to respond with the encyclical Casti Connubii, which confirmed the perennial teaching about contraception. He also reminded people that it was precisely because of the human tendency to rationalize private inclination that Christ had established a teaching Church. It is the Church, and not private judgment, that has been entrusted with revelation regarding faith and morals. Especially in the area of sexuality, where it is easy to make mistakes, a couple would, for their own good, want to consult the moral doctrine of the Church…The issue lay dormant among Catholics until the sexual revolution. When Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (1968) confirmed the teaching on contraception, dissenting theologians opted for the self-defeating approach of the Anglicans. They slapped a “conscience clause” on the teaching. Hans Küng told an interviewer that Catholics should take the document seriously, but added that if a couple decided the teaching interfered with their pursuit of happiness, they should “follow their conscience.”