Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Blue_Horizon]

If the Pope was actually saying that using contraception to avoid the Zika virus was ok, then he would be contradicting well-established Church teaching. The Church has never taught there is a possible legitimate reason or excuse to contracept.

Ahem, Congo Nuns, rape victims after the act.

In fact, the Church has explicitly taught that contraception (the act) is inherently evil.

I believe it teach direct use of contraceptives as either an end or a means is inherently evil. I believe it is silent on whether the possible case of “indirectly choosing” is also evil,
See above post.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon, you say people are afraid of conceiving a “monstrosity.” That word should never be used; it’s outdated and prejudicial. It implies that the life of a special needs child is not of the same value as any other human life. No parent wants their child to be born less than healthy, of course, but there must never be a throwaway mentality.

3D we are not really talking about throwing away any life but avoiding a physical conception and what sort of human intentions these acts necessarily anchor. God is primarily interested in the latter.

The over-reliance on contraception as the only recourse can lead to resorting to abortion if

So it is said, I have never been convinced of this as an ethical argument. In fact there is a qualitative difference between these acts. A bad person will act as you say, but if Pope Francis is correct then a good person may well choose to avoid pregnancy and if this fails yet also choose to take the child to term rather than abort. I personally see no affinity between avoidance of zika pregnancy and abortion if it fails…

There is a way of preventing conception that requires sacrifice but is 100% effective; it’s called abstinence. .

I believe the importance of the unitive end of the marital act and “payment of the marital debt” is not to be trivialised. It is not an absolute of course, but it is too often trivialised by those too old to remember their youth or accept that libido is not the same for all.
As some have observed already, in Sth American culture significant numbers of Catholic wives in less educated/poorer families don’t have much say in the matter.

Of course Pope Francis may have boo-booed too!

 

[Rau]

Because HV obviously means “directly intending”.
It appears there may be unusual cases where the matter (object font) is such that it is able to anchor an indirect contraceptive intention. Just as killing can be justified by a situation of self-defence which renders the (presumably) “chosen” necessary killing indirect.

Killing is just as evil as use of a contraceptive is it not?
And as Pope Francis says, neither is an absolute evil…there may be proportionate goods that out weigh these evils.

To avoid a Zika baby, one needs to “directly intend” not to get pregnant while having sex during times when the virus is prevalent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

To avoid a Zika baby, one needs to “directly intend” not to get pregnant while having sex during times when the virus is prevalent.

Just as in self defence one sometimes needs to “directly intend” the killing of one’s attacker.

Except the Church doesn’t call it “directly intending” in these cases.

Its a form of intention of course, but its called “indirectly intending.”

Your interpretation of the principle of double effect in the other post (trying to prove these are different cases) fell over remember .

 

[Rau]

Ahem, Congo Nuns, rape victims after the act.

I believe it teach direct use of contraceptives as either an end or a means is inherently evil. I believe it is silent on whether the possible case of “indirectly choosing” is also evil,
See above post.

If a man wears a condom to prevent communicating a disease to his wife, I can understand how you might view that as “indirect contraception” since you’ve argued that in the past.

But if a woman fears Zika impacting a possible forthcoming pregnancy, and thus uses contraceptives so as not to become pregnant/risking Zika baby - do you agree that is certainly an act of contraception (and morally wrong)?

I believe the interpretation placed on Francis’ comments ( to the effect that contraception could be OK ) covers both the above scenarios.

 

[Rau]

Just as in self defence one sometimes needs to “directly intend” the killing of one’s attacker.

Except the Church doesn’t call it “directly intending” in these cases.

Its a form of intention of course, but its called “indirectly intending.”

Your interpretation of the principle of double effect in the other post (trying to prove these are different cases) fell over remember .

I corrected my description, remember?

Contraception is directly intended when one chooses it to avoid pregnancy. This is moral evil according to Church teaching. Choosing to kill the person (not innocent) about to kill you is not a moral evil.

 

[TCEL]

So it is said, I have never been convinced of this as an ethical argument. In fact there is a qualitative difference between these acts. A bad person will act as you say, but if Pope Francis is correct then a good person may well choose to avoid pregnancy and if this fails yet also choose to take the child to term rather than abort. I personally see no affinity between avoidance of zika pregnancy and abortion if it fails…

“So let it be written! So let it be done!”

St. JP2 is one who thought there is a connection between the two.

In the Bible, when a culture worships sex, child-sacrifice isn’t far behind. I can’t imagine a culture that would permit abortion before contraception. Sometimes, correlation is co-relation. There’s no denying that as contraceptive use went up, legalized abortion wasn’t far behind. In PP v. Casey (I believe that’s the case’s name), the privacy option extending to contraceptives was extended to abortion. The lawyer arguing this was arguing Planned Parenthood’s side. In my experience, it’s usually pro-life people insisting there is no connection, but pro-choicers often have no qualms about seeing it. After a while, to me, it starts to look fishy when we don’t take seriously the premises pro-choicers effectively use.

 

[zz912]

Ahem, Congo Nuns, rape victims after the act.

It didn’t actually happen. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Cite the dispensation or authorization given to the nuns with a link so I can investigate it.

I believe it teach direct use of contraceptives as either an end or a means is inherently evil. I believe it is silent on whether the possible case of “indirectly choosing” is also evil,
See above post.

I don’t understand what indirectly choosing means. There is a fundamental difference between (1) a nun, who never intends to have sexual relations, using a purely contraceptive device as protection from pregnancy from a rape, (2) and a married couple, using contraceptives to avoid pregnancy, no matter the reasons.

Using contraception intending to avoid pregnancy when having sexual relations is ALWAYS a grave sin. It is inherently evil.

 

[zz912]

Just as in self defence one sometimes needs to “directly intend” the killing of one’s attacker.

Except the Church doesn’t call it “directly intending” in these cases.

Its a form of intention of course, but its called “indirectly intending.”

Your interpretation of the principle of double effect in the other post (trying to prove these are different cases) fell over remember .

It’s called “indirectly intending” because that is what it is. If the attacker, the one committing evil, were not attacking, there would be no intent or action to defend yourself. You would have no need. You would go on about your day. But the direct actions of the attacker have forced the issue and you have the right to respond to repel the attacker.

If a man walks up and punches you, but then runs away, you don’t have the right to kill him. If a man walks up and punches you and intends to keep punching you, you have the right to repel him, up to and including killing him, depending on your ability to repel him (i.e. a large man could easily repel a small woman, but a small woman cannot easily repel a large man).

So no, even when you kill someone in self defense, you did not “directly intend” to kill them. You had no direct intention about him at all.

 

[Galnextdoor]

The encyclical Humanae Vitae is the Magisterial teaching; it’s been around for decades. The circumstances under which a Pope might, in effect, grant, say, a “dispensation” under limited circumstances would be something where the Pope would surely be doing a lot of praying to God to guide him before he issued said dispensation.

And such a serious move wouldn’t just be made in the context of an airplane interview. It would have to be formalized. Jesus said to Peter that what he made bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven. Jesus also said that for those to whom more is given, more is required. Meaning that the Pope and the Bishops should never take their teaching responsibilities lightly.

Sometimes interviewers frame questions in a way that leads to the interviewee, even if he be the Pope, to respond in a way that can easily be taken and distorted or at least exaggerated to fit the interviewer’s biased agenda.

It’s been frustrating for us as lay Catholics, yes, to have to await clarification of “off the cuff” remarks, but we should. I do hope and pray that the Holy Father will be very careful with this because of the underlying issues. Even the Pope can make mistakes now and then but let’s hope that in this whole matter he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing anything that would be contradictory to righteousness or cause for people being scandalized.

Blue Horizon, you say people are afraid of conceiving a “monstrosity.” That word should never be used; it’s outdated and prejudicial. It implies that the life of a special needs child is not of the same value as any other human life. No parent wants their child to be born less than healthy, of course, but there must never be a throwaway mentality. The over-reliance on contraception as the only recourse can lead to resorting to abortion if the contraception fails, due to these fears about “monstrosities.”

There is a way of preventing conception that requires sacrifice but is 100% effective; it’s called abstinence. It might not even have to be for long. Perhaps the zika outbreak will be short-lived; perhaps a vaccine will be developed as it was for German measles, another illness that can cause birth defects.

Here are a couple of articles that parse this whole thing in a solid Catholic context:

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-contraception-a-troubling-scenario

ncregister.com/daily-news/popes-comments-on-contraception-in-accord-with-magisterium-philosophers-say/

Let us pray for our Pope, love him, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide him; and let us pray for ourselves and our world.

Thank you for your links

 

[Galnextdoor]

I have read the entirety of this thread, from p. 1 to 24, and all the positions expounded on here can be summarized into four-

1. The Pope said that it is acceptable for a couple to use NFP, or even abstain, in light of the Zika virus. After all, he said “avoid pregnancy,” not “use contraception.”
2. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is wrong.
3. The Pope has allowed a very strict dispensation, allowing the use of contraception 1) only for cases of Zika, and 2) until a vaccine is developed. This is primarily Rau’s position.
4. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is developing doctrine. This is primarily TMC’s position.

Having said that, the first position is no longer feasible, given that the Pope’s spokesman has clarified what the Pope meant by “avoiding pregnancy”: (oral) contraceptives and condoms. This is what he meant, and it’s time to work from there.

The second position brings its own set of problems. If Pope Francis is simply wrong in this judgment, what if Pope Paul VI is wrong also? Both the condemnation of contraception AND the consultation of conscience are part of the Magisterium. The Sabbath was a law, and yet Jesus and his disciples broke it for just reasons.

The third position is reasonable. Yet, in my opinion, it does not take into account the “genie” that has been let out of the bottle. The context of the nuns in Congo is not a voluntary, (married) relationship, but a crime of rape. However, the Pope is allowing for oral contraceptives and condoms to be used within a marriage relationship. Why not simply say “abstain,” as several bishops have exhorted?

The fourth position, in my opinion, is what is going on. The encyclical Humanae Vitae was just that, an encyclical. It served its purpose in exposing the “contraceptive mindset,” which not only sees children as a burden but offers abortion as a valid solution to the pursuit of happiness. Pope Francis has often lauded this letter, but if you listen carefully, this has two dimensions. He has only done so in the context of governments not allowing outside agencies to force people to use contraception as a condition to receive aid. He has not praised this letter in the context of an individual couple’s formation of conscience.

After getting a good sampling of the lifestyle of families in the Church, he is ready to issue an apostolic exhortation. I believe he will touch this issue, however briefly. The basic Catholic doctrine about contraception will likely remain in paper. However, he will continue exhorting individual couples to study their circumstances, pray, discern, and form their conscience in light of their condition and times.

I am refuting your stance that birth control is okay. In Matthew 18: 15 it says that if a believer is doing something wrong you should take them aside in private and instruct them in the correct way. I would do that except I am afraid that your statements may lead some other poorly informed person astray.

Some people rationalize and interpret statements in a way that makes them feel more comfortable about their decisions. It appears that is what you have done here. You have completely ignored my statement that many of the contraception pills that are used today are abortifacients. They allow conception, but either slough off the uterine lining along with the embryo or they make the uterine lining too thin and slippery for the embryo to attach. These pills are no different than someone taking a morning after pill. Diaphragms are also loaded with hormones that produce the same result.

Your are assuming as facts, the same way Pope Francis assumed, the statement that Pope Paul VI approved the use of birth control for nuns in the Congo.

Several people on this thread have posted links to articles stating that Pope Paul VI never condoned this. Pope John XXIII was the pope when the Congo incident came about. The reasoning about why nuns might use a pill to prevent ovulation was put forth by three Catholic theologians, one of whom became a Cardinal later. Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. It clearly states what he believed and what the Church teaches about birth control.

Pope Pius XII wrote and spoke out against artificial birth control. Pope John XXIII wrote and spoke out against birth control. Pope St. John Paul II spoke and wrote against the use of birth control in all of his encyclicals pertaining to marriage, theology of the body, and family. Pope Benedict was clearly was against the evils of birth control. The Catholic Catechism, containing many of the most important teachings of the Church, is against birth control.

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-contraception-a-troubling-scenario

It appears you want to take an off the cuff, misinformed, and misguided statement that might imply that birth control can be used in some extreme situation made during a brief Papal interview on an airplane and say that is the new doctrine of the Church. That is EXTREME rationalization. Can’t you see how that is grasping at straws for justification of an action?

 

[Galnextdoor]

So TMC, (90% of) the Church, and I have lost our faith? Wow. I did not know that the Faith hinged on the very issue of birth control. Who knew!

Might does not make right. According to the Washington Times, of the 82% of people of faith in the world, only 32% are Christians. If a large percentage of people contending a belief is right, made it right, according to your logic, Christianity would be the wrong religion.

 

[kyrie03]

Pope Pius X already addressed these errors of Modernism being debated in the Church and pastorally tolerated in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: … "It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ.….
…the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church…
For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy…
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles.…
We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come the internal and textual critics. And since it is characteristic of the primary cause to communicate its virtue to causes which are secondary, it is quite clear that the criticism with which We are concerned is not any kind of criticism, but that which is rightly called agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anyone who adopts it and employs it makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic teaching…….
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people… They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy…
The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism…
What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?…" papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm - Read whole encyclical written in 1907. The poison of these errors has infiltrated. Is it any wonder we are all so prone to confusion?

 

[loumeland]

Your are assuming as facts, the same way Pope Francis assumed, the statement that Pope Paul VI approved the use of birth control for nuns in the Congo.

I do not understand why we think we are smarter, more informed, or even holier than the Pope himself! If Pope Francis said it happened and that the Vatican approved, it is so. This reminds me of people trying to explain away what he actually said, until Fr. Federico Lombardi said, “Yep, this is exactly what he said.”

As far as the previous popes affirming the current, official Church teaching- yes. But this is about to undergo a development. Just like the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the sinfulness of usury, the concept of religious liberty- all matters of faith and morals. We have to avoid the two-fold temptation of 1) pretending that doctrine does not develop, and 2) revising history.

Can we trust the Holy Spirit to work in this situation through our Pope?

 

[J_Peterson]

I believe the importance of the unitive end of the marital act and “payment of the marital debt” is not to be trivialised. It is not an absolute of course, but it is too often trivialised by those too old to remember their youth or accept that libido is not the same for all.
As some have observed already, in Sth American culture significant numbers of Catholic wives in less educated/poorer families don’t have much say in the matter.

Of course Pope Francis may have boo-booed too!

It is okay for some married couples to use contraception, specifically when one spouse isn’t Catholic. This is from CA’s Ask and Apologist. I’m sure some will call it relativism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=919702

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is okay for some married couples to use contraception, specifically when one spouse isn’t Catholic. This is from CA’s Ask and Apologist. I’m sure some will call it relativism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=919702

No you are confused. It is ok for a married couple to have relations. That’s what is permitted, not the contraception. Catholic or not.

 

[Rau]

It’s called “indirectly intending” because that is what it is. If the attacker, the one committing evil, were not attacking, there would be no intent or action to defend yourself. You would have no need. You would go on about your day. But the direct actions of the attacker have forced the issue and you have the right to respond to repel the attacker.

If a man walks up and punches you, but then runs away, you don’t have the right to kill him. If a man walks up and punches you and intends to keep punching you, you have the right to repel him, up to and including killing him, depending on your ability to repel him (i.e. a large man could easily repel a small woman, but a small woman cannot easily repel a large man).

So no, even when you kill someone in self defense, you did not “directly intend” to kill them. You had no direct intention about him at all.

It is permitted to make the conscious choice that, in order to save myself, I need to seek death for this aggrressor. It is required that such a course is reasons my necessary. The killing remains a physical evil, not the moral evil of murder.

 

[J_Peterson]

No you are confused. It is ok for a married couple to have relations. That’s what is permitted, not the contraception. Catholic or not.

That’s a distinction without a difference. Allowing relations where one party is using contraception is allowing contraception. Sex is important for more than procreation.

 

[Rau]

That’s a distinction without a difference. Allowing relations where one party is using contraception is allowing contraception. Sex is important for more than procreation.

Sin is personal. The party who tolerates the actions of the other while not wanting or endorsing them does not sin. The one who pursues the contraception (knowing it to be wrong) does sin. The one who tolerates it accepts the physical evil involved, but does so to avoid what is perceived to be a greater physical evil, being the consequences in the marriage relationship of refusing sexual relations.

 

[Peccavi]

I note with some cynicism that many Catholic’s are starting to sound like Martin Luther when talking about Pope Francis theology.