Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dailey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SamDash said:
I think many people are not particularly good at speaking or communicating clearly.
.
Click to expand...
He’s the Pope. Not some parish priest in some unknown rural parish. Communicating clearly is part of the job, even for the parish priest
 
mafh said:
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no moral objection to the birth control pills themselves, if they are taken by a celibate woman? Or even if you are married and taking the pills for a non-contraceptive purpose (as prescribed to treat certain gynecological or endrocine problems for instance), then they are ok, even if though there is a contraceptive side effect? So, it is the purpose for taking the pills, and not the pills themselves that is either licit or illicit?
Click to expand...
\

Birth Control pills are allowed for medical purposes. Most medicine carries grave side effects but the bad side effects are better than the disease.

Even in cases of pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and other things, there are medical procedures that can be done. It is about intent and it is important to contact catholic bioethics. To me it is complicated and the water gets very muddy.
 
SamDash said:
I think many people are not particularly good at speaking or communicating clearly.

As for Trump, I suspect the Pope barely has any idea who he is, and is responding to caricatures of Trump he has been fed in Mexico and by the other leftists who seem to have his ear.
Click to expand...
The pope seem quite adept as Cardinal going head to head with the president of Argentina.
 
Biggie said:
This does not relate at all to what the Pope opined today by drawing an implied comparison between an obscure instance where contraceptives were permitted a group of chaste nuns facing the likelihood of rape - and the peoples of nations possibly exposed to a remote risk of conceiving a child with a birth defect. For that he need not have consulted a list of X’s and Y’s but applied traditional Catholic morality, just as it has been applied to the question of condoms and AIDS in Africa or to persons with the possibility or even likelihood of bearing children with birth defects.
Click to expand...
Yes. In response to the reporter’s question I wish he would have said that women in Brazil are free to use NFP the same as all Catholic women everywhere are. And left it at that.
 
Vouthon said:
That is a most uncharitable statement. I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard of a practising Catholic directing such a remark towards a reigning Pontiff in my entire life. 😦

You are actually calling the Holy Father a “buffoonish character”? Expressing doubts and concerns in a respectful manner is legitimate but using such profane language about the Pope…:eek:
Click to expand...
Code: 
" Buffoonish " is how many of the " brave hearts"  would look like if they had to come over to struggle with mosquitoes and Zika.
You bet many would wear helemets…or why not astronaut suits to go to work ,or sleep ! or just freak out and refuse.to come.but when it comes to telling others what to do or say ,…oh…that is another story…
I am tempted to invite many posters to keep talking about the Holy Father while figuring out how to live without mosquito bites when one is…surrounded by mosquitoes.
So courageous to call the pope buffoonish....:rolleyes:
 
Weeorphan said:
Pope Francis has been a disturbing figure some three years now, speaking without the careful circumspection of former Popes John Paul and Benedict. His recent comment on using artificial birth control to prevent Zika abnormalities is typical of his offhanded manner. To say it is not a papal decree doesn’t mitigate the heavy official effect (good and bad) on Catholics. We hear only careless, mixed messages from him, and that’s a tragedy…

Personally, I perceive Pope Francis is not sophisticated enough for the important role he plays. He seems to me like a buffoonish character in an overlong, slapstick French farce.

He enjoys popular appeal for a variety of reasons But that may not be good…

The problem, as I see it, his appeal to popularity is like a typical politician who says what the majority of lukewarm Catholics and hedonists want to hear. Unlike Pope Benedict who thought it best to prune the Church so it bear better fruit, Pope Francis has the opposite intent…to repopulate the empty pews at any cost, even if it bruises the unsullied faithful.
He seems to be democratizing the Church, not unlike the Lutherans and Anglicans have.

This leaves the remnant minority of true, practicing Catholics quite disturbed by his flippant statements. Let’s have faith the Holy Spirit rectifies this conflicted situation post haste.
Click to expand...
Perhaps i share many of your concerns but i am not at liberty to speak about these because CA seems to view genuine concerns and criticisms of clergy as contempt and abuse.

On one point though where i believe free speech is still (for the moment) allowed here - surely it is obvious that the democratising and liberalising of the Anglican church is exactly what is sowing division and destruction there and that such an outdated liberal view will not strengthen our church in any way?
 
AIDS = JPII says no contraceptives

AIDS = BXVI says no contraceptives

ZIKA = PF says “sure”

Wow.
 
EmeraldOak said:
Yes. In response to the reporter’s question I wish he would have said that women in Brazil are free to use NFP the same as all Catholic women everywhere are. And left it at that.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that many married women can’t practice either abstinence or NFP because their husbands wouldn’t put up with it. The Pope wasn’t born yesterday, and he is very aware of what goes on.

These days, we have moral puzzles that didn’t exist a few decades ago. People are now on all kinds of medications that can damage unborn children, and there are new diseases. All of this requires new thinking about what is moral and what isn’t.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Perhaps he knows exactly what he is saying. It isn’t like this is the first time on an airplane with reporters. It isn’t like he had no idea about the Zika situation.
Maybe, just maybe this pope means what he says.
Click to expand...
He certainly does. And my support of him grows day by day.
 
on_the_hill said:
He certainly does. And my support of him grows day by day.
Click to expand...
And mine wanes. But at least we can agree not to cast him as some old bumbling idiot who needs to be told what he can and can’t say and needs a handler. He is politically savy and educated. He demonstrated amazing abilities at that before he was elected.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
And mine wanes. But at least we can agree not to cast him as some old bumbling idiot who needs to be told what he can and can’t say and needs a handler. He is politically savy and educated. He demonstrated amazing abilities at that before he was elected.
Click to expand...
Yep. He wouldn’t have survived the Argentine regimes without understanding politics and people.
 
on_the_hill said:
Yep. He wouldn’t have survived the Argentine regimes without understanding politics and people.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure “regimes” are accurate but he clashed with the president as Cardinal.
A blast from the past
m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/13/pope-francis-i-first-catholic-pontiff-americas/?page=all
Interestingly he took a stand against contraception and gay marraige. He lost.
And apparently now has decided to do battle No more.
It seems to follow him.
First Argentina, then Ireland with gay marriage, then the US with gay marriage and the contraceptive mandate in Obama care. Underneath the synod on the “family” and now Zika and the little sisters of the poor almost certainly losing after Scalia and now thier own pontiff influencing the case.
But he has strong words for those he calls rich, or who wish to secure boarders. He has entered the climate debate as well. But yet it seems some think he is inept, tricked and misrepresented. He may be a more politically involved pope than Saint John Paul the second by the time it is all said and done. And JP 2 won a battle against communism!
 
Listener said:
I think the problem is that many married women can’t practice either abstinence or NFP because their husbands wouldn’t put up with it. The Pope wasn’t born yesterday, and he is very aware of what goes on.

These days, we have moral puzzles that didn’t exist a few decades ago. People are now on all kinds of medications that can damage unborn children, and there are new diseases. All of this requires new thinking about what is moral and what isn’t.
Click to expand...
Except of course the fact that birth rates are less than 40% of what they were in Brazil in 1960. So either there are already a large number of couples using contraceptives (who won’t care one way or the other) or there are large numbers succesfully using NFP to limit the number of children they have. In all likely hood it is a combination of both.

This continued painting of South American women as complete slaves to husbands seems to have zero basis in fact. Yes, it might be true of some, but any man that is that callous likely wouldn’t put up with their “woman” making the decision for them.

Just because the world changes does not change the the truth of morality. Sin is an offense against God. An infinite God does not change and say, “Well, that was a sin in the past, but it’s too hard so it doesn’t offend me any more.” Catholic Moral teachings are not the relativistic thing some would like them too be.

If the Pope were to say “because of the circumstances and it being a year of mercy, we will expiate the sins of those who use contraceptives, but after the danger passes, it’s a sin again”, that genie would never be put back in the bottle again. Everyone would have a reason why it was an extreme circumstance for them.

Long and short is that sin is sin and it doesn’t change simply because of dangers to human life.
 
EmeraldOak said:
Thank you for the explanation dixieagle. I appreciate it. I really do!

There is just still so much to this that I don’t understand. I am currently taking Accutane which is a medication known to cause severe birth defects. My doctor presented birth control as a must. I talked to my priest about it and he had me call The National Catholic Bioethics Center for clarification. They explained over the phone that birth control is intrinsically evil, period, no exceptions.

I can understand the nun scenario to a point, but then the logic breaks down for me. Conception only occurs by either God’s ordained will or His permitting will. I thought that rape or no rape, zika virus or no zika virus, any child conceived was supposed to be brought into the world.
Click to expand...
Wow! Taking Accutane? That drug was discontinued in the U.S. by its manufacturer in June, 2009, due to horrendous lawsuits and problems. Maybe you are not in the U.S.? Or, you stocked up for many years? Sorry for your situation.
 
Biggie said:
Do I really have to have this level of sophistication to remain Catholic? So what I taught my daughters and practiced myself as a simple Catholic teaching is not a simple Catholic teaching? I need this level of nuance to teach it and defend it?

When a gynecologist told my daughter that she should have taken birth control pills to have prevented her gynecological problems that resulted in her infertility we were wrong to have rejected that out of hand? We were in the end to blame?

So couples who are in anguish over likely birth defect issues vs. the prohibition against birth control have tortured themselves over nothing? And people who defended the Church’s position on the use of condoms to prevent AIDS are now in the position of comparing the dangers of contracting a death dealing disease unfavorably to the dangers of conceiving a child with a birth defect?

How far are we from retreating to the “inner forum” on birth control to join those in the “inner forum” on divorce?

It has always been difficult to explain and uphold the Catholic position on birth control. It is more difficult today. And more difficult still to explain why the Pope has made this necessary.
Click to expand...
I was a young woman in the early 1960’s when women started taking “the pill.” Back then. the Church taught that it was okay to take birth control pills for medical reasons. This is still the teaching today, and it has nothing to do with Pope Francis.

Your daughter certainly could have taken birth control pills under those circumstances. It is sad that she didn’t know that it was okay to do so.

If the Pope wants to expand the “medical reason” thing to prevent tragic birth defects or to prevent a woman from dying, more power to him. He is the Pope, after all. I’m not sure he is actually doing this, but it would surely make being a Catholic much easier.
 
Interesting thread.

The Pope Francis defenders (defenders of these particular remarks of his) seem to focus on the idea that the media misinterpreted or mistranslated what he said. But I doubt the substance of his answer has been or could be distorted to that extent.

He affirmed that contraception in proximity of the Zika virus is OK given that Pope Paul VI allowed Congo nuns to take oral contraceptives (and not practise NFP) since they were threatened by rape. The listener will naturally conclude that oral contraceptives are OK for women who engage ***willingly ***in marital relations but don’t want to conceive. The Pope did not clarify that these women may use NFP only to prevent contraception hence the listener is not obliged to draw that conclusion.

This, quite clearly and unambiguously, goes flat against the moral teaching of the Church.

It is a private opinion of the Pope, not official teaching, and hence can be respectfully rejected, as the private opinions of a few previous Popes, notably John XXII, were also respectfully rejected. We are faced with a situation where, as Catholics, we are obliged to examine everything Pope Francis says and determine whether it accords with Catholic teaching or not, whilst at the same time maintaining our respect and affection for him as Vicar of Christ. A very difficult balancing act, but one we have no choice but to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top