Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dailey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Folks can blame the media all they want and point to obscure theological points about birth control of which your average Catholic knows nothing, but the bottom line is that this Pope seems hell bent on confusing the faithful. Yes, hell is the appropriate metaphor as I believe the Bible is clear on the consequences of a person in authority harming little ones.

This pope is not just bad with the press, his true colors show time and time again. If he was just a poor communicator, half the time he would sound ultra conservative and the other liberal. But all his faux pas point to him wanting to change doctrine. He knows he can’t, so he does the next best thing.

I have been trying to keep an open mind, but I am pretty much done with this pope.
 
Justin_Swanton said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍
 
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...
I’m not sure one way or the other. He can mean what he says but still say something wrong or imprudently. He himself said he submitted a draft of the “environmental encyclical” to the CDF and his theologian to make sure he wasn’t talking nonsense.
The encyclical: Cardinal Turkson and his team prepared the first draft. Then, with some help, I took it and worked on it, then with a few theologians I made a third draft and sent a copy to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the second section of the Secretariat of State, and to the Theologian of the Papal Household to take a look at it, so that I would not say anything “silly”! w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/january/documents/papa-francesco_20150115_srilanka-filippine-incontro-giornalisti.html
Click to expand...
Dan
 
What did Pope Francis actually say about contraception?

(CNA/EWTN News).- Despite a rush of headlines claiming Pope Francis is softening the Church’s stance on contraception, a closer look at his recent remarks could suggest otherwise.

During an in-flight press conference on his way back from Mexico, Pope Francis was asked by a reporter about the threat of Zika virus in many Latin American countries.

Noting that the virus may be linked to birth defects when transmitted from a pregnant woman to her unborn baby, the reporter asked the Holy Father about proposals involving “abortion, or else avoiding pregnancy” in areas where Zika virus is prevalent.

The Pope responded by emphatically stating that abortion is “a crime” and “absolute evil” that cannot be justified. He also spoke on the topic of avoiding pregnancy.

“Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape,” he said.

Seven sentences later, he added another comment. Not mentioning contraception specifically, he simply said that “avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”

Numerous news outlets suggested that the Pope was introducing a change – or at least a softening – in previous teaching.

However, Dr. Melissa Moschella, a philosophy professor at The Catholic University of America, suggested that this may not be the case.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-did-pope-francis-actually-say-about-contraception-47196/
 
90% of my Catholic friends confess to using contraception. Isn’t it time we set aside the fiction of Catholics having rhythm ?
 
gilliam said:
What did Pope Francis actually say about contraception?

(CNA/EWTN News).- Despite a rush of headlines claiming Pope Francis is softening the Church’s stance on contraception, a closer look at his recent remarks could suggest otherwise.

During an in-flight press conference on his way back from Mexico, Pope Francis was asked by a reporter about the threat of Zika virus in many Latin American countries.

Noting that the virus may be linked to birth defects when transmitted from a pregnant woman to her unborn baby, the reporter asked the Holy Father about proposals involving “abortion, or else avoiding pregnancy” in areas where Zika virus is prevalent.

The Pope responded by emphatically stating that abortion is “a crime” and “absolute evil” that cannot be justified. He also spoke on the topic of avoiding pregnancy.

“Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape,” he said.

Seven sentences later, he added another comment. Not mentioning contraception specifically, he simply said that “avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”

Numerous news outlets suggested that the Pope was introducing a change – or at least a softening – in previous teaching.

However, Dr. Melissa Moschella, a philosophy professor at The Catholic University of America, suggested that this may not be the case.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-did-pope-francis-actually-say-about-contraception-47196/
Click to expand...
I really appreciate Dr. Moschella’s explanation but the problem, as it always seems to be, are these statements…
a closer look at his recent remarks could suggest otherwise
Click to expand...
suggested that this may not be the case.
Click to expand...
When talking about avoiding pregnancy in connection with the Zika virus, the Pope may not necessarily have been implying artificial contraceptive use, **but may have been referencing **Natural Family Planning, she said.
Click to expand...
Even the people that explain what the Pope was talking about are not even sure.
 
Peccavi said:
90% of my Catholic friends confess to using contraception. Isn’t it time we set aside the fiction of Catholics having rhythm ?
Click to expand...
Maybe we should all stop acknowledging the sun cause people stay in the sun too long and get sunburn.
 
retire_early said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am taking the generic version, on my box it says Absorica (isotretinoin).
 
I think this is an update:
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, speaking to Vatican Radio about the pope’s remarks, said Pope Francis distinguished between abortion and “the possibility of a recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or in special situations, which does not involve the suppression of a human life, but avoiding a pregnancy.”
“He does not say this recourse can be accepted and used without any discernment, but in fact clearly said that it can be taken into consideration in cases of particular emergency,” Father Lombardi said.
Pope Francis’ reference to the situation in Belgian Congo illustrates how he was not referring to using contraceptives in “a normal situation,” but only in situations of serious danger, the spokesman said.
Click to expand...
catholicchronicle.org/index.php/World-and-Nation/in-zika-outbreak-contraceptives-may-be-lesser-evil-pope-says.html

What situation would using contraception not involve the suppression of human life but avoiding pregnancy? Pope Francis was asked about the virus. Was he referring to using contraception in regards to this or was he just commenting, with the example of the Nuns in the Congo, but didn’t mean contraception could be used in regards to Zika?

Reading from the following again, Stop freaking out over these two sentences from Pope Francis, it says regarding the Nuns in the Congo:
The logic behind the decision was that while birth control is normally immoral because it attempts to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act, the nuns were trying to resist the act altogether. Because rape is an act of violent aggression rather than a freely chosen act, the contraception was part of a legitimate attempt at self-defense.
Click to expand...
But married couples are freely choosing to have sex, even with the reality of Zika.

The article also says:
In the second sentence, if we look at Pope Francis’ words, he says “avoiding pregnancy” is not always an evil, such as in the case of the targeted nuns, or in the case of the Zika virus. He does NOT say that both cases require contraception. The Pope is simply reiterating the Church teaching that avoiding pregnancy is not always an evil in and of itself. As to the means of avoiding pregnancy, whenever a freely chosen sexual act is involved (married couples in Zika-threatened areas), the moral modus operandi for avoiding pregnancy is through Natural Family Planning.
Click to expand...
 
DaddyGirl said:
I don’t see how the word “avoiding” is secular…and the word “preventing” is not. I understand the nuance you are trying to imply.
But one word is not more God-linked than the other. Both can have the same intention with the same outcome and meaning.

*a·void
verb
1.
keep away from or stop oneself from doing (something).
*

Using NFP is indeed a way to “keep from” getting pregnant.

.
Click to expand...
The essence of the journalists question was something a lot of secular debaters propose. ie. that contraception is a ‘lesser evil’ than abortion. It comes up all the time in public abortion debates. The journalist used that phrase here comparing two evil things.

Avoiding pregnancy by abstaining from sex is a 100% legitimate Catholic alternative for a reason like zika virus. Why would anyone think that was evil?

If there is confusion about that it is only because of the perversion of Catholic teaching by anti NFP radicals that are intent on making abstinence an evil thing in and of itself. NFP is not a “lesser evil” in Catholic teaching.
 
_Abyssinia said:
What situation would using contraception not involve the suppression of human life but avoiding pregnancy?
Click to expand...
Only one situation where this sentence even begins to make sense to me, is for a woman who will face a life-threatening situation if her body is in a pregnant state. The contraception would be used with the direct intent of avoiding the pregnant state. (Please note that I don’t support this notion.)

But with Zika, the direct intent in using contraception is to avoid producing possibly disabled human beings. Does anyone else hear a faint ring of eugenics underneath all of this controversy?
 
clem456 said:
Maybe we should all stop acknowledging the sun cause people stay in the sun too long and get sunburn.
Click to expand...
This is not a sensible reply. The Sun cannot be prevented from rising fertilisation of the ovaries can. Therefore the logic of the connection falls. However, avoiding sunburn by wearing dark glasses and using a sun screen can be argue to offset the problem.

Life begins at conception. After conception taking that life is murder BUT to use a condom to prevent conception is not murder. And to destroy one life, possibly two, as a sop to dogma may be your philosophical position but it does not fit a Pro-Life argument any more than support for any death sentence can.
 
Peccavi said:
This is not a sensible reply. The Sun cannot be prevented from rising fertilisation of the ovaries can. Therefore the logic of the connection falls. However, avoiding sunburn by wearing dark glasses and using a sun screen can be argue to offset the problem.

Life begins at conception. After conception taking that life is murder BUT to use a condom to prevent conception is not murder. And to destroy one life, possibly two, as a sop to dogma may be your philosophical position but it does not fit a Pro-Life argument any more than support for any death sentence can.
Click to expand...
You missed the point.
It is true that the sun shines in the sky.
The Church’s teaching on sexuality is also true. Objectively.

The fact that 90% of people ignore it to their own peril doesn’t affect the value of the particular truth.
Throwing out the truth because a majority of persons fail to acknowledge it is somewhat irrational.
That’s what I was trying to present. (poorly I guess)
 
Am I missing something? In the UK newspapers, the Pope is reported as saying pregnant women could use contraceptives to prevent the transmission of the zika virus to their foetus. I assumed this meant condoms, or some other barrier method and during sex with their husbands. A pregnant woman can’t conceive anyway, so what’s the problem? She would not be preventing conception but she would be protecting her baby and her own health.

I think the only comparrison between this and the nuns in the Congo that he was trying to make was that both were exceptional sets of circumstances - that’s all.
 
Rose71 said:
Am I missing something? In the UK newspapers, the Pope is reported as saying pregnant women could use contraceptives to prevent the transmission of the zika virus to their foetus. I assumed this meant condoms, or some other barrier method and during sex with their husbands. A pregnant woman can’t conceive anyway, so what’s the problem? She would not be preventing conception but she would be protecting her baby and her own health.

I think the only comparrison between this and the nuns in the Congo that he was trying to make was that both were exceptional sets of circumstances - that’s all.
Click to expand...
No Zika virus is spread by mosquito bite. It isn’t an STD.
 
Rose71 said:
A pregnant woman can’t conceive anyway, so what’s the problem? She would not be preventing conception but she would be protecting her baby and her own health.
Click to expand...
:tsktsk:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfetation#In_humans
In 1960, John and Mary Tress of Baltimore MD had what the nurse mistakenly identified as twins. … Anthony was a two-month premature baby born five minutes before his full-term brother Mark. Anthony was conceived a full two months after his brother Mark.
Click to expand...
In 2007, Ame and Lia Herrity, conceived three weeks apart, were born in the United Kingdom to Amelia Spence and George Herrity.
Click to expand...
In May 2007, Harriet and Thomas Mullineux, also conceived three weeks apart, were born in Benfleet, Essex, to Charlotte and Matt Mullineux.
Click to expand...
In 2009, Todd and Julia Grovenburg of Fort Smith, Arkansas, received international media attention for Mrs. Grovenburg’s conception of an additional child while already pregnant with a child conceived two and a half weeks earlier. … Both healthy babies were delivered through Caesarean section on 2 December 2009.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top