I don’t know what you are objecting to in Aquinas of LS’s summary (though I am a little confused as to relevance too)?First, while I respect St Thomas, the Summa is not doctrine. I also don’t see how it is germane to the conversation, but the catechism also disagrees that self defense, even using lethal force, is a sin…
You sure you’re not getting the papal office mixed up with a Hollywood movie?Wizard of Vatican?
His spokeperson, Father Lombardi, clarified that the Pope was referring to contraceptives and condoms. I think the message was pretty clear. I understand that you don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t mean the Pope didn’t say it.No he did not.
Please feel free to post what the Pope said. No wait, I’ll do it. From the National Catholic Register:
.
Again, I’ll repeat. The Pope does not say ‘contraception’. He says avoiding pregnancy. There are legitimate ways to avoid pregnancy, such as NFP. He references an event (which itself is not proven as there are no primary sources) that Pope VI approved the use of contraceptives for nuns in a situation in which CELIBATE WOMEN would face an act of war (rape) and at a time when the understanding of how ‘the pill’ works and the composition of the pill itself were quite different.
He does not say that the ZIKA VIRUS is a case where contraception can be used. He says that the Pope Paul VI ‘case’ in which women ‘defended themselves’ from an ACT OF WAR (rape) could encompass the use of a substance which was believed simply to ‘prevent pregnancy’ in women who would never ‘choose’ the ‘marital’ relations. IOW, it was not to protect women from pregnancy PER SE, but rather to defend women from an act of aggression which COULD ‘cause’ pregnancy in some cases!
The Zika virus is not an act of war. The women who might be affected are not being attacked by rapists whose intent is to physically violate ‘any’ woman and who wish to protect themselves so far as possible from consequences of an ACT OF WAR.
That’s been the gist of this forum since Francis was selected.The next time I disagree with something pope Francis does, I guess I can just say
Awe shucks it was off the cuffs and he obviously doesn’t know what I know…
Hello,…
Lets not take ourselves too seriously over on the spot interviews. Messiness is part of the deal. We all know that. Lets have more of this messiness if it means a truly pastoral Pope of the People.
That, and an overwhelming torrent of criticism against anyone who is concerned by his comments. Complete with accusations of being conservatives, Pharisees, fundamentalists and the “other brother” in the Prodigal Son story.That’s been the gist of this forum since Francis was selected.
Church doctrine remains unchanged from before the in-flight press interviews to after the in-flight interviews. Pope Francis’ comments did not change Church doctrine.His spokeperson, Father Lombardi, clarified that the Pope was referring to contraceptives and condoms. I think the message was pretty clear. I understand that you don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t mean the Pope didn’t say it.
Thank you for linking to this.What do the Pope’s contraception comments really mean?
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/02/19/what-did-pope-francis-just-say-about-contraception/
Archbishop Villegas said:The Phillipine Bishops are reportedly in agreement with using contraceptives as the Holy Father stated. It seems to be accepted that there is precedent for this regarding nuns subject to rape in the 1960s. Context is central to this issue.
bigstory.ap.org/article/bd6e1d67a3044b5eab5dc7a94bec3db3/philippine-bishops-back-popes-remarks-zika-contraception“There may be circumstances that invite a re-evaluation of the judgment on artificial means of contraception,” Villegas said, adding that once more “the pope has shown his sensitivity to complex human situations” and “allowed the world see the merciful face of the church.”
catholicnewsagency.com/blog/stop-freaking-out-over-these-two-sentences-from-pope-francis/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.
Naturally. That doesn’t mean that what he said is in accord with Church doctrine.Church doctrine remains unchanged from before the in-flight press interviews to after the in-flight interviews. Pope Francis’ comments did not change Church doctrine.
It doesn’t.Archbishop Villegas said:
bigstory.ap.org/article/bd6e1d67a3044b5eab5dc7a94bec3db3/philippine-bishops-back-popes-remarks-zika-contraception
It is unfortunate because there is a lack of clarity.
This excerpt explains well in regards to the Nuns in the Congo:
catholicnewsagency.com/blog/stop-freaking-out-over-these-two-sentences-from-pope-francis/
What other circumstance could an allowance of contraception be applied to considering the above? The Pope’s comments and the Archbishop Villegas comments are confusing, because how does the circumstance of the Nuns using contraception in the Congo apply to any other situation, including those threatened by Zika?
I believe the Pope’s point was not to change Church doctrine, but to explain that sometimes contraceptive use can be consistent with Church doctrine.Church doctrine remains unchanged from before the in-flight press interviews to after the in-flight interviews. Pope Francis’ comments did not change Church doctrine.
In which he would be wrong.I believe the Pope’s point was not to change Church doctrine, but to explain that sometimes contraceptive use can be consistent with Church doctrine.
No it isn’t. Ever. Hormonal contraceptives can be used medicinally. Women can use non-abortifacient measures to defend themselves from rape. Contraceptive use for the purpose of contracepting, which is what we are talking about in regards to zika, is always immoral. Using a spermicide to prevent conception after rape is considered to be defending oneself from a continued assault. The rapist’s semen is seen as a hostile presence.I believe the Pope’s point was not to change Church doctrine, but to explain that sometimes contraceptive use can be consistent with Church doctrine.
As I have said before, I agree with him. I understand that many don’t. I am sure that every Pope has had serious and thoughtful Catholics that both agreed and disagreed with him on different issues. That has certainly been true throughout my life.In which he would be wrong.
Once the initial shock and denial wears off and people process this, there will be incredible ramifications.
One thing for sure, this will surely be the focus for a long time. There will be more to be said about this. Just imagine how this changes virtually every nfp or contraceptive thread on here…
So you say. The Pope just said differently. I understand that is your belief, but I think the Pope is also fairly familiar with Catholic doctrine.No it isn’t. Ever. Hormonal contraceptives can be used medicinally. Women can use non-abortifacient measures to defend themselves from rape. Contraceptive use for the purpose of contracepting, which is what we are talking about in regards to zika, is always immoral. Using a spermicide to prevent conception after rape is considered to be defending oneself from a continued assault. The rapist’s semen is seen as a hostile presence.