Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dailey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, now that according to Father Z and many others we can pretty much know with certainty that the “Pope Paul VI authorized contraceptives for nuns in the Congo” is on a par with "Pope Pius XII was Hitler’s Pope’ (meaning that BOTH of these are fiction, the first based on an article by three theologians in Rome in 1961, the second by a KGB-sanctioned play written to smear the Pope), we can go on to discuss whether or not, once the Pope has had a chance to review the facts of the case, that he will ‘rethink’ his answer.

Certainly if he in good faith thought there was precedent (which there wasn’t) one could see him making an ‘off the cuff’ and even a further, “well, this MIGHT be OK” remark through the Vatican . though this is NOT the same as making a specific doctrinal change and would not be a binding teaching even now. . .

Pope Francis is a good and humble man trying to be merciful and loving to all people, and I greatly respect and admire him for this. I think that he is good, humble, merciful, and loving ENOUGH that when he is aware that he was working from a position that NEVER existed, that he will indeed defend the timeless truths. He won’t care if doing so makes him no longer the ‘darling’ of the media; he’s bigger than that. In fact, I can see him coming right out and saying, “look, even the Pope can sometimes make a mistake but that’s the beauty of Our Church and Our Savior --Through His Church, He kept me from actually going on to teach something that would be wrong. Praise God.” What a great testimony that would be.
 
ARSpade said:
…The confusion and the damage is already done.

ETA: Check out Drudge Report for how this will be viewed by the world (and most Catholics). Good times. “POPE NOW SAYS BIRTH CONTROL OK” 🤷
Click to expand...
This. Sigh. This just makes me weary. Most of the media is just awful and deliberately spins to aid their agenda.
 
Pulvis said:
I do not know if anyone has brought this up yet, but i keep seeing references to the Nuns in the Congo.
wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/

It never happened as portrayed. Niether John XXIII nor Paul VI ever gave a dispensation for contraception. This whole episode stinks.
Click to expand...
You don’t think that maybe Pope Francis has better information on the actions of his predecessors than Fr. Z? Besides which, surely Pope Francis’ statements stand on their own.
 
Pulvis said:
I do not know if anyone has brought this up yet, but i keep seeing references to the Nuns in the Congo.
wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/

It never happened as portrayed. Niether John XXIII nor Paul VI ever gave a dispensation for contraception. This whole episode stinks.
Click to expand...
The way that I had heard and understood the episode from years ago and I don’t want to quote specific people… but in an environment within clergy knowledge… it was the doctors from the missions in the Congo who suggested the contraception for nuns based on the violent and inhumane environment they were in. There was no official decision made by Pope Paul VI but he is reported to have commented that it would not be out of accord with Catholicism. It was not a comment that could find a place within the official teaching but something that could only be applied to extraordinary circumstances.
 
TMC said:
You don’t think that maybe Pope Francis has better information on the actions of his predecessors than Fr. Z? Besides which, surely Pope Francis’ statements stand on their own.
Click to expand...
It isn’t simply 'Father Z". It is the fact that nobody seems to have any proof whatsoever. if this is something authorized by Pope Paul VI–who was not Pope in 1961 when the original paper by the three theologians, which actually HAS been documented, authenticated, and verified–and who became Pope in 1965 and who wrote Humanae Vitae in the next couple of years which was published in 1968–and which document CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY SUCH EXCEPTION–then Paul VI must have made that statement in 1965 and then REVERSED HIS STATEMENT in 1968.

And when it comes to legal documents, like a will for example, any LATER WILL INVALIDATES the earlier one.

Even IF Pope Paul made a statement --and what was it? If written, WHERE IS IT? If oral, where are the witnesses – from 1965 to 1968, the actual official teaching of the CATHOLIC CHURCH supports a DIFFERENT position.

Catholic doctrine does not change if Pope Whoever makes a phone call which says something which seems to contradict Church teaching. ESPECIALLY if Pope Whoever later issues a written document which contradicts the contradiction and goes on to espouse church teaching!
 
Tantum_ergo said:
It isn’t simply 'Father Z". It is the fact that nobody seems to have any proof whatsoever. if this is something authorized by Pope Paul VI–who was not Pope in 1961 when the original paper by the three theologians, which actually HAS been documented, authenticated, and verified–and who became Pope in 1965 and who wrote Humanae Vitae in the next couple of years which was published in 1968–and which document CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY SUCH EXCEPTION–then Paul VI must have made that statement in 1965 and then REVERSED HIS STATEMENT in 1968.

And when it comes to legal documents, like a will for example, any LATER WILL INVALIDATES the earlier one.

Even IF Pope Paul made a statement --and what was it? If written, WHERE IS IT? If oral, where are the witnesses – from 1965 to 1968, the actual official teaching of the CATHOLIC CHURCH supports a DIFFERENT position.

Catholic doctrine does not change if Pope Whoever makes a phone call which says something which seems to contradict Church teaching. ESPECIALLY if Pope Whoever later issues a written document which contradicts the contradiction and goes on to espouse church teaching!
Click to expand...
So you have no proof one way or the other. Again, the Pope’s decision as to the zika virus stands on its own. As to the Congo situation, I am happy to rely on the current Pope’s understanding of what his recent predecessors have done.
 
TMC said:
So you have no proof one way or the other. Again, the Pope’s decision as to the zika virus stands on its own. As to the Congo situation, I am happy to rely on the current Pope’s understanding of what his recent predecessors have done.
Click to expand...
You can’t prove a negative sugar. If there was no authorization from Pope Paul VI, how do you prove 'he didn’t authorize it?"

The burden of proof is to prove a positive because that be done. If something **did **happen, there will be records.

You’re happy to rely on Pope Francis even if he’s wrong? Infallible doesn’t mean omniscient, you know. Plus the statement on the plane and even the ‘Vatican clarification’ are not authoritative Catholic teaching.

The Pope made no decision on the Zika virus.
There is no change to the current Catholic teaching on artificial contraception, which is that it is **not **morally permissible as a ‘preemptive strike against possible disease.’

If it would be OK against a virus, why isn’t is OK against AIDS?

If it’s OK for nuns in the Congo, why isn’t it OK for women as a ‘preemptive strike’ against the possibility of being raped here in the U.S. or other places?

I’m happy to rely on the Church. Pope Francis has not changed Church teaching, nor will he.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You can’t prove a negative sugar. If there was no authorization from Pope Paul VI, how do you prove 'he didn’t authorize it?"

The burden of proof is to prove a positive because that be done. If something **did **happen, there will be records.
Click to expand...
I think a statement to that effect from the current Pope is pretty good evidence. If the Vatican doesn’t know, who would?
You’re happy to rely on Pope Francis even if he’s wrong? Infallible doesn’t mean omniscient, you know. Plus the statement on the plane and even the ‘Vatican clarification’ are not authoritative Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
You are happy to call Pope Francis wrong because a blogger told you to, even though there is no evidence?
The Pope made no decision on the Zika virus.
There is no change to the current Catholic teaching on artificial contraception, which is that it is **not **morally permissible as a ‘preemptive strike against possible disease.’
Click to expand...
The Pope made a decision that using contraceptives in this situation is within current Catholic teaching. That was the point.
If it would be OK against a virus, why isn’t is OK against AIDS?
Click to expand...
If you are asking, me, I think that it is. If you want to know what the Pope’s position is, you should ask him.
If it’s OK for nuns in the Congo, why isn’t it OK for women as a ‘preemptive strike’ against the possibility of being raped here in the U.S. or other places?
Click to expand...
Same answer
I’m happy to rely on the Church. Pope Francis has not changed Church teaching, nor will he.
Click to expand...
I believe that he has explained Church teaching, and how it applies to this specific situation.
 
TMC said:
I think a statement to that effect from the current Pope is pretty good evidence. If the Vatican doesn’t know, who would?

You are happy to call Pope Francis wrong because a blogger told you to, even though there is no evidence?

The Pope made a decision that using contraceptives in this situation is within current Catholic teaching. That was the point.

If you are asking, me, I think that it is. If you want to know what the Pope’s position is, you should ask him.

Same answer

I believe that he has explained Church teaching, and how it applies to this specific situation.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for clarifying what you believe. Personally, I’ll stick with what the Church teaches. And contrary to your ‘belief’, he has not changed Church teaching.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Pope Francis is a good and humble man trying to be merciful and loving to all people, and I greatly respect and admire him for this. I think that he is good, humble, merciful, and loving ENOUGH that when he is aware that he was working from a position that NEVER existed, that he will indeed defend the timeless truths. He won’t care if doing so makes him no longer the ‘darling’ of the media; he’s bigger than that. In fact, I can see him coming right out and saying, “look, even the Pope can sometimes make a mistake but that’s the beauty of Our Church and Our Savior --Through His Church, He kept me from actually going on to teach something that would be wrong. Praise God.” What a great testimony that would be.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Well thanks for clarifying what you believe. Personally, I’ll stick with what the Church teaches. And contrary to your ‘belief’, he has not changed Church teaching.
Click to expand...
I never said he had changed Church teaching. He has explained how it applies here. But apparently you will have to wait for a blogger to explain the Church’s teachings, since the Pope’s view is not authoritative enough for you.
 
TMC said:
I never said he had changed Church teaching. He has explained how it applies here. But apparently you will have to wait for a blogger to explain the Church’s teachings, since the Pope’s view is not authoritative enough for you.
Click to expand...
Why does it seem like you are happy that the pope is espousing heresy?
 
white_sheep said:
It’s plainly obvious. That’s not even really a question since it is right out there in the open.
Click to expand...
What do we know or don t about Zika ,White Sheep ?
Could you give a brief description of the situation right now ? Do we have any approximate period of time as far as succesful research towards a comcrete answer about Zika is concerned ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top