Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Lormar]

So to bring it full-circle, I humbly think Pope Francis is wrong about this, but even more importantly, I believe that the Church is what Christ says it is, His Bride. I submitted to a Person, not an ideology, and pray God He gives me grace.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

With respect, do you really categorise the church for the last 1000 years as a cult of legalistic impersonality?

That’s a thousand year history of Theology, charity, hospitals, universities, schools, papal encyclicals, relief effort, support for the arts and science etc etc.

That’s a lot of history to categorise so simply and critically.

St Peter wasn’t closeted in a Temple office in Jerusalem only communicating to his flock after his pre written homilies and publications were triple proof read by scribes and theologians to make sure he was in conformity with ancient Sadducee theology.

Thank God Pope Francis is significantly more down and dirty amongst the disadvantaged even at the cost of some clarity.

With respect the disadvantaged get this immediately while today’s well-off lay scribes … maybe not so much .

 

[Micosil]

St Peter wasn’t closeted in a Temple office in Jerusalem only communicating to his flock after his pre written homilies and publications were triple proof read by scribes and theologians to make sure he was in conformity with ancient Sadducee theology.

Thank God Pope Francis is significantly more down and dirty amongst the disadvantaged even at the cost of some clarity.

With respect the disadvantaged get this immediately while today’s well-off lay scribes … maybe not so much .

That is a rather refreshing viewpoint that.

 

[dans0622]

According to the Italian transcript, the Pope said this:

Invece, evitare la gravidanza non è un male assoluto, e in certi casi, come in quello che ho menzionato del Beato Paolo VI, era chiaro. w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2016/february/documents/papa-francesco_20160217_messico-conferenza-stampa.html

According to the English translation, he said:

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome/

The Italian, which I suppose was the original text, does not say “as in this one.” What does this addition mean? Who knows. But, it’s not what he actually said.

Dan

 

[kevin1313]

We cannot possibly divine who meant what with regards to the infamous interview. It’s splashed all over the headlines. Pope Francis, Fr Lombardi, and the Philippine bishops agree that contraception can be used for preventing Zika in the minds of most. Contrast this to what the Church has already clearly defined as infallible doctrine. “The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception….” source is Catholic Answers tract on birth control catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

The salvation of millions who can now justify contraception or who will begin to contracept is at stake! This is not merely a little fault that God will overlook, it’s a mortal sin that kills the life of God in the soul! If contraception can be licit for preventing Zika, why not be licit for other eugenic forms of preventing birth defects like cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, genetically-possible forms of breast cancer, etc….?

Are we obligated to do more than humbly and personally follow what we know to be the Church’s unchangeable teaching or do we have a greater obligation to let the light of Truth be known?

 

[TMC]

According to the Italian transcript, the Pope said this:

According to the English translation, he said:

The Italian, which I suppose was the original text, does not say “as in this one.” What does this addition mean? Who knows. But, it’s not what he actually said.

Dan

His spokesman confirmed what he meant - that there are times when the use of contraceptives and condoms can be licit.

 

[_Abyssinia]

His spokesman confirmed what he meant - that there are times when the use of contraceptives and condoms can be licit.

We can speculate for a long time by what was meant in regards to such times that would apply now. We know he talked about the case of Nuns in the Congo, and with respect to Pope Francis, and not just him but numerous people have discussed this issue on various posts and articles, and there may be some inaccuracies over the Nuns and contraceptives as brought up by Fr Zuhlsdorf, and there is the issue of Zika, but Pope Francis didn’t explicitly say that people can use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy because of Zika so that there is no doubt about what he meant.

 

[TMC]

We cannot possibly divine who meant what with regards to the infamous interview. It’s splashed all over the headlines. Pope Francis, Fr Lombardi, and the Philippine bishops agree that contraception can be used for preventing Zika in the minds of most. Contrast this to what the Church has already clearly defined as infallible doctrine. “The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception….” source is Catholic Answers tract on birth control catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

The salvation of millions who can now justify contraception or who will begin to contracept is at stake! This is not merely a little fault that God will overlook, it’s a mortal sin that kills the life of God in the soul! If contraception can be licit for preventing Zika, why not be licit for other eugenic forms of preventing birth defects like cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, genetically-possible forms of breast cancer, etc….?

Are we obligated to do more than humbly and personally follow what we know to be the Church’s unchangeable teaching or do we have a greater obligation to let the light of Truth be known?

What don’t we know? Seems like we know exactly what was meant.

 

[queenofheartscv]

If artificial contraceptives are allowed in emergency situations, that means the marriage act can be artificially tampered with if the couple have a grave reason to do so. My question is, then, what about IVF? The couple is in desperation to have a child, and they can rely on science to do so. Is the mental depression that comes with inability to have a child as grave as the danger of catching Zika? To some people it could very well be.

 

[abucs]

St Peter wasn’t closeted in a Temple office in Jerusalem only communicating to his flock after his pre written homilies and publications were triple proof read by scribes and theologians to make sure he was in conformity with ancient Sadducee theology.

Thank God Pope Francis is significantly more down and dirty amongst the disadvantaged even at the cost of some clarity.

With respect the disadvantaged get this immediately while today’s well-off lay scribes … maybe not so much .

The point was that you wrote off 1000 years of Church history as a cult of unpersonability. You didn’t correct that and you have further implicitly suggested that 1000 years of church history was about popes being closeted up in Temple offices only communicating to their flock with pre written homolies etc etc.

I am thinking why you lightly write off a lot of church history unfairly and from a narrow self serving critical viewpoint.

I think trying to suggest that the disadvantaged ‘get’ pope Francis but for the last 1000 years of popes the disadvantaged didn’t ‘get’ them is rather silly, Do you want to go back and discuss some of the popes in the last 1000 years? Let’s start with John Paul II.

I think to write off a thousand year history of the church being a cult of impersonability that is categorised as popes holding themselves up in temples and not being in touch with ‘the disadvantaged’ is not only innaccurate but betrays a prejudicial hatred for the church.

That i get, disadvantaged or not.

again i ask you - are you going to stand by your words in lightly and uncharitably categorizing the last 1000 years of history as you have done?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The point was that you wrote off 1000 years of Church history as a cult of unpersonability. You didn’t correct that and you have further implicitly suggested that 1000 years of church history was about popes being closeted up in Temple offices only communicating to their flock with pre written homolies etc etc.

I am thinking why you lightly write off a lot of church history unfairly** and from a narrow self serving critical viewpoint.**
I think trying to suggest that the disadvantaged ‘get’ pope Francis but for the last 1000 years of popes the disadvantaged didn’t ‘get’ them is rather silly, Do you want to go back and discuss some of the popes in the last 1000 years? Let’s start with John Paul II.

I think to write off a thousand year history of the church being a cult of impersonability that is categorised as popes holding themselves up in temples and not being in touch with ‘the disadvantaged’ is not only innaccurate but** betrays a prejudicial hatred for the church.**
again i ask you - are you going to stand by your words in lightly and uncharitably categorizing the last 1000 years of history as you have done?

Abucs I don’t understand what warrants your somewhat aggressive and confrontational post.
I have a personal view, it may be wrong but I am allowed to express it politely on a forum which I have done. I am sorry you don’t agree with it and feel the need to not only attack my observations but also my person.

Nowhere did I write off anything. I said it was a matter of unbalance.
We have not had many Pope’s prepared to speak off the cuff and unscripted like this for a very long time. That cannot be denied.

I am sorry you are so upset me making this observation.

 

[minion]

So is contraception ok now? I think most of us can cite a financial emergency to justify using them.

 

[Rau]

This is an explanation of the situation in the Congo, back many decades:

"The case he referenced took place in the early 1960s, when the Vatican granted a dispensation to religious sisters living in the Belgian Congo who were in grave danger of rape to use oral contraceptives.

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."

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-abortion-is-a-crime-and-never-the-solution-to-zika-virus/#ixzz40XtwuvE7

Correct. The act was physically “contraceptive”, but not the moral wrong of contraception. An act of defence may be (intentionally) physically fatal, but not the moral wrong of murder.

 

[Rau]

From what I remember from talking about it years ago is that it was the doctors at the Congo mission who made the decision to put the nuns on contraception and that the Pope only mentioned that it was not out of keeping with Catholic doctrine.

It wasn’t a ‘dispensation’ but a solution left to the experts and religious in the field in their capacity of pastoral care The nuns were celibate women and in no circumstance would they be in a situation of contracepting. Rape is not sexual intercourse but a violent assault against a person.

Yes, and the assault does not cease when the perpetrator withdraws.

 

[Rau]

The teaching is not absolute as the Pope said. Defining that “relative” line will be increasingly difficult.

The teaching is absolute, so long as one correctly recognises what is an act of contraception, and what is not. The physical act -taking a drug - need not constitute the moral wrong of contraception, just as a surgery causing sterility is not necessarily an act of mutilation. That a drug produces a contraceptive effect, as a consequence, is not sufficient to label its use as the moral wrong of “contraception”. This is the case with the “Congo nuns” scenario.

 

[abucs]

Abucs I don’t understand what warrants your somewhat aggressive and confrontational post.
I have a personal view, it may be wrong but I am allowed to express it politely on a forum which I have done. I am sorry you don’t agree with it and feel the need to not only attack my observations but also my person.

Nowhere did I write off anything. I said it was a matter of unbalance.
We have not had many Pope’s prepared to speak off the cuff and unscripted like this for a very long time. That cannot be denied.

I am sorry you are so upset me making this observation.

I accept your apology and ask you to reflect on why categorising 1000 years of church history as being a ‘cult of legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonabiity’ is not so polite or balanced.

I have no desire to attack you. I don’t believe i have despite your strong protestations to the contrary. I have only objected to your words which could easily be interpreted not as observations but as showing contempt for 1000 years of clergy, especially since you have not retracted your comment.

You quite clearly stated that the church for a thousand years was a ‘cult of legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonability’. I ask you for a third time, without any malice, ill will or aggressive tone - do you retract those remarks?

If someone had said that Francis was turning the church into a cult of whatever kind, be it legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonability or something else then you could make the case that this was showing contempt for Francis. If you describe the church and its popes for the last 1000 years in the same way, you cannot escape similar scrutiny. I hope we can get past this matter and as stated above i do accept your apology.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[Rau]

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

Let’s accept that. If he meant to declare that a married couple may use ABC to avoid pregnancy for fear of Zika, then I say he expressed himself very poorly. If his intent was to convey another idea, then I say he communicated poorly, for there does not seem to be agreement over what he was trying to convey.

 

[Rau]

Yes, and the Pope cited the zika virus as an example of such a situation.

No, it would not be such, any more than AIDS could be held as such.

The pill does not treat Zika. It’s only purpose in the given circumstances is to avoid pregnancy with the wider intention of avoiding giving the disease to a child. So that is the moral ill of contraception.

Wearing a condom could be said to have the moral object of preventing communication of the virus (maybe), with the contraceptive effect an unintended side effect. But sex without the complete giving of one to another, irrespective of contraceptive intent, is itself a problem. Sexual intercourse must be apt for procreation if it is to achieve the one flesh union called for.

 

[Rau]

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…

Contraceptive use - taking a drug with a contraceptive effect - need not be contrary to doctrine. The “contraceptive” effect of a drug is constantly confused with the moral wrong of contraception. However, taking the drug for fear of “Zika baby” is in the latter category.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Contraceptive use - taking a drug with a contraceptive effect - need not be contrary to doctrine. The “contraceptive” effect of a drug is constantly confused with the moral wrong of contraception. However, taking the drug for fear of “Zika baby” is in the latter category.

When the dust settles there will be dire ramifications of the pope’s words “presser” or not. Not the least of which will be the nfp world and the disabled world. This idea of something so bad that abc can be dicerned because of a potential disabled human life will shatter many “Catholic” ideas about things like Down syndrome and the like will suffer. As will the theology behind quality of life discussions,
Perhaps one reason I feel so disheartened by it is because if you take the popes words and apply it to my own marriage it is obviously contrasting everything we have known about moral theology. It’s bad enough when priests in the confessional have told you to use ABC but when the pope says it… Devastating.

This is far from over. Apologists and catechists will be dealing with this for decades.

Why is it that the enemy seems to be one step ahead of our church right now? Catholic countries going gay marriage, Zika offering a platform for a battle that was already defeating the church, all of this coming before after and during the synod on the family,

This pope has the ability to speak clearly about issues. He minces no words when chastising the rich rule followers, where is that passion and clarity where we need it the most? The family.