Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Rau]

Theologically speaking, when did the Church start to teach that contraception, even for non-abortive reasons, is licit? Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, all of the Church Fathers, and even Protestant teaching until 1920 always maintained that contraception is illicit. Sure, certain theologians, churchmen, and even USCC must not have taken the Oath Against Modernism and dissented from infallibly defined doctrine.

Read at thecatholicthing.org/2015/03/21/contraception-conscience-and-church-authority/. Until 1930, all Christendom agreed that contraception was an intrinsically disordered act –in other words, a sin. Martin Luther was as clear on this point as Saint Thomas Aquinas. Laws against the sale of contraceptives were enforced in Catholic and Protestant countries. We may also include the Orthodox world…In 1930, the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops famously broke from Christian teaching when it approved “methods of conception control” other than abstinence for married couples burdened by the prospect of a baby. This was odd, because the previous Lambeth Conference of 1920 had uttered “an emphatic warning” that contraception was morally illicit. One might asked how human nature had changed in ten years…Pope Pius XI was upset enough about the Anglican shift to respond with the encyclical Casti Connubii, which confirmed the perennial teaching about contraception. He also reminded people that it was precisely because of the human tendency to rationalize private inclination that Christ had established a teaching Church. It is the Church, and not private judgment, that has been entrusted with revelation regarding faith and morals. Especially in the area of sexuality, where it is easy to make mistakes, a couple would, for their own good, want to consult the moral doctrine of the Church…The issue lay dormant among Catholics until the sexual revolution. When Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (1968) confirmed the teaching on contraception, dissenting theologians opted for the self-defeating approach of the Anglicans. They slapped a “conscience clause” on the teaching. Hans Küng told an interviewer that Catholics should take the document seriously, but added that if a couple decided the teaching interfered with their pursuit of happiness, they should “follow their conscience.”

The Church has never and does not now teach that contraception is licit. The point I made is that not all acts appearing to be the wrong of contraception are in fact that. Eg. Sweeping away the semen of a rapist after a rape would not be the moral wrong of contraception.

 

[Cider]

I am tired of pretending that as a Catholic I have to agree with everything Pope Francis (or any pope) says, does, or believes that is outside of official teaching. I have accepted that I disagree with Pope Francis on this one. I will not defend, justify, or make excuses anymore as to why he said what he did.

I was ridiculed by a family member shortly after the birth of my third child for defending the Church’s position against ABC. Well don’t you know I got a call yesterday afternoon from this individual wanting to inform me what the pope had said about the nuns and the zika virus. I never in a million years thought I would have to try to explain that a pope’s words are not in accordance with existing teaching. It made me sound crazy. And I am left disheartened and bewildered by all of this.

My conscience in this area was formed by Humane Vitae and I am at full liberty to continue living my life according to those teachings and so that is what I will do. But I do fear for the wives and husbands who will use ABC because of this and for the Church as a whole, because this sends a very muddy message. It is the cracking open of a door I never thought would have been opened by the pope himself. Help us Lord.

I know, it’s extremely frustrating isn’t it.

 

[10gr8kids]

I think that the stakes are always high for Truth. Sometimes what is required is the courage to recognize that the doctrines need to evolve to better reflect Truth.

The stakes are definitely higher at some times than others. In my rural southern community if someone asks me if I believe in Jesus, it is very easy to answer yes. If someone asks me that same question with a gun to my head, it would take a lot more courage to say yes.

In the same way, it’s no big deal to not use ABC if there is no chance of getting pregnant or you want to get pregnant. The stakes go up if you feel like another child might be a financial burden, and if a pregnancy would be a high risk pregnancy, the stakes go up again.

It’s hard to see how something can go from ‘inherently evil’ to permissible.

 

[TMC]

Evolution, and a repudiation of existing doctrine, are quite different.

Sometimes evolution looks like repudiation, even though it is not. That was the case with both usury and EENS, for example.

 

[Rau]

Sometimes evolution looks like repudiation, even though it is not. That was the case with both usury and EENS, for example.

When we can declare the church taught moral error, then we know what repudiation looks like. Contraception being licit for the purposes of avoiding a Zika baby repudiates HV and previous encyclicals. I am quite sure that the Pope does not intend that. The Congo nun scenario was also not in contradiction to HV.

 

[TMC]

When we can declare the church taught moral error, then we know what repudiation looks like. Contraception being licit for the purposes of avoiding a Zika baby repudiates HV and previous encyclicals. I am quite sure that the Pope does not intend that. The Congo nun scenario was also not in contradiction to HV.

By your standard, how do the documents of Vatican II not repudiate previous teachings on the salvation of non-Catholics and non-Christians? How does the Church’s current teaching on interest not repudiate prior doctrine on usury?

The Church has explained how those changes were evolutions from prior understanding. The same will continue to happen as doctrines develop.

 

[Rau]

By your standard, how do the documents of Vatican II not repudiate previous teachings on the salvation of non-Catholics and non-Christians? How does the Church’s current teaching on interest not repudiate prior doctrine on usury?

The Church has explained how those changes were evolutions from prior understanding.

I don’t have knowledge of the history of those teachings (or even their subject matter to any depth) to answer your question. But your last sentence suggests they are evolution, not repudiation.

If a teaching can evolve to the point of repudiation, there morality becomes entirely flexible. Tomorrow, we could learn that murder (intentional killing of the innocent) is OK (at least sometimes). That would mean it is OK today too.

 

[TMC]

I don’t have knowledge of the history of those teachings (or even their subject matter to any depth) to answer your question. But your last sentence suggests they are evolution, not repudiation.

If a teaching can evolve to the point of repudiation, there morality becomes entirely flexible. Tomorrow, we could learn that murder (intentional killing of the innocent) is OK (at least sometimes). That would mean it is OK today too.

Well, the Church’s teaching on salvation has evolved during my lifetime, so we are not talking about ancient history here.

Usury is a bit more obscure, certainly. But there was a time when the Church taught confidently that lending money at interest was always sinful. Today the Church owns a bank. If you follow the history of the doctrine you can see how that evolution took place, but a serious Catholic in, say, the 12th century would never have believed the Church would countenance lending at interest. Today the Church does it every day.

 

[AFerri48]

The Church also at one point taught that all suicides caused the person to go to hell. Nowadays, the Church says that psychological issues could lower the gravity of the sin. Not every teaching is absolutely infallible, which means change is indeed possible over time.

 

[Rau]

Well, the Church’s teaching on salvation has evolved during my lifetime, so we are not talking about ancient history here.

Usury is a bit more obscure, certainly. But there was a time when the Church taught confidently that lending money at interest was always sinful. Today the Church owns a bank. If you follow the history of the doctrine you can see how that evolution took place, but a serious Catholic in, say, the 12th century would never have believed the Church would countenance lending at interest. Today the Church does it every day.

So, you’re saying that the Church Christ established and gave teaching authority got it completely wrong and did an about face. And the Church says “yep, we got that wrong!l”. Or perhaps your understanding of the matter is less complete than you appreciate?

 

[Cider]

The Church also at one point taught that all suicides caused the person to go to hell. Nowadays, the Church says that psychological issues could lower the gravity of the sin. Not every teaching is absolutely infallible, which means change is indeed possible over time.

I don’t think that was ever official doctrine but like limbo for infants was merely a hypothesis.

 

[Rau]

The Church also at one point taught that all suicides caused the person to go to hell. Nowadays, the Church says that psychological issues could lower the gravity of the sin. Not every teaching is absolutely infallible, which means change is indeed possible over time.

We can identify what the Church teaches today about suicide:
catholic.com/quickquestions/i-have-been-told-that-the-catholic-church-teaches-that-anyone-who-commits-suicide-goe

Do you have reference to prior teaching?

 

[gracepoole]

The Church also at one point taught that all suicides caused the person to go to hell. Nowadays, the Church says that psychological issues could lower the gravity of the sin. Not every teaching is absolutely infallible, which means change is indeed possible over time.

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than this. My understanding is that suicide has always been considered a mortal sin – but as we now associate it with depression, which can lessen one’s ability to make rational decisions, one of the preconditions for a mortal sin may not exist. What has changed, however, seems to be that those who commit suicide are no longer automatically denied a Christian burial. In any case, I think suicide has always been viewed as a mortal sin – the difference now is whether this sin actually applies to all suicides given what we now know about depression and mental illness.

I’d love to be educated, though, by someone who knows more about the history of this subject!

 

[AFerri48]

We can identify what the Church teaches today about suicide:
catholic.com/quickquestions/i-have-been-told-that-the-catholic-church-teaches-that-anyone-who-commits-suicide-goe

Do you have reference to prior teaching?

The outright denial of a Christian burial. If it wasn’t for the assumption that they were in hell, why deny the burial?

I’m just saying things could change over time. The fast before communion started at a whole day if I recall correctly, then was lowered to three, and is now at one. The fast after communion was removed altogether. Cremation used to be unacceptable.

This isn’t to say that we should ignore everything the Church says, but that certain teachings could change or overtime.

 

[Rau]

The outright denial of a Christian burial. If it wasn’t for the assumption that they were in hell, why deny the burial?

I’m just saying things could change over time. The fast before communion started at a whole day if I recall correctly, then was lowered to three, and is now at one. The first after communion was removed altogether. Cremation used to be unacceptable.

This isn’t to say that we should ignore everything the Church says, but that certain teachings could change or overtime.

The fast is a simple discipline - can change anytime - it is not a teaching.

I don’t know why some may have been denied such burial. You are inferring the existence of a particular teaching from thin evidence.

 

[kyrie03]

The Church has never and does not now teach that contraception is licit. The point I made is that not all acts appearing to be the wrong of contraception are in fact that. Eg. Sweeping away the semen of a rapist after a rape would not be the moral wrong of contraception.

“Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.” (Pope Francis speaking). He didn’t say anything about sweeping away …

*Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi, SJ, said the Pontiff had been talking about the possibility of having recourse to birth control only in “emergency cases”.
“That does not mean that this recourse is accepted and can be used without discernment,” Fr Lombardi told Vatican Radio.
But he noted it could be “the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience”. *cathnews.co.nz/2016/02/23/vatican-plays-down-papal-talk-on-birth-control-and-virus/
(Fr Lombardi confirma Pope was speaking about birth control i.e. contraception)

Seems clear to most people the Pope was talking about contraception being licit -albeit in “emergency cases” and discernment should be used. This is new theology being proposed. Never before in Church history has She allowed contraception in emergency cases nor has She allowed contraception to be discerned in a serious case of conscience.
The Church relies on the deposit of Faith and natural law to formulate responses to moral questions. And the faithful can trust the Church to not lead them into error.
It appears backwards now - the faithful using their consciences seriously determine whether or not they have an emergency case, infallibly defined doctrine that contraception is never licit and gravely sinful is not cited (instead we get the urban legend about Paul IV) and the Pope ignores his grave responsibility to teach, sanctify, and rule his flock. (I will retract if he confirms his brethren in the Truth).

Ponder Pope Pius Xi’s words in Casti Connubii - he teaches that contraception is intrinsically against nature and that no reason, however grave, justifies its use. He tells of Onan being killed by the Lord as an example of the gravity of the sin. He exhorts all priests and those who sanctify souls to beware, that if they lead anyone to err about this most grave law of God by their approval or their silence, that they are -according to the words of Christ, "blind leaders leading the blind and…both shall fall into the pit."

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]

 

[Rau]

“Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.” (Pope Francis speaking). He didn’t say anything about sweeping away …

*Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi, SJ, said the Pontiff had been talking about the possibility of having recourse to birth control only in “emergency cases”.
“That does not mean that this recourse is accepted and can be used without discernment,” Fr Lombardi told Vatican Radio.
But he noted it could be “the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience”. *cathnews.co.nz/2016/02/23/vatican-plays-down-papal-talk-on-birth-control-and-virus/
(Fr Lombardi confirma Pope was speaking about birth control i.e. contraception)

Seems clear to most people the Pope was talking about contraception being licit -albeit in “emergency cases” and discernment should be used. This is new theology being proposed. Never before in Church history has She allowed contraception in emergency cases nor has She allowed contraception to be discerned in a serious case of conscience.
The Church relies on the deposit of Faith and natural law to formulate responses to moral questions. And the faithful can trust the Church to not lead them into error.
It appears backwards now - the faithful using their consciences seriously determine whether or not they have an emergency case, infallibly defined doctrine that contraception is never licit and gravely sinful is not cited (instead we get the urban legend about Paul IV) and the Pope ignores his grave responsibility to teach, sanctify, and rule his flock. (I will retract if he confirms his brethren in the Truth).

Where to begin…

1). A pope giving impromptu interview on a plane is not Church teaching. All utterances from the mouth of a pope are not teachings. He can express an opinion. He can make an error. He can express himself poorly.

2). Frankly, I don’t know what he was trying to say. But it is a stretch to believe he intentionally seeks to propose that what was taught irreformably as wrong, can actually be ok.

3). The reported action of the Congo nuns was not the moral wrong of contraception.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Where to begin…

1). A pope giving impromptu interview on a plane is not Church teaching. All utterances from the mouth of a pope are not teachings. He can express an opinion. He can make an error. He can express himself poorly.

2). Frankly, I don’t know what he was trying to say. But it is a stretch to believe he intentionally seeks to propose that what was taught irreformably as wrong, can actually be ok.

3). The reported action of the Congo nuns was not the moral wrong of contraception.

1. yes though I believe he expressed himself well. He always does. All one has to do is read what he says about economics or the environment or attachment to rules to see his vast Jesuit knowledge of theology and the church.
2. he was as clear as can be about what he was trying to say.
   He is also wrong.
3. the pope did not make that distinction. In fact he directly compared it.

 

[Rau]

1. yes though I believe he expressed himself well. He always does. All one has to do is read what he says about economics or the environment or attachment to rules to see his vast Jesuit knowledge of theology and the church.
2. he was as clear as can be about what he was trying to say.
   He is also wrong.
3. the pope did not make that distinction. In fact he directly compared it.

I can only say that I cannot decipher what he was trying to say. Bad English, bad grammar, translation, somewhat incoherent sentences.

I don’t at all refuse to accept your view of what he meant. I simply read it (the interview) and concluded "what on earth are you trying to say ".

When I think about the matter more broadly - the “facts” on the table, being the existing black and white teachings - weigh against your interpretation. I cannot foresee how one Pope would intentionally contemplate repudiating such teaching of others. Can you imagine if he writes an encyclical on the matter. Do you think he would be comfortable with a couple of Encyclicals in the Blue corner and his in the Red? Doesn’t make sense.

And as I have laboured to point out - the congo nun story does not support the “contraception can be OK sometimes” view, because in fact the claimed act was an act of self-defence against violation, not of contraception. I cannot foresee how wearing a condom or taking a pill to avoid conceiving a Zika baby could be found not to be the moral wrong of contraception in light of existing irreformable teaching.

 

[abucs]

Abucs I wasn’t apologising for the expression ‘cult of legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonability’ as I didn’t say that. I am afraid that is your distortion of what you think I said.

Well i complained to the moderators about your uncharitable post and then asked them not to take any punitive action against you. I see the moderators have agreed with me by deleting your comments so i am happy to leave it there.

If you believe “cult of impersonality” is pejorative then your “cult of personality” applied to Pope Francis must also be just as pejorative.

If i had used the term ‘cult of personality’ and then applied it to Pope Francis then what you say would make some sense. However i haven’t used the term, let alone applied it to pope Francis. If i have then please show me where.

My last post used your term ‘cult of legalistic (name removed by moderator)ersonability’ (now thankfully deleted by the moderators) and explicitly gave the theoretical example of your words being applied to Francis to illustrate how it could be seen as contempt.

I have asked you three times to retract your comments and you have refused. The moderators have now retracted your comments.

As mentioned above i am happy to leave it there.

God bless and good luck.