- Status
E
EmeraldOak
Guest
That would be the morally acceptable course of action.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Oh I believe you! My wife is on Coumadin and that causes severe birth defects. She is 1 year pp and hasn’t had her cycle yet.
Not to mention what getting pregnant might do to her right now. We are talking life and death. Which is why the popes words were so infuriating to me. We would love to throw a condom on and lose our worries. But we can’t, no matter what the pope says on an airplane. But yet some think it seems merciful to tell others they can dicern something evil!?
Not to mention what that says about children actually born with birth defects! The pope thinks the parents could have dicerned to contracept as a lesser of two evils!?
It will take a while but the Down syndrome crowd will figure this out pretty soon…:
E
EmeraldOak
Guest
I have such compassion for you & your wife. This is not an easy situation to be in. And I’m sure there are other couples also in this same situation who are not posting on this thread. As discouraged as I was after the pope’s comments, I am now encouraged knowing that there are other married people going through what I am going through and that my husband & I are not some misguided, extremist, rule-following fringe of Catholicism. We just fear mortal sin and we fear hell. We do not want any part of our marriage to offend God. And your wife’s life is at stake! I will include you both in our rosary tonight. I don’t know what else to do except keep praying for strength and to stand up for the Church’s official teaching.
S
Sabundus1385
Guest
“To conceive or contraceive” – that is the question! I do understand this is a complex moral situation. The average family size in my parish is two children. It is possible that they are contraceiving rather than simply abstaining. Whether they contraceive “naturally” or “unnaturally” is something I haven’t asked couples at the social hour after Mass, as I regard that as a fairly personal question.There is no deliberation. The couple either chosen to sin or not.
How can something be moral for one but sinful for another? Your position makes no sense and reeks of justification.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Nor should you. But you seem to be saying artificial contraception is a moral option?
Could you be a little less vague as to your point?
U
Usige
Guest
First, "to conceive or contraceive"is a false dichotomy. There certainly is a middle ground of “we’ll let nature take it’s course”. It is simply ignorant of human biology to say “if we don’t contracept we will get pregnant.”
Secondly, regardless of what people do, it does not change the inherent sinfulness of sterilizing the marital act. This has been repeated ad nauseam by the Church for millennia. Just because your buddy at coffee doesn’t talk about sleeping with his 16 year old babysitter or his porn habit doesn’t make either any less sinful either.
S
Sabundus1385
Guest
Never mind. Sorry I brought it up. It’s not even an issue in my parish, and “the sin of contraception” was removed from our parish examination of conscience four years ago. Sorry I brought this up!
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Parishes don’t have examinations of consciences. Though I am sorry to hear your parish is like that. Perhaps you should learn more about the church’s teaching in this matter. Have you read humane vitae? Or the catechism?
U
Usige
Guest
Weather it is in a particular examine is of zero consequence. Its not like it simply is no longer a sin because you aren’t asked. Sin is sin even if people want to stick their fingers in their ears like a child saying, “nah, nah, nah. I’m not listening to you.”
That it was removed and some seem to believe it is a matter of choice is simply sad. It sounds like the pastor needs to talk about it more if people are so poorly catechized to think sin is dependent on ones parish. “Bummer, Father said sleeping with the nanny is a sin. Lets go to St Liberals; fornication isn’t a sin there.” Uh… wrong. Satan, what do we have behind door number 1 for our contestant?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
The Pope seems to be suggesting that act you refer to is not an intrinsically evil moral act but a physical act.
Therefore logic suggests your understanding of this act as a moral evil even before we consider the motives of the agents is at odds.
Clearly the Pope only sees a physical evil in the act that you refer to … it may be intrinsically evil, but like killing, may be indirectly chosen as a means for noble motives.
Rau you need to analyse things more deeply as just rolling out this mantra is hardly definitive or even relevant.
I have not seen a clear Magisterial statement that use of contraceptives is immoral if it’s purpose is to avoid conception of a very likely monstrosity. Perhaps I am mistaken?
P
Pulvis
Guest
Back in my motorcycle days an organization that I rode with would make annual trips to Holy Angels in Belmont, NC. The fine sisters cared for children with extra special needs do to serious birth defects. Those children, just as all God’s children, would bring us great joy. Not a monstrosity in the bunch.
R
Rau
Guest
Note so much by observation Blue - rather the declaration of prior Popes and the catholic moral theology as a whole. The informal statements of the current Pope are a poor counter-balance to all that has gone before…
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I am suggesting that your statement “The Church teaches that deliberately contracepting conjugal relations is always a bad act” is a poor personal interpretation of what Pope Francis is saying.
He can reasonably be understood (especially if one respects his office) to be saying that there is actually no direct contraceptive intent on the table in this case - rather it is indirect.
If so, that’s in perfect conformity with all that has gone before.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I agree! I suppose the Pope, if he is correct, is saying that all human life is sacred in itself which is why one can never abort a “monstrosity”. However “not getting pregnant” during sex for this reason is not destroying an actual life. If one still chooses to accept the conception that is a wonderful heroic attitude - but it is not demanded of the faithful.
At least according to Pope Francis.
As a respectful Catholic I am willing to accept what he says until such time as he retracts.
If Rau is correct he will have to contract.
I am not holding my breath though.
R
Rau
Guest
Consider what a number of Pope’s have written, and ask yourself, does the application of their written work in identifying the wrong of contraception lead to the same conclusion that you infer Francis reached?
Note: Zika was unknown to all prior Popes. But I think we can safely say Zika is not the distinguishing feature. Substitute HIV, Downs, Tay Sachs, Serious Health Risk to mother, and so on…
L
Listener
Guest
What on earth is “contraceive?” It sounds like you’re conceiving in a black hole or in an alternate universe!
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Do you really think I haven’t done that Rau
.And as I have explained many times I believe Pope Francis is saying that it is possible there is no immoral act of contraception on the table in a Zika case…only the physical use of a contraceptive.
Just as is the case with the Congo nuns - whether mythical or not.
R
Rau
Guest
You’ve not explained. You’ve merely asserted that Francis is saying that what those fearing Zika do with Pill or Condom is not contraception; that their means is merely physical evil, despite this having not been the position of the Church at any prior time (eg. When Downs or Tay Sachs or Health risks to mother or HIV have been discussed).Do you really think I haven’t done that Rau
And as I have explained many times I believe Pope Francis is saying that it is possible there is no immoral act of contraception on the table in a Zika case…only the physical use of a contraceptive.
I understand you to see merit in such a view. Could you spell out how the teaching of HV, which defines the moral evil, can simultaneously be held consistent with this new thinking?
- Status