Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[zz912]

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.

If the Pope was actually saying that using contraception to avoid the Zika virus was ok, then he would be contradicting well-established Church teaching. The Church has never taught there is a possible legitimate reason or excuse to contracept. In fact, the Church has explicitly taught that contraception (the act) is inherently evil.

If that is the intent of the Pope’s words and the meaning behind them, then a Catholic should listen to the infallible and unchanging teaching of the Church, and ignore or denounce the fallible words of the Pope given in an airplane interview.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If the Pope was actually saying that using contraception to avoid the Zika virus was ok, then he would be contradicting well-established Church teaching. The Church has never taught there is a possible legitimate reason or excuse to contracept. In fact, the Church has explicitly taught that contraception (the act) is inherently evil.

If that is the intent of the Pope’s words and the meaning behind them, then a Catholic should listen to the infallible and unchanging teaching of the Church, and ignore or denounce the fallible words of the Pope given in an airplane interview.

Yes. Precisely.
However it isn’t “if” the pope said something, he did say something.

I had an epiphany of sorts. I was so confounded as to why people were discarding logic and taking charity to absurd extremes regarding this issue. And it dawned on me. I’m Catholic. I converted early on my adulthood. I understand papal infallibility. It must be a hard hard thing for some cradle and even converted Catholics to utter the phrase " the pope was wrong".
But, he was.

That doesn’t make him not pope or not worthy of respect, but we cannot accurately discuss this until people can realize a painful observation.
Papa was wrong…

 

[3DOCTORS]

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?

The encyclical Humanae Vitae is the Magisterial teaching; it’s been around for decades. The circumstances under which a Pope might, in effect, grant, say, a “dispensation” under limited circumstances would be something where the Pope would surely be doing a lot of praying to God to guide him before he issued said dispensation.

And such a serious move wouldn’t just be made in the context of an airplane interview. It would have to be formalized. Jesus said to Peter that what he made bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven. Jesus also said that for those to whom more is given, more is required. Meaning that the Pope and the Bishops should never take their teaching responsibilities lightly.

Sometimes interviewers frame questions in a way that leads to the interviewee, even if he be the Pope, to respond in a way that can easily be taken and distorted or at least exaggerated to fit the interviewer’s biased agenda.

It’s been frustrating for us as lay Catholics, yes, to have to await clarification of “off the cuff” remarks, but we should. I do hope and pray that the Holy Father will be very careful with this because of the underlying issues. Even the Pope can make mistakes now and then but let’s hope that in this whole matter he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing anything that would be contradictory to righteousness or cause for people being scandalized.

Blue Horizon, you say people are afraid of conceiving a “monstrosity.” That word should never be used; it’s outdated and prejudicial. It implies that the life of a special needs child is not of the same value as any other human life. No parent wants their child to be born less than healthy, of course, but there must never be a throwaway mentality. The over-reliance on contraception as the only recourse can lead to resorting to abortion if the contraception fails, due to these fears about “monstrosities.”

There is a way of preventing conception that requires sacrifice but is 100% effective; it’s called abstinence. It might not even have to be for long. Perhaps the zika outbreak will be short-lived; perhaps a vaccine will be developed as it was for German measles, another illness that can cause birth defects.

Here are a couple of articles that parse this whole thing in a solid Catholic context:

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-contraception-a-troubling-scenario

ncregister.com/daily-news/popes-comments-on-contraception-in-accord-with-magisterium-philosophers-say/

Let us pray for our Pope, love him, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide him; and let us pray for ourselves and our world.

 

[Sabundus1385]

What on earth is “contraceive?” It sounds like you’re conceiving in a black hole or in an alternate universe!

To contraceive is the opposite of to conceive. Nothing about black holes!

 

[Rau]

The encyclical Humanae Vitae is the Magisterial teaching; it’s been around for decades. The circumstances under which a Pope might, in effect, grant, say, a “dispensation” under limited circumstances would be something where the Pope would surely be doing a lot of praying to God to guide him before he issued said dispensation.

I do not understand how a dispensation - a go ahead to commit moral evil - could every be granted. Certainly, Church authority could advise the nuns that taking anti-ovulation pills in their circumstances is not the moral ill of contraception. That is not a dispensation to commit evil, but clarification that the course contemplated is NOT an evil.

Sometimes interviewers frame questions in a way that leads to the interviewee, even if he be the Pope, to respond in a way that can easily be taken and distorted or at least exaggerated to fit the interviewer’s biased agenda.

I don’t think that happened here. His response to the question is at best exceptionally poorly worded in my view. If he actually meant what he is widely understood to have said, then I would respectively suggest he has misspoken.

Blue Horizon, you say people are afraid of conceiving a “monstrosity.”

People may have multiple good reasons to avoid pregnancy - we can reel off medical situations that are anticipated to afflict child or mother in pregnancy. Zika is now in that set.

Here are a couple of articles that parse this whole thing in a solid Catholic context:

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-contraception-a-troubling-scenario

ncregister.com/daily-news/popes-comments-on-contraception-in-accord-with-magisterium-philosophers-say/

Let us pray for our Pope, love him, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide him; and let us pray for ourselves and our world.

These are quite good articles. They also note that the Congo nun case is not a “dispensation to commit the moral wrong of contraception”, but describe a scenario in which that wrong cannot arise.

 

[kyrie03]

Even the Pope can make mistakes now and then but let’s hope that in this whole matter he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing anything that would be contradictory to righteousness or cause for people being scandalized.

Too late. People are deeply scandalized and justifying offending God. Continuing the silence points to agreement with contraception for cases such as Zika or lack of urgency to correct misperceptions. (Sorry, can’t imagine he’s unaware. If letters to him make a difference - I retract and wonder about his advisors). The Holy Spirit can only do so much. People have to cooperate.

Doc, I echo your call for increased prayer! Throw in serious fasting, too. Many are being deceived as never before in Church history.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Many birth control pills are abortifacients in that they allow a child to be conceived and then cause the uterus lining to which it is attached to be flushed out in a monthly cycle. Other types of birth control allow a child to be conceived, but keep the uterus lining thin and slippery so that the embryo will not attach to the uterus wall. I don’t see how a Pope could condone artificial birth control pills and say they are different than an abortion. If he actually implied that on purpose, it would have to be through sheer ignorance.

It would be like the Pope saying it was okay to take the morning after pill.

Did someone post an official response from the Vatican on this? I read through quite a few pages of posts, but not all.

 

[clem456]

Morality is about “the good”.
What is “the good” that the Church’s teaching on sexuality serves and points us to?
Or is it merely about defining a prohibition?
This makes all the difference in this topic.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I do not understand how a dispensation - a go ahead to commit moral evil - could every be granted. Certainly, Church authority could advise the nuns that taking anti-ovulation pills in their circumstances is not the moral ill of contraception. That is not a dispensation to commit evil, but clarification that the course contemplated is NOT an evil.

These are quite good articles. They also note that the Congo nun case is not a “dispensation to commit the moral wrong of contraception”, but describe a scenario in which that wrong cannot arise.

Glad the articles were of help. I’m not sure if I used the word “dispensation” in a strictly formal sense at first there. I was sort of feeling my way along, trying to figure out the correct wording. A true dispensation to commit evil, of course that can never be and I don’t think it would be - let’s hope not. So the question remains, first of all, would it be evil or not, and under which circumstances, etc.

The Catholic Register articles I linked to do a thorough job of explaining when the use of contraceptive methods would be a defense against rape, vs. rendering the marital act unfruitful via artificial means. That’s an important distinction, and the very reason why this is a troubling and thorny subject. I don’t want to see any “loophole” that could be exploited to open the door to changing authentic Church teaching. I pray that upon reflection , away from reporters and other distractions, our Holy Father will come to conclusions in accord with God’s will, and be clear in stating them to the faithful. May God guide him in truth and righteousness always, that is my prayer.

 

[kyrie03]

Morality is about “the good”.
What is “the good” that the Church’s teaching on sexuality serves and points us to?
Or is it merely about defining a prohibition?
This makes all the difference in this topic.

Morality is based on the natural law written by God on the human heart. It tells us what we ought or ought not do. Catholic understanding is that sin darkens the mind and weakens the will. For this reason, the Church relies on Sacred Scripture and Tradition (the Deposit of Faith) to expound on proper understanding of what is/isn’t moral. God is the “good” to which we are ordered. The Church guides us to conform to Him…to become God-like. To the degree we cooperate, we no longer live, but Christ lives through us. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore, the Church’s Magestarium has no authority to contradict the natural law or the Deposit of Faith.
Hope this helps en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_moral_theology#Description

 

[clem456]

Morality is based on the natural law written by God on the human heart. It tells us what we ought or ought not do. Catholic understanding is that sin darkens the mind and weakens the will. For this reason, the Church relies on Sacred Scripture and Tradition (the Deposit of Faith) to expound on proper understanding of what is/isn’t moral. God is the “good” to which we are ordered. The Church guides us to conform to Him…to become God-like. To the degree we cooperate, we no longer live, but Christ lives through us. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore, the Church’s Magestarium has no authority to contradict the natural law or the Deposit of Faith.
Hope this helps en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_moral_theology#Description

Right
Specifically, in this moral situation discussed…
what is lost sight of is the good that the Church’s morality points us to.
What is the good the Church’s teaching exposes with it’s teaching?
It is in that full sense that the context of the CCC makes sense.

The morality of the question is being looked at purely in trying to determine what is prohibited.
Morality does not merely serve the prohibited object, it serves the good.
So in that negative sense, the

 

[loumeland]

I have read the entirety of this thread, from p. 1 to 24, and all the positions expounded on here can be summarized into four-

1. The Pope said that it is acceptable for a couple to use NFP, or even abstain, in light of the Zika virus. After all, he said “avoid pregnancy,” not “use contraception.”
2. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is wrong.
3. The Pope has allowed a very strict dispensation, allowing the use of contraception 1) only for cases of Zika, and 2) until a vaccine is developed. This is primarily Rau’s position.
4. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is developing doctrine. This is primarily TMC’s position.

Having said that, the first position is no longer feasible, given that the Pope’s spokesman has clarified what the Pope meant by “avoiding pregnancy”: (oral) contraceptives and condoms. This is what he meant, and it’s time to work from there.

The second position brings its own set of problems. If Pope Francis is simply wrong in this judgment, what if Pope Paul VI is wrong also? Both the condemnation of contraception AND the consultation of conscience are part of the Magisterium. The Sabbath was a law, and yet Jesus and his disciples broke it for just reasons.

The third position is reasonable. Yet, in my opinion, it does not take into account the “genie” that has been let out of the bottle. The context of the nuns in Congo is not a voluntary, (married) relationship, but a crime of rape. However, the Pope is allowing for oral contraceptives and condoms to be used within a marriage relationship. Why not simply say “abstain,” as several bishops have exhorted?

The fourth position, in my opinion, is what is going on. The encyclical Humanae Vitae was just that, an encyclical. It served its purpose in exposing the “contraceptive mindset,” which not only sees children as a burden but offers abortion as a valid solution to the pursuit of happiness. Pope Francis has often lauded this letter, but if you listen carefully, this has two dimensions. He has only done so in the context of governments not allowing outside agencies to force people to use contraception as a condition to receive aid. He has not praised this letter in the context of an individual couple’s formation of conscience.

After getting a good sampling of the lifestyle of families in the Church, he is ready to issue an apostolic exhortation. I believe he will touch this issue, however briefly. The basic Catholic doctrine about contraception will likely remain in paper. However, he will continue exhorting individual couples to study their circumstances, pray, discern, and form their conscience in light of their condition and times.

 

[kyrie03]

I have read the entirety of this thread, from p. 1 to 24, and all the positions expounded on here can be summarized into four-

1. The Pope said that it is acceptable for a couple to use NFP, or even abstain, in light of the Zika virus. After all, he said “avoid pregnancy,” not “use contraception.”
2. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is wrong.
3. The Pope has allowed a very strict dispensation, allowing the use of contraception 1) only for cases of Zika, and 2) until a vaccine is developed. This is primarily Rau’s position.
4. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is developing doctrine. This is primarily TMC’s position.

Having said that, the first position is no longer feasible, given that the Pope’s spokesman has clarified what the Pope meant by “avoiding pregnancy”: (oral) contraceptives and condoms. This is what he meant, and it’s time to work from there.

The second position brings its own set of problems. If Pope Francis is simply wrong in this judgment, what if Pope Paul VI is wrong also? Both the condemnation of contraception AND the consultation of conscience are part of the Magisterium. The Sabbath was a law, and yet Jesus and his disciples broke it for just reasons.

The third position is reasonable. Yet, in my opinion, it does not take into account the “genie” that has been let out of the bottle. The context of the nuns in Congo is not a voluntary, (married) relationship, but a crime of rape. However, the Pope is allowing for oral contraceptives and condoms to be used within a marriage relationship. Why not simply say “abstain,” as several bishops have exhorted?

The fourth position, in my opinion, is what is going on. The encyclical Humanae Vitae was just that, an encyclical. It served its purpose in exposing the “contraceptive mindset,” which not only sees children as a burden but offers abortion as a valid solution to the pursuit of happiness. Pope Francis has often lauded this letter, but if you listen carefully, this has two dimensions. He has only done so in the context of governments not allowing outside agencies to force people to use contraception as a condition to receive aid. He has not praised this letter in the context of an individual couple’s formation of conscience.

After getting a good sampling of the lifestyle of families in the Church, he is ready to issue an apostolic exhortation. I believe he will touch this issue, however briefly. The basic Catholic doctrine about contraception will likely remain in paper. However, he will continue exhorting individual couples to study their circumstances, pray, discern, and form their conscience in light of their condition and times.

Fair summary. And you illustrate exactly why this debate is so damaging -to souls. You come to conclusion most will probably logically also reach.
If one has lost their FAITH, the sad reality is they do not know they have lost it!

 

[TCEL]

The second position brings its own set of problems. If Pope Francis is simply wrong in this judgment, what if Pope Paul VI is wrong also? Both the condemnation of contraception AND the consultation of conscience are part of the Magisterium. The Sabbath was a law, and yet Jesus and his disciples broke it for just reasons.

It isn’t just Pope Paul VI, though. The prohibition against contraception can be found in the Didache. There is already a “way out” of this dilemma; abstinence. That is the most simple way. Unlike stealing food to survive, we can survive without sex. That is why this doesn’t make sense. Are laws merely about pragmatism?

This is my problem. Is today’s contraception the last millennia’s pork? I’m not so sure. Jesus tightened the spirit of the law and elevated it. At least, pertaining to marriage He did.

 

[loumeland]

Fair summary. And you illustrate exactly why this debate is so damaging -to souls. You come to conclusion most will probably logically also reach.
If one has lost their FAITH, the sad reality is they do not know they have lost it!

So TMC, (90% of) the Church, and I have lost our faith? Wow. I did not know that the Faith hinged on the very issue of birth control. Who knew!

 

[loumeland]

It isn’t just Pope Paul VI, though. The prohibition against contraception can be found in the Didache. There is already a “way out” of this dilemma; abstinence. That is the most simple way. Unlike stealing food to survive, we can survive without sex. That is why this doesn’t make sense. Are laws merely about pragmatism?

This is my problem. Is today’s contraception the last millennia’s pork? I’m not so sure. Jesus tightened the spirit of the law and elevated it. At least, pertaining to marriage He did.

Marriage- yes! And we believe in the indissolubility of marriage! Yet, here we are discussing a way for people who have committed adultery (aka. remarriage) to go through a penitential process within an internal forum and be able to take Communion. The doctrine itself doesn’t change, but the pastoral implications can and do change!

 

[Rau]

I have read the entirety of this thread, from p. 1 to 24, and all the positions expounded on here can be summarized into four-

1. The Pope said that it is acceptable for a couple to use NFP, or even abstain, in light of the Zika virus. After all, he said “avoid pregnancy,” not “use contraception.”
2. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is wrong.
3. The Pope has allowed a very strict dispensation, allowing the use of contraception 1) only for cases of Zika, and 2) until a vaccine is developed. This is primarily Rau’s position.
4. The Pope allowed contraception for serious cases, after serious discernment and deliberation of conscience. The Pope is developing doctrine. This is primarily TMC’s position.

Having said that, the first position is no longer feasible, given that the Pope’s spokesman has clarified what the Pope meant by “avoiding pregnancy”: (oral) contraceptives and condoms. This is what he meant, and it’s time to work from there.

The second position brings its own set of problems. If Pope Francis is simply wrong in this judgment, what if Pope Paul VI is wrong also? Both the condemnation of contraception AND the consultation of conscience are part of the Magisterium. The Sabbath was a law, and yet Jesus and his disciples broke it for just reasons.

The third position is reasonable. Yet, in my opinion, it does not take into account the “genie” that has been let out of the bottle. The context of the nuns in Congo is not a voluntary, (married) relationship, but a crime of rape. However, the Pope is allowing for oral contraceptives and condoms to be used within a marriage relationship. Why not simply say “abstain,” as several bishops have exhorted?

The fourth position, in my opinion, is what is going on. The encyclical Humanae Vitae was just that, an encyclical. It served its purpose in exposing the “contraceptive mindset,” which not only sees children as a burden but offers abortion as a valid solution to the pursuit of happiness. Pope Francis has often lauded this letter, but if you listen carefully, this has two dimensions. He has only done so in the context of governments not allowing outside agencies to force people to use contraception as a condition to receive aid. He has not praised this letter in the context of an individual couple’s formation of conscience.

After getting a good sampling of the lifestyle of families in the Church, he is ready to issue an apostolic exhortation. I believe he will touch this issue, however briefly. The basic Catholic doctrine about contraception will likely remain in paper. However, he will continue exhorting individual couples to study their circumstances, pray, discern, and form their conscience in light of their condition and times.

Your point 3 is not at all my view. I’ve repeatedly said I have no idea what on earth the Pope was trying to say. I have consistently argued:

• no case of contraception can be made against Congo nuns;
• existing doctrine cannot be compatible with a view that contraception to guard against Zika would be moral.

 

[loumeland]

Your point 3 is not at all my view. I’ve repeatedly said I have no idea what on earth the Pope was trying to say. I have consistently argued:

• no case of contraception can be made against Congo nuns;
• existing doctrine cannot be compatible with a view that contraception to guard against Zika would be moral.

I apologize for having misrepresented you.

I’m sure I saw this third position flying around, so it’s still for debate.

 

[TCEL]

Marriage- yes! And we believe in the indissolubility of marriage! Yet, here we are discussing a way for people who have committed adultery (aka. remarriage) to go through a penitential process within an internal forum and be able to take Communion. The doctrine itself doesn’t change, but the pastoral implications can and do change!

Has the issue been settled? I wasn’t aware that the Church had changed its teaching on the matter of divorce, remarriage, and communion. Marriage has also had these challenges since Jesus’ day. Why change it today? Because these problems are so widespread? Why are these marital challenges so widespread? Is it because the culture doesn’t know the Church’s teaching regarding marriage and the family? Or is it because they have been exposed, and reject it? Or a combination?

I’m not trying to be argumentative. This is how I regularly think out loud. Anyway, exchange “contraception” for “marriage,” and that brings it back to topic. I would argue that contraception has helped induce many marital challenges, but a lot of people dismiss that outright.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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).

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?

Because HV obviously means “directly intending”.
It appears there may be unusual cases where the matter (object font) is such that it is able to anchor an indirect contraceptive intention. Just as killing can be justified by a situation of self-defence which renders the (presumably) “chosen” necessary killing indirect.

Killing is just as evil as use of a contraceptive is it not?
And as Pope Francis says, neither is an absolute evil…there may be proportionate goods that out weigh these evils.