Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Blue_Horizon]

It didn’t actually happen. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Cite the dispensation or authorization given to the nuns with a link so I can investigate it.

The debate on this is quite widespread on the Net as I am sure a quick search will source for you. Few moral theologians deny the permissibility of same regardless of whether it is historical or not. The Magisterium’s complete silence on such widespread and ongoing acceptance in Pontifically controlled publications and universities since 1962 is itself either scandalous or … Magisterial acceptance. Given Pope Francis has better access to Vatican private correspondence and views than you and I…I feel its quite legitimate to accept the principles behind the Congo Nuns incident without further ado.
I understand why your own moral theology wrt contraception may force you to deny this common sense but not infallible position I and most others take on the matter.

I don’t understand what indirectly choosing means.

Look up moral commentaries on why killing (“thou shall not kill” sounds like intrinsically evil) can be justified in some self-defence scenarios. The CCC’s analysis is a good starting point.

Using contraception intending to avoid pregnancy when having sexual relations is ALWAYS a grave sin. It is inherently evil.

You left out the word “directly” intending. Indirect use of contraception is acceptable as the case of Congo Nuns and the legitimacy of other medical therapies attest to.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If a man wears a condom to prevent communicating a disease to his wife, I can understand how you might view that as “indirect contraception” since you’ve argued that in the past.

But if a woman fears Zika impacting a possible forthcoming pregnancy, and thus uses contraceptives so as not to become pregnant/risking Zika baby - do you agree that is certainly an act of contraception (and morally wrong)?

I believe the interpretation placed on Francis’ comments ( to the effect that contraception could be OK ) covers both the above scenarios.

Well I am simply trying to find an acceptable way of understanding what Pope Francis said only wrt communicating a disease to the baby.

Maybe the proportionality isn’t a great enough justification for your example above.
Also even for Zika maybe its proportional only in the short term?

Maybe its such a difficult case that, in the absence of a clear theological understanding, the Magisterium is prepared to be compassionate in the short term and allow those in good conscience to contracept for Zika until a well thought out Magisterial approach crystalises .

I suppose both examples may have in common that a prudential judgement may be potentially explored because if your example can be justified it would only be on the basis that it can anchor a truly indirect intention as opposed to a direct one. There may be principles other than TPODE which can suggest indirection could be on the table.

In short I don’t know about your case.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I corrected my description, remember?

Contraception is directly intended when one chooses it to avoid pregnancy. This is moral evil according to Church teaching. Choosing to kill the person (not innocent) about to kill you is not a moral evil.

Clearly I am saying (indirectly) choosing to use contraceptives is NOT an act of contraception and the moral evil of an “act of contraception” simply doesn’t exist despite appearances to the contrary.

Just as indirectly killing someone does not violate the commandment “thou shall not (directly) kill”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s called “indirectly intending” because that is what it is. If the attacker, the one committing evil, were not attacking, there would be no intent or action to defend yourself. You would have no need. You would go on about your day. But the direct actions of the attacker have forced the issue and you have the right to respond to repel the attacker.

If a man walks up and punches you, but then runs away, you don’t have the right to kill him. If a man walks up and punches you and intends to keep punching you, you have the right to repel him, up to and including killing him, depending on your ability to repel him (i.e. a large man could easily repel a small woman, but a small woman cannot easily repel a large man).

So no, even when you kill someone in self defense, you did not “directly intend” to kill them. You had no direct intention about him at all.

Yes I generally agree with your analysis of why killing in self defence is not immoral.

Though I note that just Capital Punishment by the State does in principle allow for “chasing after someone” to execute them for past grave wrongs.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is okay for some married couples to use contraception, specifically when one spouse isn’t Catholic. This is from CA’s Ask and Apologist. I’m sure some will call it relativism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=919702

I wasn’t aware the Vatican or the Rota had actually commented on such a common situation as this.

Its really based on principles of legitimate cooperation in evil and really says little about contraception per se.

But what it does mean is that using contraceptives is not an “absolute evil” (like abortion) and there are situations where it can be tolerated if the good gained is greater than the evil indirectly “chosen”. Just as the Pope says.

It also means that the unitive purpose of marital sex (even non-sacramental marriages) is considered a great good that under some circumstances can outweigh the evil of separating the procreative purpose by contraception…which was the point I was making above that many Catholics trivialise.

It also means that this is yet another case where a Catholic may choose to use contraceptives
without committing an intrinsically evil “act of contraception.”

Thankyou for this link.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sin is personal. The party who tolerates the actions of the other while not wanting or endorsing them does not sin. The one who pursues the contraception (knowing it to be wrong) does sin. The one who tolerates it accepts the physical evil involved, but does so to avoid what is perceived to be a greater physical evil, being the consequences in the marriage relationship of refusing sexual relations.

Which pretty well sums up what “indirectly intending” the use of contraceptives means.
This form of choosing to use contraceptives is not intrinsically evil or immoral.

And it cannot be denied that Congo Nuns and contracepted sex with a non Catholic partner are both examples of deliberately chosen use of contraceptives.

As is killing my attacker in some cases.

 

[Rau]

The debate [congo nuns] on this is quite widespread…

And to my mind, mostly misses the point. Any adoption of “the pill” by nuns in the Congo in the 1960s does not represent some dispensation or “exception” to the teachings of the Church. Rather, as nearly everyone who has posted agrees, there cannot be the moral ill of contraception in rape, given the act which is not to be “destroyed” is not actually taking place.

Look up moral commentaries on why killing can be justified in some self-defence scenarios. The CCC’s analysis is a good starting point.

And I would add - start with the understanding that “killing” is a pre-moral term - the moral content is missing. So not only is an act involving “killing” sometimes permissible, even an act involving a deliberately chosen killing can be OK. The killing involves harm for sure - sometimes called physical evil. That is allowable **as a means **to a good end, when reasonably required, and when offset by as much good (in consequences) as harm. Moral evil however is never permitted - so acting motivated by a desire to kill, or choosing to kill an innocent, is never permitted.

 

[Rau]

Which pretty well sums up what “indirectly intending” the use of contraceptives means.
This form of choosing to use contraceptives is not intrinsically evil or immoral.

Clearly, one party chooses to use contraceptives and subject to awareness of what they do - sins.

As for the other party - the view is also expressed by some that that person knowingly chooses to engage in contracepted sex and thus they act in a way that is morally evil. [Ron Conte expresses this position] It could also be said that the “non-contracepting” party engages in immediate material cooperation with an intrinsically evil act. That would mark their cooperation as wrong. The duress of the situation would certainly bear on culpability - but not morality I would think.

However, the following document takes a different view - I think:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

A subject for a different thread I think.

 

[loumeland]

It also means that the unitive purpose of marital sex (even non-sacramental marriages) is considered a great good that under some circumstances can outweigh the evil of separating the procreative purpose by contraception…which was the point I was making above that many Catholics trivialise.

This right here. This is what (90% of) the Church has understood but has been unable to put as succinctly as you have.

 

[zz912]

This right here. This is what (90% of) the Church has understood but has been unable to put as succinctly as you have.

90% of the Church in the 300’s believed in the heresy of Arianism. They were wrong then, and those who believe contraception because of Zika is okay are wrong now.

 

[zz912]

I note with some cynicism that many Catholic’s are starting to sound like Martin Luther when talking about Pope Francis theology.

Are you claiming that Pope Francis’ theology is different from Church teaching? Because I see people reiterating Church teaching.

 

[J_Peterson]

90% of the Church in the 300’s believed in the heresy of Arianism. They were wrong then, and those who believe contraception because of Zika is okay are wrong now.

I usually see that used as an example of a time when the lay people were correct and the hierarchy was wrong. I think the comparison is apt but I come to a different conclusion than you.

 

[Galnextdoor]

I do not understand why we think we are smarter, more informed, or even holier than the Pope himself! If Pope Francis said it happened and that the Vatican approved, it is so. This reminds me of people trying to explain away what he actually said, until Fr. Federico Lombardi said, “Yep, this is exactly what he said.”

As far as the previous popes affirming the current, official Church teaching- yes. But this is about to undergo a development. Just like the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the sinfulness of usury, the concept of religious liberty- all matters of faith and morals. We have to avoid the two-fold temptation of 1) pretending that doctrine does not develop, and 2) revising history.

Can we trust the Holy Spirit to work in this situation through our Pope?

As for the doctrine developing. I have no idea what you are referring to. According to the “Modern Catholic Dictionary”, doctrine is a truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. Truth does not change. Sometimes things are clarified, but they are not changed.

As for usury, there was a clarification made due to people not understanding what it meant. Usury comes from a Hebrew word, neshek, meaning a painful bite. It kind of reminds me of the term “loan shark”. I was always taught that usury is “loan sharking” not like paying interest on a mortgage.

As language changes, meanings of words and practices associated with the words change. The Church clarifies these things for us. The epitome of a word changing its meaning and practice is the word “gay”. If the Church said 50 years ago it that there was nothing wrong with being gay, we don’t have to be sober all the time, it would have a completely different connotation than it does now. At that time, gay meant happy and sober was often used to mean serious.

 

[TMC]

loumeland;13717770:

I do not understand why we think we are smarter, more informed, or even holier than the Pope himself! If Pope Francis said it happened and that the Vatican approved, it is so. This reminds me of people trying to explain away what he actually said, until Fr. Federico Lombardi said, “Yep, this is exactly what he said.”

As far as the previous popes affirming the current, official Church teaching- yes. But this is about to undergo a development. Just like the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the sinfulness of usury, the concept of religious liberty- all matters of faith and morals. We have to avoid the two-fold temptation of 1) pretending that doctrine does not develop, and 2) revising history.

Can we trust the Holy Spirit to work in this situation through our Pope?

As for the doctrine developing. I have no idea what you are referring to. According to the “Modern Catholic Dictionary”, doctrine is a truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. Truth does not change. Sometimes things are clarified, but they are not changed.

As for usury, there was a clarification made due to people not understanding what it meant. Usury comes from a Hebrew word, neshek, meaning a painful bite. It kind of reminds me of the term “loan shark”. I was always taught that usury is “loan sharking” not like paying interest on a mortgage.

As language changes, meanings of words and practices associated with the words change. The Church clarifies these things for us. The epitome of a word changing its meaning and practice is the word “gay”. If the Church said 50 years ago it that there was nothing wrong with being gay, we don’t have to be sober all the time, it would have a completely different connotation than it does now. At that time, gay meant happy and sober was often used to mean serious.

If you are more comfortable with “clarified” I am happy to use that euphemism. The usury doctrine was “clarified” from meaning that interest is always evil and forbidden to meaning that excessive interest is sometimes wrong. The doctrine on contraception appears to be undergoing a similar “clarification.”

 

[TCEL]

I usually see that used as an example of a time when the lay people were correct and the hierarchy was wrong. I think the comparison is apt but I come to a different conclusion than you.

I’m confused. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say that the Arian heresy is an example of when the lay people were correct? Maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses might say that?

 

[J_Peterson]

I’m confused. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say that the Arian heresy is an example of when the lay people were correct? Maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses might say that?

The connection was making the rounds a year or so ago (I think in response to the synod).
I managed to find this document that mentions it:

SENSUS FIDEI IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH*

1. In the first five centuries, the faith of the Church as a whole proved decisive in determining the canon of Scripture and in defining major doctrines concerning, for example, the divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity and divine motherhood of Mary, and the veneration and invocation of the saints. In some cases, as Blessed John Henry Newman (1801-90) remarked, the faith of the laity, in particular, played a crucial role. The most striking example was in the famous controversy in the fourth century with the Arians, who were condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), where the divinity of Jesus Christ was defined. From then until the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), however, there continued to be uncertainty among the bishops. During that period, ‘the divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate’. ‘[T]here was a temporary suspense of the functions of the “Ecclesia docens”. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years.’[17]

 

[Rau]

If you are more comfortable with “clarified” I am happy to use that euphemism. The usury doctrine was “clarified” from meaning that interest is always evil and forbidden to meaning that excessive interest is sometimes wrong. The doctrine on contraception appears to be undergoing a similar “clarification.”

Loans Sharking was the nature of the act called usury that l learned also. It was/is an act that sought to extract what could be extracted, rather than a just arrangement.

Off the cuff remarks in aeroplanes do not even rise to the level of personal theological argument (which even from the pope don’t amount to teaching and need not be accepted). No Church authority has put a word to paper to support what the Pope is thought to have said. I suggest “appearances can be deceiving”.

 

[TMC]

Loans Sharking was the nature of the act called usury that l learned also. It was/is an act that sought to extract what could be extracted, rather than a just arrangement.

Off the cuff remarks in aeroplanes do not even rise to the level of personal theological argument (which even from the pope don’t amount to teaching and need not be accepted). No Church authority has put a word to paper to support what the Pope is thought to have said. I suggest “appearances can be deceiving”.

You are absolutely incorrect on usury. The Church banned all lending of money at interest for over a thousand years, and now allows what it once banned.

Words on paper are yet to come, but it seems to me that the Church has already moved in that direction. I suppose time will tell which of us are correct.

 

[Rau]

…Words on paper are yet to come, but it seems to me that the Church has already moved in that direction. I suppose time will tell which of us are correct.

The Church has moved? Or the current Pope appears to have misspoken? Neither of us have sufficient time left on earth to witness what you foresee.

 

[TMC]

The Church has moved? Or the current Pope appears to have misspoken? Neither of us have sufficient time left on earth to witness what you foresee.

The Church has moved, evolved, developed, “clarified”, whatever term you prefer. The Pope did not misspeak. He knows what he says and says what he means. As to how long it will take - sometimes things move very slowly, but at time they move with some speed. This seems to be one of those times.