Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Rau]

I don’t understand why material cooperation in use of contraceptives (or grand theft for that matter) would always be immoral?

The contracepting spouse commits the sin of contraception in this scenario. I understand material cooperation (cooperation necessary for the commitment of the wrong act…) in an intrinsic evil is immoral.

 

[TMC]

TMC;13720752:

Your grasping at straws and using the very false logic that the secular media used when it said that Pope Paul VI secretly approved of birth control and was going to change doctrine in the 70’s.

Practices may change, but doctrine and dogma don’t. The Pope can’t approve birth control pill use anymore than he can ordain women priests.

I’m sure you feel that way. It appears the Church does not.

 

[TMC]

. This is well established by the Church. You appear to assume every utterance by the pope is Church teaching. It is not.

I close nothing. I’ve opened my mouth and said “I’ve no idea what the Pope is trying to say.” And “the commonly expressed interpretation of what he said stands in stark contradiction to what the Church teaches.” I am confident in both positions.

The Pope was pretty clear, and his spokesman confirmed that clarity.

 

[TMC]

This seeks to explain how radically different circumstances then and now change the nature of the act:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-stance-on-usury

The physical interest was not the wrong, but the injustice at its heart at the time. Where that injustice arises even in today’s radically different environment, usury remains wrong.

Removing a man’s heart 1000 years ago was the intentional killing of an innocent, but is not necessarily that today.

Exactly. As the Church learned more about the subject, and as times changed, the Church changed its teachings. Hmmm, that seems a lot like what is happening with contraception.

 

[Rau]

Exactly. As the Church learned more about the subject, and as times changed, the Church changed its teachings. Hmmm, that seems a lot like what is happening with contraception.

No - as I explained, usury remains immoral.

I suggest that judgement on the question of whether there is a change in the position on contraception be withheld until the first document is issued by the Vatican (CDF) or the Pope proposing how there are acts of (direct) contraception that can be moral. In the meantime, the Church teaches today the same thing it taught last year, and the year before, and so on…

BTW - prior to the Pope Francis airborne interview, would you have expressed the view that the Church position is “changing”? If so, what would you have based that on?

 

[TMC]

No - as I explained, usury remains immoral.

I suggest that judgement on the question of whether there is a change in the position on contraception be withheld until the first document is issued by the Vatican (CDF) or the Pope proposing how there are acts of (direct) contraception that can be moral. In the meantime, the Church teaches today the same thing it taught last year, and the year before, and so on…

BTW - prior to the Pope Francis airborne interview, would you have expressed the view that the Church position is “changing”? If so, what would you have based that on?

“Usury” has been redefined in such a way that a complete change in doctrine has resulted.

We will see what the Church does over the next year or two. Anyone that thinks the Pope’s comments are not an indication of where he is going is kidding themselves.

And, yes, I did believe that the Church has long been evolving on contraception, based on the fact that the vast majority of serious Catholics have long since evolved on the issue.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The contracepting spouse commits the sin of contraception in this scenario. I understand material cooperation (cooperation necessary for the commitment of the wrong act…) in an intrinsic evil is immoral.

Rau you reasoning denies what the Confessional advice readily states.
This should suggest to you that your moral framework is somehow inadequate.

And to me it is.
One can cooperate with someone else (who chooses to use contraceptives purely to prevent pregnancy for unjustifiable reasons) and yet not be sinning. And the reason they may not sin has nothing to do with duress or reduced culpability. They in fact intend to materially cooperate and do so freely as an act of fully imputable virtue.

That is exactly what the Confessional advice is saying if the listed conditions are met.
Looks like a separation of unitive and procreative purposes to me at the physical level…but maybe not at the moral/intended level.

 

[Rau]

Rau you reasoning denies what the Confessional advice readily states…One can cooperate with someone else (who chooses to use contraceptives purely to prevent pregnancy for unjustifiable reasons) and yet not be sinning. And the reason they may not sin has nothing to do with duress or reduced culpability. They in fact intend to materially cooperate and do so freely as an act of fully imputable virtue.

That is exactly what the Confessional advice is saying if the listed conditions are met.
Looks like a separation of unitive and procreative purposes to me at the physical level…but maybe not at the moral/intended level.

Follow the context Blue. I was contrasting two views on the matter, having examined neither in any detail. [BTW - Your interlocutor Ron Conte publishes on his website the view that one must not cooperate with a contracepting spouse because cooperation with intrinsic evil is immoral.]

The “separation of aspects of the conjugal act” is imputed to the contracepting spouse, not to them as a pair.

 

[JPUSC]

**National Catholic Register (A Service of EWTN):

Pope Francis and Contraception: A Troubling Scenario**

Pope Francis then said: “In certain cases, as in this one [the Zika case], or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.” But as I have indicated, it is not at all clear what relevance the Congo scenario has for the case of the Zika virus. Unfortunately, the Pope offered no further clarification at the time, leaving the world press to conclude (understandably) that he had approved of contraceptive acts for women threatened by Zika.

Those of us who were concerned by the remarks awaited a clarification of the Pope’s meaning by the Vatican. On Feb. 19, the Pope’s spokesman, Father Lombardi, commented on the Pope’s impromptu remarks on contraception on the flight back from Mexico. Father Lombardi said the following:

“Now it’s not that the Pope says that this option * is accepted and used without any discernment; indeed, the Pope made it clear that it can be considered [only] in cases of special urgency. …]

“So contraceptives or condoms, especially in cases of emergency and seriousness, may also be the subject of a serious conscience discernment. This is what the Pope said.”

Father Lombardi claims here that Pope Francis asserted that in cases of emergency women in good conscience may consider the use of contraceptives as a legitimate alternative for choice. (We may presume he is referring to women who are sexually active.) In other words, if serious circumstances prevail, women may do what the Church has always taught is gravely immoral, what no person under any circumstance or for any reason may ever rightly do. This is obviously problematic.

Some, perhaps many, will be elated by the Pope’s words. But those of us who support and defend the magisterium, in particular the successor of Peter, in its proper role as guardian and interpreter of the deposit of faith, find Pope Francis and Father Lombardi’s words baffling and troubling. It appears that the Pope has asserted something that is false and contrary to salvation. I very much hope that I have misread the situation.

Whether or not I have, I would like to say two things. First, the extemporaneous remarks of a pope in an interview and the commentary of his spokesman do not constitute Church teaching. So these assertions are not guarded by the Holy Spirit and are not invested with ecclesial authority. Catholics have no obligation whatever to render to the Pope’s words a “religious submission of mind and will” (Lumen Gentium, 25).

Second, Pope Francis is our beloved father. We esteem him in virtue of his office and will stand by him whenever he is falsely attacked. We wish for his good and for the good of the whole Church. And we certainly will never follow the pathway of Martin Luther into a rejection of papal primacy and apostolic succession. But the Church is Jesus’, not the Pope’s or the bishops’ (and certainly not mine).

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

 

[Galnextdoor]

I’m sure you feel that way. It appears the Church does not.

It has nothing to do with what I feel. It has to do with studying what the Catholic Church teaches and has taught through the ages. It has to do with knowing the difference between doctrine, dogma, and practice. I have read the Church teachings and follow the Church teachings. Perhaps your time would be better spent in doing the same, rather than somehow trying to rationalize something that is wrong.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Exactly. As the Church learned more about the subject, and as times changed, the Church changed its teachings. Hmmm, that seems a lot like what is happening with contraception.

There are practices in the Church that have changed. Altar boys/ altar girls, receiving communion on the tongue/ in the hand, charging interest on money lent, and wearing chapel veils. These are practices. Practices can be changed. Doctrine and dogma can’t change.

Most birth control pills allow conception, and then abort the embryo. The kind that doesn’t allow ovulation is not well tolerated by most women due to the side effects i.e. vomiting, dizziness, etc because they contain high doses of hormones. The Church will never change it’s stance on birth control pills because most forms abort embryos. The pill also encourages people to use each other.

The Church can not approve of Birth control pills anymore than it can approve of abortion.

“A person is a person no matter how small.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There are practices in the Church that have changed. Altar boys/ altar girls, receiving communion on the tongue/ in the hand, charging interest on money lent, and wearing chapel veils. These are practices. Practices can be changed. Doctrine and dogma can’t change.

Most birth control pills allow conception, and then abort the embryo. The kind that doesn’t allow ovulation is not well tolerated by most women due to the side effects i.e. vomiting, dizziness, etc because they contain high doses of hormones. The Church will never change it’s stance on birth control pills because most forms abort embryos. The pill also encourages people to use each other.

The Church can not approve of Birth control pills anymore than it can approve of abortion.

“A person is a person no matter how small.”

Well, that’s all well and good but does nothing to support the church on the issue of condoms. Which realistically is what we would be talking about in the majority of the world.

 

[TMC]

There are practices in the Church that have changed. Altar boys/ altar girls, receiving communion on the tongue/ in the hand, charging interest on money lent, and wearing chapel veils. These are practices. Practices can be changed. Doctrine and dogma can’t change.

Most birth control pills allow conception, and then abort the embryo. The kind that doesn’t allow ovulation is not well tolerated by most women due to the side effects i.e. vomiting, dizziness, etc because they contain high doses of hormones. The Church will never change it’s stance on birth control pills because most forms abort embryos. The pill also encourages people to use each other.

The Church can not approve of Birth control pills anymore than it can approve of abortion.

“A person is a person no matter how small.”

Again, I understand that you feel that Church teachings should never change, but it is clear that the Church disagrees.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Again, I understand that you feel that Church teachings should never change, but it is clear that the Church disagrees.

Obviously, education has been lost on you. It seems to be a case of don’t confuse me with the facts on your part.

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces…” Matthew 7:6

 

[Galnextdoor]

Well, that’s all well and good but does nothing to support the church on the issue of condoms. Which realistically is what we would be talking about in the majority of the world.

If you had read my previous post, you would know that condoms have been around since the 1500’s. Condoms, like pills, allow people to use each other. If you want to understand what sex is supposed to be about, read “Theology of the Body” and “Humane Vitae”. It shouldn’t be about relieving an “itch” so to speak. It is supposed to be an expression of love and unity and acceptance, relief of sexual desire is secondary. With condoms used as birth control, relief of sexual desire is primary.

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by Rau View Post
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.

It does for zz912 whom I addressed here.

You obviously misunderstood what I said. I said it is a myth that never happened. But if the Vatican had allowed it for the Congo nuns, it is fundamentally different from a married couple using contraception. Nuns have no intention of having intercourse, so they are not attempting to have sex and contracept. They would be taking it as defense IF they were raped, to prevent ovulation.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Using the nuns in Congo as justification for allowing contraception is wrong and leads to evil.

 

[zz912]

Again, I understand that you feel that Church teachings should never change, but it is clear that the Church disagrees.

Your evidence of the Church disagreeing are the words of the Pope in an informal exchange on a plane, and your interpretation of them. There is no formal teaching supporting your view. Church teaching remains. It will never change. And if the Pope were to actually attempt to formally teach something contrary, as you are suggesting, the Holy Spirit would prevent him by some means.

 

[Rau]

You obviously misunderstood what I said. I said it is a myth that never happened.

Whether or not it happened is of zero importance for the reason you give in the following:

But if the Vatican had allowed it for the Congo nuns, it is fundamentally different from a married couple using contraception. Nuns have no intention of having intercourse, so they are not attempting to have sex and contracept. They would be taking it as defense IF they were raped, to prevent ovulation.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Using the nuns in Congo as justification for allowing contraception is wrong and leads to evil.

I’ve not done that. Perhaps you misunderstand or haven’t followed the thread closely.

 

[Rau]

Again, I understand that you feel that Church teachings should never change, but it is clear that the Church disagrees.

Informal remarks are not teaching, they are not the words of the Church, but of the man. He may misspeak, he may simply be in error.

 

[zz912]

Whether or not it happened is of zero importance for the reason you give in the following:

I’ve not done that. Perhaps you misunderstand or haven’t followed the thread closely.

I was addressing Blue.