Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Rau]

i was addressing blue.

 

[TMC]

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

Its OK, insults from random internet posters don’t bother me, so go ahead and call me an ignorant dog.

On the actual substance, obviously we disagree. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[TMC]

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.

I don’t think he misspoke, or that he erred. I do think that he has teaching authority.

 

[Rau]

…I do think that he has teaching authority.

That’s factually and objectively wrong.

 

[TMC]

That’s factually and objectively wrong.

The Pope doesn’t have teaching authority? That is an odd claim for a Catholic to make.

 

[Rau]

The Pope doesn’t have teaching authority? That is an odd claim for a Catholic to make.

He has teaching authority - but it’s an authority that he has to exercise or invoke, and he must do that in a manner recognisable as such. A Q&A on an aeroplane is not that. A conversation at a “meet and greet” is not that.

Here is an example of how Church Teaching is expressed and transmitted, formally and deliberately, in a form clearly recognisable as serving this purpose:
w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

And here is an example of teaching:

“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).

As I think I explained to you earlier (perhaps on another thread) the Pope’s conversations and informal remarks are not teaching and have no protection from error.

 

[Rau]

I don’t think he misspoke, or that he erred.

Then presumably your view is that Pius XI, Paul VI, John-Paul 2, and Benedict XVI all made an error, but Francis did not? Unlike Francis, they actually delivered “Church teaching” - deeply considered, formally expressed and aligning with long-held principles.

Perhaps you can say where these Pope’s “went wrong”?

 

[TMC]

He has teaching authority - but it’s an authority that he has to exercise or invoke, and he must do that in a manner recognisable as such. A Q&A on an aeroplane is not that. A conversation at a “meet and greet” is not that.

Here is an example of how Church Teaching is expressed and transmitted, formally and deliberately, in a form clearly recognisable as serving this purpose:
w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

And here is an example of teaching:

“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).

As I think I explained to you earlier (perhaps on another thread) the Pope’s conversations and informal remarks are not teaching and have no protection from error.

The Pope’s comments are not infallible, which is not the same as not teaching. Teaching does not have to be in writing.

 

[TMC]

Then presumably your view is that Pius XI, Paul VI, John-Paul 2, and Benedict XVI all made an error, but Francis did not? Unlike Francis, they actually delivered “Church teaching” - deeply considered, formally expressed and aligning with long-held principles.

Perhaps you can say where these Pope’s “went wrong”?

My opinion is that many Popes have made many errors. (I don’t see how anyone could disagree with that.) My hope is that the Church will keep moving closer to the truth. I think that Francis is moving the Church toward truth.

It seems that the difference between our positions is that while we both seem to agree that Popes may err (as you obviously think Francis is wrong here), you seem to be saying that a Pope’s authority turns on whether you agree with him or not. Authority does not protect the Pope from error. The Pope can teach with authority and be wrong. I think that Pope Francis is teaching with authority and is right, but I could see how someone could say he is teaching with authority but is nonetheless wrong. I don’t understand how a Catholic could say that the Pope lacks authority to teach.

 

[Rau]

The Pope’s comments are not infallible, which is not the same as not teaching. Teaching does not have to be in writing.

Pope’s are also able to express:

• personal opinions eg. on the cause of climate change;
• personal theological opinions
• prudential judgements

Now perhaps you use the term “teaching” to be any act when one person conveys information, opinion or judgement to another. But that is not “Church Teaching”.

 

[Rau]

The Pope’s comments are not infallible, which is not the same as not teaching. Teaching does not have to be in writing.

Pope’s are also able to express:

• personal opinions eg. on the cause of climate change;
• personal theological opinions
• prudential judgements
• views about the weather, politicians, and all manner of things

Now perhaps you use the term “teaching” to be any act when one person conveys information, opinion or judgement to another. But that is not “Church Teaching”.

My opinion is that many Popes have made many errors. (I don’t see how anyone could disagree with that.)

Noone doubts this. Some were scoundrels. Yet Church Teaching did no go off the rails. There is no basis to believe a Pope, any person, cannot make an error.

My hope is that the Church will keep moving closer to the truth.

Where we differ is you believe you have a view about “Truth” which is superior, closer to the mark, than that had by all those prior to Francis. It is because you believe Francis “sees it your way” that you are keen to jump on that particular bandwagon.

It seems that the difference between our positions is that while we both seem to agree that Popes may err (as you obviously think Francis is wrong here), you seem to be saying that a Pope’s authority turns on whether you agree with him or not.

Hardly - that’s your position! You’ve concluded Pius XI, Paul VI, John-Paul 2 and Benedict XVI (not to mention those earlier) are all wrong - and for no other reason that you disagree! On the other hand, I’ve said that:

• Francis remarks were informal and off-the cuff (poorly articulated, etc, etc)
• Francis’ remarks stand in contradiction to all that has come before;
• Church Teaching on contraception has been expressed consistently by the Pope jointly with the Bishops of the world and is in fact irreformable.

So on the facts, not personal opinion - which position prevails?

Authority does not protect the Pope from error.

What authority to you think attaches to an informal, unprepared Q&A with some journalists.

I don’t understand how a Catholic could say that the Pope lacks authority to teach.

I think I have explained that such authority is to be specifically exercised - every utterance of a Pope is not authoritative.

 

[Rau]

ddddd

 

[TMC]

Pope’s are also able to express:

• personal opinions eg. on the cause of climate change;
• personal theological opinions
• prudential judgements

Now perhaps you use the term “teaching” to be any act when one person conveys information, opinion or judgement to another. But that is not “Church Teaching”.

Teaching by the Pope is when the Pope interprets the Tradition and Scripture for the faithful. That is what the Pope is doing. I understand that you don’t like it.

 

[Rau]

Teaching by the Pope is when the Pope interprets the Tradition and Scripture for the faithful. That is what the Pope is doing. I understand that you don’t like it.

You ignore nearly all that is put to you, and you appear to understand little if anything of my position.

My issue is that the interpretation widely given to Francis’s remarks while in the plane stands in stark contradiction to the universally understood (in the Catholic Church), formally proclaimed teaching of the Church.

Now what would be the reason to embrace Francis’s informal remarks (where, in the hierarchy of Church teaching, such remarks would not even rate a mention) - given this fact? It can only be a personal preference that embraces those informal remarks, and instantly discards all the formally proclaimed teaching that came before…

 

[TMC]

You ignore nearly all that is put to you, and you appear to understand little if anything of my position.

My issue is that the interpretation widely given to Francis’s remarks while in the plane stands in stark contradiction to the universally understood, formally proclaimed teaching of the Church.

Now what would be the reason to embrace Francis’s informal remarks (where, in the hierarchy of Church teaching, such remarks would not even rate a mention) - given this fact? It can only be a personal preference that embraces those informal remarks, and instantly discards all the formally proclaimed teaching that came before…

I get that you disagree with the Pope. So let me ask you this. Who is more likely to be wrong about the teaching of the Church - Rau, or the Vicar of Christ? I remember learning that one of those people is responsible for teaching the faith. Remind me, which one is it?

 

[Rau]

I get that you disagree with the Pope. So let me ask you this. Who is more likely to be wrong about the teaching of the Church - Rau, or the Vicar of Christ? I remember learning that one of those people is responsible for teaching the faith. Remind me, which one is it?

That’s objuscation since the options presented are manufactured by you and are irrelevant to the matter in debate. I don’t disagree with the Pope - since I have no idea what he was trying to say. I disagree with the *interpretation *given to his remarks (even though they are not an unreasonable take away from the poorly assembled sentences he spoke), since they would contradict established teaching.

These are the options to be chosen from:

What is mostly likely Truth - the irreformable teaching of the Church, formally proclaimed many, many times, most recently by Pius XI, Paul VI, JP2, Benedict XVI

OR

An interpretation of some informal remarks by Francis in an aeroplane, not committed to writing at all by him and not yet repeated by the Pope.

Let’s all agree that Rau and TMC know nothing, beyond which Popes have said what.

So, objectively, which seems the more authoritative to you?

Or if you think this interpretation of Francis’s aligns with Church teaching - explain that by reference to the written teaching we have. No poster on CAF has been able to do that, even the theologian’s among them adopt the same position as I - we are unclear what he intended to say. And not a single theologian or Catholic publication across the world can reconcile the *interpretation *given to Francis’s statements with established Church teaching.

I have to ask you - why do you so keenly believe contraception is not wrong despite the established Church teaching?

 

[dcana]

I get that you disagree with the Pope. So let me ask you this. Who is more likely to be wrong about the teaching of the Church - Rau, or the Vicar of Christ? I remember learning that one of those people is responsible for teaching the faith. Remind me, which one is it?

Rau is “more likely” to be wrong.

However, in this case Rau is right, because he is expressing the perennial teaching of the Church which can be found in the CCC #2370 that artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil. The pope said it is ok in this circumstance. Intrinsically evil means it can never be morally permissible in any circumstance. Ergo, the pope is wrong, God forgive and enlighten him.

After Fr. Lombardi’s statement, it was made crystal-clear what the pope was saying. His words were, “The pope was talking about artificial contraception and condoms.” Can’t get any clearer than that.

We need to pray for our pope, every day.

In my view, I like Pope Francis for some things and I don’t like him for others.

 

[dcana]

That’s objuscation since the options presented are manufactured by you and are irrelevant to the matter in debate. I don’t disagree with the Pope - since I have no idea what he was trying to say. I disagree with the *interpretation *given to his remarks, since they would contradict established teaching.

These are the options to be chosen from:

What is mostly likely Truth - the irreformable teaching of the Church, formally proclaimed many, many times, most recently by Pius XI, Paul VI, JP2, Benedict XVI

OR

An interpretation of some informal remarks by Francis in an aeroplane, not committed to writing at all by him and not yet repeated by the Pope.

Let’s all agree that Rau and TMC know nothing, beyond which Popes have said what.

So, objectively, which seems the more authoritative to you?

Or if you think this interpretation of Francis’s aligns with Church teaching - explain that by reference to the written teaching we have. No poster on CAF has been able to do that, even the theologian’s among them adopt the same position as I - we are unclear what he intended to say. And not a single theologian or Catholic publication across the world can reconcile the interpretation given to Francis’s statements with established Church teaching.

I have to ask you - why do you so keenly believe contraception is not wrong despite the established Church teaching?

I don’t understand why you are talking about an “interpretation” of what Pope Francis said in light of Fr. Lombardi’s clarifying comments the day after.

 

[Rau]

I don’t understand why you are talking about an “interpretation” of what Pope Francis said in light of Fr. Lombardi’s clarifying comments the day after.

Only because it is that. I wholeheartedly agree that it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation given the words (poorly structured as they were) that he spoke, as reported, and the nondescript contribution of Fr Lombardi. But Vatican 2 offered some guidance on understanding / interpreting the mind of the Pontiff.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Lumen gentium 25]
The bolded section make clear we don’t have a basis to really know his “mind and will”. There are no documents. There has been no “frequent repetition” by the Pope of anything on the subject. And his “manner of speaking” was informal, unstructured, not explicit and did not explain how existing church teaching is affected (or not).

 

[TMC]

That’s objuscation since the options presented are manufactured by you and are irrelevant to the matter in debate. I don’t disagree with the Pope - since I have no idea what he was trying to say. I disagree with the *interpretation *given to his remarks (even though they are not an unreasonable take away from the poorly assembled sentences he spoke), since they would contradict established teaching.

These are the options to be chosen from:

What is mostly likely Truth - the irreformable teaching of the Church, formally proclaimed many, many times, most recently by Pius XI, Paul VI, JP2, Benedict XVI

OR

An interpretation of some informal remarks by Francis in an aeroplane, not committed to writing at all by him and not yet repeated by the Pope.

Let’s all agree that Rau and TMC know nothing, beyond which Popes have said what.

So, objectively, which seems the more authoritative to you?

Or if you think this interpretation of Francis’s aligns with Church teaching - explain that by reference to the written teaching we have. No poster on CAF has been able to do that, even the theologian’s among them adopt the same position as I - we are unclear what he intended to say. And not a single theologian or Catholic publication across the world can reconcile the *interpretation *given to Francis’s statements with established Church teaching.

I have to ask you - why do you so keenly believe contraception is not wrong despite the established Church teaching?

The last time I explained why I disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception I received an infraction for proselytizing. I guess my explanation was a little too good. So I will just say that my reasons are probably similar to the reasons of the other 90+% of Catholics.

Why are you so keen to deny that the Pope has authority to teach in this area, and equally keen to deny that he said what he clearly said (as confirmed by his spokesman)?