Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Rau]

The last time I explained why I disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception I received an infraction for proselytizing.

LOL… You must be the unluckiest poster on CAF, given the commonality of postings for opinions contrary to Church teaching. Methinks you may have crossed some other line…

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)?

I’ve done neither. By continued blatant misrepresentations of other posters, you expose yourself to further infraction…

 

[dcana]

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…

How was Fr. Lombardi’s contribution “nondescript”? He said, “The Pope was referring to artificial contraception and condoms.”(Lord have mercy) How is that nondescript?

 

[dcana]

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)?

The pope has exactly zero authority to teach anything contrary to the doctrine of the Faith. His job, on the contrary, - in fact his primary job - is to uphold and transmit the doctrine of the Faith as the “Rock” of the Church.

 

[Rau]

How was Fr. Lombardi’s contribution “nondescript”? He said, “The Pope was referring to artificial contraception and condoms.”(Lord have mercy) How is that nondescript?

Because it is arm-waving and not specific. What Church positions do you know of that are promulgated or explained with those kinds of one-liners?

It would have been explicit had Lombardi said: “Oh, yeah, sure, the Pope was saying (and I’ve discussed this with him) it’s fine to use contraception in marriage if the couple are worried they might conceive a child suffering from Zika”.

That would not have been non-descript. It would have framed the matter unequivocally. It would also have brought the current shadowy discussion to a far quicker clarification.

And where is Francis now on this issue? My personal opinion - contemplating with advisers…

 

[Rau]

The pope has exactly zero authority to teach anything contrary to the doctrine of the Faith. His job, on the contrary, - in fact his primary job - is to uphold and transmit the doctrine of the Faith as the “Rock” of the Church.

Yes - and Fr Lombardi must know that too. Perhaps that explains why he did not venture to make a statement about exactly WHAT Francis was saying about contraception…just that he was “talking about” contraception?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.]

Rau I don’t agree with you that there are two realistic views on the matter. There is one clear view and if the conditions enunciated in the Confessional Advice are met Ron is mistaken. Why would conditions be listed if they can never be met?

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

Well there is a lot of ambiguity that needs to be unpacked in this short statement.

As I hinted at above I think this can be looked at in two different ways:
(a) The physical deed (material “sin”): It does seem sensible to talk of separating unitive and procreative meanings of the deed itself with no thought as to imputability of intention. And as it takes two to do the deed then both are engaged in such a deed, namely, contracepted voluntary coitus. They are both a pair in this separation.

(b) The intention of the agents (formal sin): Clearly the active partner is directly and intentionally intending to contracept in choosing this deed. He sins formally - though it may not be mortally imputable (eg invincible ignorance of the gravity).
The cooperating partner, if opposed, yet choosing to regretfully cooperate in the deed, has not intended to directly contracept but rather to satisfy the marital debt (unitive purpose). Therefore the deed which separates the procreative purpose from the unitive purpose is not directly intended by her but only indirectly so. She is not formally contracepting, only materially contracepting.

Or do you disagree with this analysis?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Cases are similar in so far as it demonstrates that one may choose to physically contracept sexual intercourse without thereby **intending to contracept **either as an end or as a means.

And the reason is the same, the “choosing” is not a direct intention to contracept but an indirect intention.

The nuns definitely chose to use physical contraceptives, but this was not a directly intended act of contraception.

Indirect intentions to contracept are morally acceptable in some circumstances.

 

[dcana]

These are quotes from Fr. Lombardi:

“Il Papa distingue poi nettamente la radicalità del male dell’aborto come soppressione di una vita umana e invece la possibilità di ricorso a contraccezione o preservativi per quanto può riguardare casi di emergenza o situazioni particolari, in cui quindi non si sopprime una vita umana, ma si evita una gravidanza. Ora non è che lui dica che vada accettato e usato questo ricorso senza nessun discernimento, anzi, ha detto chiaramente che può essere preso in considerazione in casi di particolare emergenza.”

“Allora il contraccettivo o il preservativo, in casi di particolare emergenza e gravità, possono anche essere oggetto di un discernimento di coscienza serio. Questo dice il Papa.”

---

The Pope is distinguishing sharply between the radicality of the evil of abortion as the extinguishing of a human life and, on the other hand, the possibility of recourse to contraception or condoms, regarding cases of emergency or particular situations, in which a human life is not extinguished, but pregnancy is avoided. Now, it’s not that he is saying that this recourse is to be accepted and used without any discernment, rather, he said clearly that in can be taken into consideration in cases of particular emergency.

**Therefore, contraception or condoms, in cases of particular emergency and gravity, can also be objects of discernment of a serious conscience. This is what the Pope is saying.
**

Translation and emphases mine.

“Contraception or condoms” cannot be “objects of discernment” in any cases, because their use “to avoid pregnancy” is intrinsically evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Because it is arm-waving and not specific. What Church positions do you know of that are promulgated or explained with those kinds of one-liners?

It would have been explicit had Lombardi said: “Oh, yeah, sure, the Pope was saying (and I’ve discussed this with him) it’s fine to use contraception in marriage if the couple are worried they might conceive a child suffering from Zika”.

That would not have been non-descript. It would have framed the matter unequivocally. It would also have brought the current shadowy discussion to a far quicker clarification.

And where is Francis now on this issue? My personal opinion - contemplating with advisers…

Fr Lombardi was very specific that Pope Francis was talking artificial contraception.

The real problem for you Rau I suggest is your difficulty accepting that the Holy Spirit would allow the Pope to publicly say, even informally, what he actually said.

Its readily evident to a neutral observer what he said, its no media spin or loss in translation this time.

Either the Pope is mistaken or he is not.
Either you fully understand the Church’s complex moral theology of contraception or you do not.

No other choice there is?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Rau]

These are quotes from Fr. Lombardi:

“Il Papa distingue poi nettamente la radicalità del male dell’aborto come soppressione di una vita umana e invece la possibilità di ricorso a contraccezione o preservativi per quanto può riguardare casi di emergenza o situazioni particolari, in cui quindi non si sopprime una vita umana, ma si evita una gravidanza. Ora non è che lui dica che vada accettato e usato questo ricorso senza nessun discernimento, anzi, ha detto chiaramente che può essere preso in considerazione in casi di particolare emergenza.”

“Allora il contraccettivo o il preservativo, in casi di particolare emergenza e gravità, possono anche essere oggetto di un discernimento di coscienza serio. Questo dice il Papa.”

---

The Pope is distinguishing sharply between the radicality of the evil of abortion as the extinguishing of a human life and, on the other hand, the possibility of recourse to contraception or condoms, regarding cases of emergency or particular situations, in which a human life is not extinguished, but pregnancy is avoided. Now, it’s not that he is saying that this recourse is to be accepted and used without any discernment, rather, he said clearly that in can be taken into consideration in cases of particular emergency.

**Therefore, contraception or condoms, in cases of particular emergency and gravity, can also be objects of discernment of a serious conscience. This is what the Pope is saying.
**

Translation and emphases mine.

“Contraception or condoms” cannot be objects of discernment in any cases, because their use is an intrinsic evil.

What is an emergency, let alone a “particular emergency”? Is it the risk of Down’s syndrome? Or HIV transmission? Of Tay Sachs? The only emergency I can imagine is a rape, or a (drunk?) husband forcing himself on his wife, which, like the famous Congo case, is an assault, and the act which teaching tells us must not be destroyed is not happening at all. So, if that is the “emergency” Francis speaks of, I understand, and it is in line with Church teaching.

If your last statement is a reference to the physical objects, it’s not correct and should be reworded. Condoms make good water bombs D) and some contraceptive drugs have medical purposes, and discernment may well be appropriate in connection with their use.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

These are quotes from Fr. Lombardi:

“Il Papa distingue poi nettamente la radicalità del male dell’aborto come soppressione di una vita umana e invece la possibilità di ricorso a contraccezione o preservativi per quanto può riguardare casi di emergenza o situazioni particolari, in cui quindi non si sopprime una vita umana, ma si evita una gravidanza. Ora non è che lui dica che vada accettato e usato questo ricorso senza nessun discernimento, anzi, ha detto chiaramente che può essere preso in considerazione in casi di particolare emergenza.”

“Allora il contraccettivo o il preservativo, in casi di particolare emergenza e gravità, possono anche essere oggetto di un discernimento di coscienza serio. Questo dice il Papa.”

---

The Pope is distinguishing sharply between the radicality of the evil of abortion as the extinguishing of a human life and, on the other hand, the possibility of recourse to contraception or condoms, regarding cases of emergency or particular situations, in which a human life is not extinguished, but pregnancy is avoided. Now, it’s not that he is saying that this recourse is to be accepted and used without any discernment, rather, he said clearly that in can be taken into consideration in cases of particular emergency.

**Therefore, contraception or condoms, in cases of particular emergency and gravity, can also be objects of discernment of a serious conscience. This is what the Pope is saying.
**

Translation and emphases mine.

“Contraception or condoms” cannot be “objects of discernment” in any cases, because their use “to avoid pregnancy” is intrinsically evil.

How do we know an object that is intrinsically evil cannot be dicerned?

 

[dcana]

The quotes were taken from the website of Radio Vaticana.

The article is entitled, “P. Lombardi commenta i temi affrontati dal Papa con i giornalisti.”

“Fr. Lombardi comments on issues addressed by the Pope with journalists”

 

[Rau]

The real problem for you Rau I suggest is your difficulty accepting that the Holy Spirit would allow the Pope to publicly say, even informally, what he actually said.

Not at all Blue. Pope’s can stumble, stuff up and make mistakes like the rest of us. Some (very few) Popes did very bad things as you know.

Its readily evident to a neutral observer what he said, its no media spin or loss in translation this time.

I fully concur that the commonly held interpretation of Francis’s remarks is an entirely reasonable one to draw given the words (however poorly put together they were) that he said.

But as I’ve explained, it carries minimal weight, far less than the Encyclicals of Pius XI, Paul VI, JP 2 and statements of Benedict XVI that it contradicts. And if you feel it is in line with those, please show us.

 

[Rau]

How do we know an object that is intrinsically evil cannot be dicerned?

What does that mean Hoosier? Does “discern” in this context merely mean “choose/decide a course”, or does it mean “decide a moral course”?

 

[dcana]

What is an emergency, let alone a “particular emergency”? Is it the risk of Down’s syndrome? Or HIV transmission? Of Tay Sachs? The only emergency I can imagine is a rape, or a (drunk?) husband forcing himself on his wife, which, like the famous Congo case, is an assault, and the act which teaching tells us must not be destroyed is not happening at all. So, if that is the “emergency” Francis speaks of, I understand, and it is in line with Church teaching.

If your last statement is a reference to the physical objects, it’s not correct and should be reworded. Condoms make good water bombs D) and some contraceptive drugs have medical purposes, and discernment may well be appropriate in connection with their use.

The emergency is question is the outbreak of the Zika virus that is supposedly causing women who have been infected during pregnancy to give birth to infants with microcephaly, a serious neurological disorder.

Yes, you’re correct on point two. If you look above I already edited my statement, adding “to avoid pregnancy.”

Why didn’t the Pope discuss the use of NFP and/or abstinence and/or prayer to and trust in God and/or loving and caring for the child God sends, even if, by some very small chance, he/she is born with microcephaly, since every human life is sacred and precious?

 

[dcana]

How do we know an object that is intrinsically evil cannot be dicerned?

If something is always morally wrong, then it cannot be ruminated upon to decide if it would be good to do in any given case. That makes no sense. Sin is sin. It’s an offense against God.

 

[Rau]

The emergency is question is the outbreak of the Zika virus that is supposedly causing women who have been infected during pregnancy to give birth to infants with microcephaly, a serious neurological disorder.

Yes, you’re correct on point two. If you look above I already edited my statement, adding “to avoid pregnancy.”

Why didn’t the Pope discuss the use of NFP and/or abstinence and/or prayer to and trust in God and/or loving and caring for the child God sends, even if, by some very small chance, he/she is born with microcephaly, since every human life is sacred and precious?

It is not possible to clearly know the will and mind of the Pope for the reasons I gave, and I certainly can’t answer why he did not say something different.

I’m afraid Zika is not more of an emergency than the daily drama experienced by a woman or couple who carry the gene for Tay Sachs. Or the HIV infected. The established Church teachings rule out all such exceptions in very explicit language.

 

[dcana]

I still can’t believe we’re having such a conversation. It’s sad.

As I said, we must pray for our Pope (any Pope!) and trust that everything is in God’s providential hands and Jesus’ promises never fail.

That’s pretty much all I have to say on the matter

God bless, all

 

[graciew]

It is not possible to clearly know the will and mind of the Pope for the reasons I gave, and I certainly can’t answer why he did not say something different.

I’m afraid Zika is not more of an emergency than the daily drama experienced by a woman or couple who carry the gene for Tay Sachs. Or the HIV infected. The established Church teachings rule out all such exceptions in very explicit language.

Rau , if the message of an emergency is not for any of us ,then there is perhaps a respectful silence we owe for those who are under a rock and a hard place ( do you say it like this ? ) who under no particular religious teaching may be considering abortion.
He was very strong ,he used very strong words : crime ,maffia which very well suit the evil of such murder.
Probably influenced by what the environment and mosquitoes and lack of basic resources might be like ,I hear this may be a message that under desperation or emergency , it is also inhumane to ask that particular person to put a whole population under risk , men ,women and children for imdefinite time.
I pray that we will not have an extremely mortal disease carried by mosquitoes.
You do not know what it is like when there have been serious invasions. Last year or the year before last there was one. It was nightmarish to be outdoors and some people work the fields permanently outdoors.
I pray to hold on to teachings but I dare not even attempt to understand what many persons go through nor their strength under those conditions.
The message may not be fore us but there may be particular cases where they need it. Or where the real big message may get through this way.
Abortion NO.

washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil-says-a-third-adult-has-died-of-zika/2016/02/11/100e669a-d0d3-11e5-90d3-34c2c42653ac_story.html

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What does that mean Hoosier? Does “discern” in this context merely mean “choose/decide a course”, or does it mean “decide a moral course”?

I don’t think dicern means decide a “moral” course.

Look, you know what I think. I think the pope personally disagrees with some teachings and is offering his opinion. Giving what he thinks is the “merciful” response. Knowing that if he actually released an official weighted statement it would fracture the church. So he chooses these informal gatherings to release his opinion without actually having to change doctrine but offering a “guilt free” permissive environment.
Honestly I don’t believe these comments are “off the cuff” I think they are planned. And like any politically savy leader he uses a question he knows is coming to say something.
I think the pope believes it could be dicerned. He is wrong. It can’t.
And you know me… This all comes back to nfp right?
How are we supposed to argue for nfp for serious reasons when the pope argues for birth control in serious reasons…

This will be (has been) forgotten by the vast majority of people in our ADD society. But for those of us who argue for authentic Catholic theology and sexual morality. It may have been the final nail in the coffin. People buy the lie of abc. And we need leadership.

The family is dying
The church is dying.