Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

We need to remember that the imputability of evil is decided from the perspective of the agent and there often are conditions of limited discernment and freedom that allow them in good conscience to choose objectively bad actions without loss of grace.

This is readily what Pope Francis is to be understood to be saying here.

Effectively he is at least saying that just because the Church might be understood to teach that “contraceptives are wrong” … this does not mean that each of us are not free to choose what we in our own consciences believe to be the right thing to do in unusual circumstances.

Of course we must all inform our consciences first as best we can…but if in our heart of hearts we still find our understanding of Church teaching is not applicable in our particular zika situation after “ruminating” before God then Pope Francis is not going to enforce a disciplinary bann (eg Excommunication) on this matter.

There is of course both a moral and disciplinary bann on all acts of abortion (auto Excommunication is incurred).

However it remains to be seen if he is saying much more than this as well.

 

[TMC]

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.

OK, so is it you that decides what is or is not contrary to the doctrine of the Faith? How is that different from simply saying the Pope has no authority to disagree with you?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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… The established Church teachings rule out all such exceptions in very explicit language.

Very explicit “principles” or denial of explicit scenarios (ie serious genetic defects in the parents with certainty of active contraction by the child ).

If the latter please source, if the former no need to repeat your previous generic statements thanks.

 

[Rau]

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…

Of course, I hope you are wrong. For if a Pope behaved as you speculate, it would be scandalous.

This will be (has been) forgotten by the vast majority of people in our ADD society.

That is exactly true. And the Vatican will probably do the best it can to allow it to be quietly be forgotten.

What I find extraordinary and exasperating is people claiming - “well, there must be something in it because the Pope said it”. That kind of attitude is to suggest that right and wrong are entirely beyond mere mortals to comprehend. So we all should suspend common sense and the meaning of words and the long-held, unquestioned understanding of doctrine.

 

[Rau]

Very explicit “principles” or denial of explicit scenarios (ie serious genetic defects in the parents with certainty of active contraction by the child ).

If the latter please source, if the former no need to repeat your previous generic statements thanks.

Intrinsic evils know no exceptions. That is stressed in the Catechism by the statement (example):
*
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.*
This would also seem relevant:

*1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. *
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Obviously the Church decides what is objectively evil.
But each of us must discern and decide by our own conscience what is right in our own difficult circumstances.

Informing our conscience is a duty. But that doesn’t mean we are always bad if we still judge in good conscience that a specific teaching don’t apply in our particular case.
It is possible to have erroneous consciences in good faith due to vincible or invincible ignorance. We may sin not in “disobeying” what the Church teaches if our “informed” conscience still does not recriminate our course of action.

Who can argue with that?
Sure, we may incur disciplinary penalties for following our conscience in opposition to Church teaching (eg Excommunication for abortion) yet we may still be in God’s good grace.

I don’t think its about the Pope disagreeing with Church teachings. He is simply encouraging people to follow their own consciences and personally discern in the zika matter rather than blindly obey the Church like robots.
He has made it clear that the Church teaches that contracepting sex is not good and abortion even worse.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Intrinsic evils know no exceptions. That is stressed in the Catechism by the statement (example):
*
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation*.
This would also seem relevant:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

So by explicit language you really mean abstract, generic moral principles which I asked you not to bother repeating if you have nothing explicit re genetically defective parents.

Sigh, advertising to the gallery rather than your interlocutor .

 

[Rau]

So by explicit language you really mean abstract, generic moral principles which I asked you not to bother repeating if you have nothing explicit re genetically defective parents.

So genetically afflicted parents (eg. Tay Sachs carriers) might be able to freely contracept their conjugal relations on account of the Circumstance of their genetic defect, and their good intention to avoid a severely afflicted child, unless the Church says that Tay Sachs is not an exception? Really?

No Blue, I don’t mean “abstract, generic moral principles” - I mean concrete and crystal clear teachings, such as:

• "…similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. [HV14]*
  And also these:

*79. One must therefore reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species — its “object” — the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned. [VS79]

…With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: "Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, **it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it *(cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general" [VS90]
These are not abstract, generic moral principles Blue about which we might have uncertainty as to their application. They are clear, specific and concrete.

Will you have us believe that the Church is not clear when it uses the words bolded in RED? Do you require that the Church augment such a statement in a manner to make explicit reference to genetic conditions, and list all the conditions of relevance? Or may be we have to accept it means what it says.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Obviously the Church decides what is objectively evil.
But each of us must discern and decide by our own conscience what is right in our own difficult circumstances.

Informing our conscience is a duty. But that doesn’t mean we are always bad if we still judge in good conscience that a specific teaching don’t apply in our particular case.
It is possible to have erroneous consciences in good faith due to vincible or invincible ignorance. We may sin not in “disobeying” what the Church teaches if our “informed” conscience still does not recriminate our course of action.

Who can argue with that?
Sure, we may incur disciplinary penalties for following our conscience in opposition to Church teaching (eg Excommunication for abortion) yet we may still be in God’s good grace.

I don’t think its about the Pope disagreeing with Church teachings. He is simply encouraging people to follow their own consciences and personally discern in the zika matter rather than blindly obey the Church like robots.
He has made it clear that the Church teaches that contracepting sex is not good and abortion even worse.

I could not be a Catholic and hold your view.

 

[Rau]

Obviously the Church decides what is objectively evil.
But each of us must discern and decide by our own conscience what is right in our own difficult circumstances.

Informing our conscience is a duty. But that doesn’t mean we are always bad if we still judge in good conscience that a specific teaching don’t apply in our particular case.
It is possible to have erroneous consciences in good faith due to vincible or invincible ignorance. We may sin not in “disobeying” what the Church teaches if our “informed” conscience still does not recriminate our course of action.

Who can argue with that?
Sure, we may incur disciplinary penalties for following our conscience in opposition to Church teaching (eg Excommunication for abortion) yet we may still be in God’s good grace.

I don’t think its about the Pope disagreeing with Church teachings. He is simply encouraging people to follow their own consciences and personally discern in the zika matter rather than blindly obey the Church like robots.
He has made it clear that the Church teaches that contracepting sex is not good and abortion even worse.

Well Blue, good on your for seeking out another interpretation.

So the argument is no longer about whether contraception is moral (for the Intention of avoiding Zika), nor about any conflict with established Church teaching on contraception, but whether or not one’s conscience can “make it” OK (in God’s eyes, if no objectively…) for the individual?

I guess the proposition that one should consider an objective moral evil (while not calling it that in the proposition) and consult one’s conscience about it, is not the kind of pastoral care and advice I would expect. It is bound to leave more than a few of the faithful thinking along just the lines you have spent many posts arguing – that maybe contraception can be a moral choice! One wonders if this might lead astray the consciences of those who hear it?

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

 

[graciew]

Of course, I hope you are wrong. For if a Pope behaved as you speculate, it would be scandalous.

That is exactly true. And the Vatican will probably do the best it can to allow it to be quietly be forgotten.

What I find extraordinary and exasperating is people claiming - “well, there must be something in it because the Pope said it”. That kind of attitude is to suggest that right and wrong are entirely beyond mere mortals to comprehend. So we all should suspend common sense and the meaning of words and the long-held, unquestioned understanding of doctrine.

No. I ’ ll be frank with you.
It is not about what the Pope has said ,for me. And I appreciate all your (name removed by moderator)ut about teaching.
It scares me.This disease and all we know and don t know does.
I had a son return recently from an infected area. He was working. At the same time a newly wed with his wife .
Thanks God we have no mosquitoes around due to unexpected lower temperatures ,but I could relate to a family in an affected area. And I know the environment Zika is affecting now.
There is death involved and also lack if resources since some places do not have the reactives even for dengue.
So my scared side wants to listen unquestioningly to you ,but somehow those who are alive and those little ones that may arrive may be seriously affected. So out of the question that new life is welcome ,but can about 4.000.000 persons affected estimately wait for about 3 years until a vaccine reaches us all ?
I get the strong message as I get the message that we are responsible for other persons lives and lives to come too.
And I can picture emergency.
Please bear in mind persons with no basic resources. We talked about it .
If I wasn t clear ,I apologize.

 

[Rau]

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.

I understand…(“between a rock and a hard place”). Be assured the discussion is not about condemning non-Catholics or Catholics for the choices they make, but only understanding what is and is not the Truth the Church teaches.

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 indefinite time.

Is “inhumane” a fair assessment? Are you saying the Church Teaching is “inhumane” or that for a Pope to stand up in these circumstances and “demand” people follow the teaching would be insensitive? The latter I can accept. But there are so many cases - unrelated to Zika - where, for various reasons, pregnancy needs to be avoided. Various medical conditions affecting the mother. Dispositions to serious genetic disorders, and so forth. Compassion is due to all these people, but should it be dispensed by adjusting the Catholic teaching, or another way?

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.

I understand your point.

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

 

[graciew]

I understand…(“between a rock and a hard place”). Be assured the discussion is not about condemning non-Catholics or Catholics for the choices they make, but only understanding what is and is not the Truth the Church teaches.

Is “inhumane” a fair assessment? Are you saying the Church Teaching is “inhumane” or that for a Pope to stand up in these circumstances and “demand” people follow the teaching would be insensitive? The latter I can accept. But there are so many cases - unrelated to Zika - where, for various reasons, pregnancy needs to be avoided. Various medical conditions affecting the mother. Dispositions to serious genetic disorders, and so forth. Compassion is due to all these people, but should it be dispensed by adjusting the Catholic teaching, or another way?

I understand your point.

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

Thank you.
And thanks for " between a rock and a hard place ". I see all my mistakes when posters kindly throw tips later… .so patiently.
I meant something like insensitive or too much.
I ’ ll keep praying. And not condemning is a goodbstarting point ,and worth learning for me as welll.
May God bless you and I may be around with more questions.
Have a good night ,Rau.

 

[JPUSC]

Keep this in mind.

To understand Pope Francis, look to the Jesuits

Figuring out why Pope Francis has upended so many expectations, how exactly he’s changed the Catholic church in his first year and what he might be contemplating for the future has become a Catholic parlor game that is almost as popular as the pontiff himself. A single key can best answer all of these questions: Francis’ longstanding identity as a Jesuit priest.

It’s an all-encompassing personal and professional definition that the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio brought with him from Buenos Aires, Argentina, and one that continues to shape almost everything he does as Pope Francis.

“He may act like a Franciscan, but he thinks like a Jesuit,” quipped Fr. Thomas Reese, a fellow Jesuit who is a columnist for National Catholic Reporter.

…

Jesuit priests are explicitly discouraged from becoming bishops, much less pope, and that outsider’s sensibility helps to explain Francis’ almost breezy willingness to dispense with centuries of closely guarded and cherished tradition.

“We never imagined that a Jesuit could become pope. It was an impossible thing,” said Fr. Antonio Spadaro, a Jesuit who conducted a book-length interview with the pope and knows him well. “It sent me into a crisis, in a sense, when he was elected. We Jesuits are supposed to be at the service of the pope, not to be a pope.”

…

Francis is shrewd, and he has repeatedly praised the Jesuit trait of “holy cunning” – that Christians should be “wise as serpents but innocent as doves,” as Jesus put it. The pope’s openness, however, also a signature of his Jesuit training and development, means that not even he is sure where the spirit will lead.

“I confess that, because of my disposition, the first answer that comes to me is usually wrong,” Francis said in a 2010 interview.

“I don’t have all the answers. I don’t even have all the questions. I always think of new questions, and there are always new questions coming forward.”

ncronline.org/news/vatican/understand-pope-francis-look-jesuits

 

[Rau]

Keep this in mind…

“I confess that, because of my disposition, the first answer that comes to me is usually wrong,” Francis said in a 2010 interview…

This is very human.

 

[loumeland]

An Apostolic Exhortation is coming. The clock is ticking!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

An Apostolic Exhortation is coming. The clock is ticking!

About what? Birth control?

 

[TMC]

About what? Birth control?

On the family. There has been some speculation that birth control will be mentioned, but no one really knows what it will say.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

On the family. There has been some speculation that birth control will be mentioned, but no one really knows what it will say.

You mean the relatio?

Nah, no abc mentioned. I suppose thier is speculation that the prohibition against murdering a spouse will be lifted.

 

[TMC]

You mean the relatio?

Nah, no abc mentioned. I suppose thier is speculation that the prohibition against murdering a spouse will be lifted.

No, I am not referring to the relatio. I mean the planned apostolic exhortation on the family, which the Vatican says will be issued soon. Presumably it will be influenced to some degree by the relatio, which did deal briefly with birth control. Again, no one knows what the Pope will say in his exhortation, but if it covers the topics covered by the synod, then birth control will likely be touched upon.