Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[loumeland]

If Evangelii Gaudium is any indication of how closely Pope Francis follows relatios, we’re in for a surprise!

 

[Galnextdoor]

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.

Actually the quotation is saying that you should not waste your time trying to teach what is holy or sacred to people who are only interested in disparaging it and tearing you down.

It seemed appropriate.

 

[TMC]

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 think this is generally a fair summary of both the necessity of following conscience, and of what the Pope seems to be saying. That said, I am not sure if he is saying that contracepting is disfavored, not good, usually wrong, sometimes the lesser evil, or something else.

 

[Rau]

I think this is generally a fair summary of both the necessity of following conscience, and of what the Pope seems to be saying. That said, I am not sure if he is saying that contracepting is disfavored, not good, usually wrong, sometimes the lesser evil, or something else.

It is near impossible to be sure about what he is (trying to) say. That’s been my point all along.

 

[TMC]

It is near impossible to be sure about what he is (trying to) say. That’s been my point all along.

Well, I am pretty sure he is saying that contraceptives are not inherently evil and that their use can sometimes be justified, but beyond that he has given little indication of the exact contours of what he is saying.

 

[Rau]

Well, I am pretty sure he is saying that contraceptives are not inherently evil and that their use can sometimes be justified, but beyond that he has given little indication of the exact contours of what he is saying.

Contraceptives - the items - are not evil at all. The act of contracepting conjugal relations is the thing the Church teaches is intrinsically evil. If one considers the Lombardi elaboration (such as it is…) provided in post #464, it does not challenge that teaching directly. It suggest one can examine the matter with a “serious conscience”. What does that mean? Does it mean the teaching of the Church need not apply to persons who feel otherwise? What is an emergency? There are parents who experience personal emergencies on a regular basis.

Even a person who is pro-contraception, and wishes the Church’s teaching were otherwise, can see the lack of coherence in the situation.

 

[TMC]

Contraceptives - the items - are not evil at all. The act of contracepting conjugal relations is the thing the Church teaches is intrinsically evil. If one considers the Lombardi elaboration (such as it is…) provided in post #464, it does not challenge that teaching directly. It suggest one can examine the matter with a “serious conscience”. What does that mean? Does it mean the teaching of the Church need not apply to persons who feel otherwise? What is an emergency?

Even a person who is pro-contraception, and wishes the Church’s teaching were otherwise, can see the lack of coherence in the situation.

I recognize there is some incoherence here, I think we can agree on that point. This is (in part) why I have been saying that the doctrine appears to be evolving.

 

[Rau]

I recognize there is some incoherence here, I think we can agree on that point. This is (in part) why I have been saying that the doctrine appears to be evolving.

Considerable incoherence, constituted by:

• the direct conflict of the interpretation of his words with doctrine;
• the misuse of the Congo nun story (since those events were not the act to which the teaching on contraception applies anyway);
• the vagueness of the Lombardi clarification;

I would express it differently - “the recent statement from Pope Francis - if we understand it - suggests that he would be open to some change where an individual believes their conscience is clear”.

(That itself introduces a new set of coherence issues…)

But, to this day, Church teaching is exactly the same as it was prior to these events.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That said, I am not sure if he is saying that contracepting is disfavored, not good, usually wrong, sometimes the lesser evil, or something else.

Yes that bit is a little confusing, but he is saying artificially impeding conception is objectively not good - though not to be compared to the evil of destroying a human fetus zika impaired or not.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, I am pretty sure he is saying that contraceptives are not inherently evil and that their use can sometimes be justified, but beyond that he has given little indication of the exact contours of what he is saying.

Yes I agree that this bit of interpretation cannot easily be denied.

 

[loumeland]

Yes I agree that this bit of interpretation cannot easily be denied.

And this discussion, by necessity, must occur. The truth is that in this past century, every other Christian tradition (Orthodox and Protestant) has come to the conclusion that contraception is not intrinsically evil (only a certain mindset behind it). Are these Christian traditions, with which we are constantly pursuing ecumenical relations, openly promoting immorality and damning their people to hell? On top of that, the great majority of the Catholic Church practices contraception. This leads me to conclude that only one of the following statements is true-

1. Sedevacantism is true: Only a few will be saved, the last popes have not been real popes, Protestants and Orthodox are heretical, and NFP is basically birth control.
2. The Church is evolving: The Catholic Church is coming to a fuller understanding of contraception in light of recent scientific, sociological, and religious studies.

No other conclusion is feasible at this point.

 

[TCEL]

And this discussion, by necessity, must occur. The truth is that in this past century, every other Christian tradition (Orthodox and Protestant) has come to the conclusion that contraception is not intrinsically evil (only a certain mindset behind it). Are these Christian traditions, with which we are constantly pursuing ecumenical relations, openly promoting immorality and damning their people to hell? On top of that, the great majority of the Catholic Church practices contraception. This leads me to conclude that only one of the following statements is true-

1. Sedevacantism is true: Only a few will be saved, the last popes have not been real popes, Protestants and Orthodox are heretical, and NFP is basically birth control.
2. The Church is evolving: The Catholic Church is coming to a fuller understanding of contraception in light of recent scientific, sociological, and religious studies.

No other conclusion is feasible at this point.

Really? Yes, the other groups are wrong, but judgment is left to God. He implied that the liberalization of divorce laws in Jesus’ day were against his plan. Why would contraception, which speaks especially to the integrity of the marriage bond, be different?

I’m astounded at the blatant pot-stirring. I’m bowing out.

 

[loumeland]

Really? Yes, the other groups are wrong, but judgment is left to God. He implied that the liberalization of divorce laws in Jesus’ day were against his plan. Why would contraception, which speaks especially to the integrity of the marriage bond, be different?

I’m astounded at the blatant pot-stirring. I’m bowing out.

Liberalization of divorce laws? The question of divorce (and remarriage) and the indissolubility of marriage is not what’s under discussion. Jesus Christ was very clear about this. It’s the fact of whether remarried people could be ever admitted to Communion after a process of penance and discernment.

Same with contraception. I think we can all agree that abortion is murder, and that contraception is qualitatively different from abortion (a fact which only Pope Francis, of all popes, seems to have acknowledged).

 

[Galnextdoor]

Liberalization of divorce laws? The question of divorce (and remarriage) and the indissolubility of marriage is not what’s under discussion. Jesus Christ was very clear about this. It’s the fact of whether remarried people could be ever admitted to Communion after a process of penance and discernment.

Same with contraception. I think we can all agree that abortion is murder, and that contraception is qualitatively different from abortion (a fact which only Pope Francis, of all popes, seems to have acknowledged).

The Pope also said that nations should build bridges between each other, not walls. In your opinion is this a new Catholic church teaching? Is it now immoral for Israel to have a wall between them and other nations? Are we Catholics immoral if we don’t start building a bridge to Mexico.

My point is that Pope Francis has made a lot of off the cuff, uninformed statements. These statements do not become doctrine because they were uttered by a Pope.

 

[Rau]

And this discussion, by necessity, must occur. The truth is that in this past century, every other Christian tradition (Orthodox and Protestant) has come to the conclusion that contraception is not intrinsically evil (only a certain mindset behind it). …
2. The Church is evolving: The Catholic Church is coming to a fuller understanding of contraception in light of recent scientific, sociological, and religious studies.

Under your thesis then, contraception is a neutral act, not intrinsically evil, but it’s use for bad intentions would constitute an immoral act. Bad intentions would in general be not tightly defined.

Can you elaborate on when contraception would be moral vs immoral, under the proposition you put.

 

[zz912]

1. The Church is evolving: The Catholic Church is coming to a fuller understanding of contraception in light of recent scientific, sociological, and religious studies.

Let’s take a look at those recent scientific and sociological findings.

Scientific - we now know that the birth control pill can actually cause abortions, and is not merely contraceptive. It has an abortifacient component. So the more that we know about the birth control pill scientifically, the worse it becomes.

Sociological - Since the widespread use of contraception has been introduced into society, the rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, STDs, and other social ills has increased dramatically. Now that we know more about the effects of contraception, the worse it becomes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And this discussion, by necessity, must occur. The truth is that in this past century, every other Christian tradition (Orthodox and Protestant) has come to the conclusion that contraception is not intrinsically evil (only a certain mindset behind it). Are these Christian traditions, with which we are constantly pursuing ecumenical relations, openly promoting immorality and damning their people to hell? On top of that, the great majority of the Catholic Church practices contraception. This leads me to conclude that only one of the following statements is true-

1. Sedevacantism is true: Only a few will be saved, the last popes have not been real popes, Protestants and Orthodox are heretical, and NFP is basically birth control.
2. The Church is evolving: The Catholic Church is coming to a fuller understanding of contraception in light of recent scientific, sociological, and religious studies.

No other conclusion is feasible at this point.

Yes, I tend towards your 2nd statement myself.

 

[loumeland]

Under your thesis then, contraception is a neutral act, not intrinsically evil, but it’s use for bad intentions would constitute an immoral act. Bad intentions would in general be not tightly defined.

Can you elaborate on when contraception would be moral vs immoral, under the proposition you put.

That is a fair summary.

The act of contraception itself would not be immoral. As the other two main Christian traditions, most Catholics, and Pope Francis have concluded, the use of contraceptives in order to prevent a pregnancy is not intrinsically evil whenever there are just reasons to prevent a pregnancy. There are, in my opinion, two criteria that would have to be met in order for this to apply-

1. It must be temporal in use. The Pope said, for example, that research must be underway to develop a vaccine against zika. Moreover, the Church promotes NFP, a natural form of birth control, to be used temporarily until the couple is physically, emotionally, psychologically, and financially ready to bring a child to this world. This excludes sterilization or the intention to never have children (provided that there are no major health factors). The key to this is prayerful discernment and careful weighing of factors (eg. conflict between fifth and sixth commandment).

1. A “contraceptive mentality” must be avoided. This is defined as an anti-life mindset that views sex as simply genital pleasure and children as a burden or obstacle to one’s independence. This mindset inevitably leads to abortion and divorce.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Under your thesis then, contraception is a neutral act, not intrinsically evil, but it’s use for bad intentions would constitute an immoral act. Bad intentions would in general be not tightly defined.

Can you elaborate on when contraception would be moral vs immoral, under the proposition you put.

Rau you seem to be allowing your animosity to unfairly present what L is plainly understood to be saying.

Where did L say use of contraceptives was neutral and had no physical evil?
I understood him to be saying it’s evil is qualitatively different from the killing of a foetus.
In this he is surely correct. Contraception is not killing.

Trent seems to have thought differently, but only due to a very poor scientific understanding of what “conception” actually is.

And yes I am sure L. accepts that directly intended use of contraceptives, or killing of a foetus is intrinsically evil.

 

[kyrie03]

Rau you seem to be allowing your animosity to unfairly present what L is plainly understood to be saying.

Where did L say use of contraceptives was neutral and had no physical evil?
I understood him to be saying it’s evil is qualitatively different from the killing of a foetus.
In this he is surely correct. Contraception is not killing.

Trent seems to have thought differently, but only due to a very poor scientific understanding of what “conception” actually is.

And yes I am sure L. accepts that directly intended use of contraceptives, or killing of a foetus is intrinsically evil.

Contraception is use of a method (artificial or other technique) to prevent pregnancy that may result from the sexual act.

What was Trent’s very poor scientific understanding of contraception?