Pope condones contraceptives for zika outbreak?

[Rau]

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

Blue - read post #514. Loumeland did not feel my post unfairly presented anything, given that Loumeland’s response to my post is "That is a fair summary". Loumeland then went on to say that:

*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. *I note that “just reasons” to prevent pregnancy do not take one outside the scope of the Church teaching on contraception.

Perhaps better to let Loumeland address his intent - which I think I fairly summarised (or so he seems to agree).

You manufactured that reference to “animosity” from nothing. I ask you again to cease speculative (or made up) commentary about me.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

If you put a bit of effort into doing some research on the pointers I made below I think it will be readily apparent if you are not familiar with the history.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue - read post #514. Loumeland did not feel my post unfairly presented anything, given that Loumeland’s response to my post is "That is a fair summary". Loumeland then went on to say that:

*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. *I note that “just reasons” to prevent pregnancy do not take one outside the scope of the Church teaching on contraception.

Perhaps better to let Loumeland address his intent - which I think I fairly summarised (or so he seems to agree).

You manufactured that reference to “animosity” from nothing. I ask you again to cease speculative (or made up) commentary about me.

Saying something is not intrinsically evil hardly logically means it is neutral .
This is a minor point and not necessarily what L included in his “fair summary” comment.

If L corrects me then I apologise, until then I stand by my observation.

 

[loumeland]

Rau & Blue Horizon: You both have understood what I said but are looking at it from two different angles. Here’s the deal-

We have to stop thinking of sinfulness in terms of physical acts and begin to see it as a whole, including acts, motives, and consent. St. Thomas Aquinas taught us how to think through this, but I fear that many do not understand the breadth of these categories and are quick to categorize anything as a mortal sin.

I assent to the Church’s understanding that the act of contraception (ie. non-abortifacent pills and condoms) is not good. However, there are circumstances that a married couple may find themselves in that call into account the motives and their amount of consent. Willing to “bear the cross” and “trust God” by having sex and not availing yourself of these options while one is not physically, financially, or emotionally ready may have the appearance of piety, but in reality it may be a one-sided decision (appeasing one’s guilt) that does not take into account the new life you’re bringing. Responsible parenthood is greater than having all your ducks in a row in the area of coitus within marriage. Perhaps Solomon’s advise is fitting here? “Be not just to excess… Why work your own ruin?" (Eccl. 7:16).

I know that one or two people might bring up the dilemma of martyrdom. However, this argument falls when one considers that martyrdom comes from the outside, not from the inside. Martyrdom is when your country forces you to abort and you refuse to. It is one’s testimony to outsiders that we are willing to live and die by our Gospel message. Self-inflicted dilemmas are hardly persecution or martyrdom.

 

[kyrie03]

If you put a bit of effort into doing some research on the pointers I made below I think it will be readily apparent if you are not familiar with the history.

Blue, I went through this whole thread and read all of your posts. I must have missed where you discussed Trent and it’s very poor scientific understanding of contraception.

If you meant I need to go read what Council of Trent has said R.E. contraception -could you point me to documents you understand to be problematic scientifically?

Thanks!

 

[Rau]

…Willing to “bear the cross” and “trust God” by having sex and not availing yourself of these options while one is not physically, financially, or emotionally ready may have the appearance of piety, but in reality it may be a one-sided decision (appeasing one’s guilt) that does not take into account the new life you’re bringing. Responsible parenthood is greater than having all your ducks in a row in the area of coitus within marriage. Perhaps Solomon’s advise is fitting here? “Be not just to excess… Why work your own ruin?" (Eccl. 7:16).

I believe what you explain here is as I understood you before. You do not see intrinsic evil in contracepting conjugal relations, but rather see a balance of goods and evils to be weighed. When there is no good reason to be avoiding a child, then to contracept is not good. But if the alternative is to risk conceiving a child when parents are not well prepared (physically, financially, emotionally…), then contracepting serves the good interests of all concerned, including child, and that good justifies its use.

Blue - are we all on the same page in understanding Lou’s point?

 

[Rau]

I believe what you explain here is as I understood you before. You do not see intrinsic evil in contracepting conjugal relations, but rather see a balance of goods and evils to be weighed. When there is no good reason to be avoiding a child, then to contracept is not good. But if the alternative is to risk conceiving a child when parents are not well prepared (physically, financially, emotionally…), then contracepting serves the good interests of all concerned, including child, and that good justifies its use.

Blue - are we all on the same page in understanding Lou’s point?

He might have been referring to this from the other thread. Not sure.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13736404&postcount=189

 

[kyrie03]

He might have been referring to this from the other thread. Not sure.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13736404&postcount=189

Thanks Rau! I see this has been debated on another thread.

Blue, if you have to resort to claiming Trent didn’t know certain scientific facts so therefore, the teaching of contraception is evolving along with our scientific understanding……

Clear teaching on intrinsic evil of contraception has been addressed AFTER 1800s in CC 1930, HV 1968, etc…. People have known that children have characteristics of both mother and father long before the microscope could definitively identify the sperm and the egg. St John Chrysostom wasn’t confused thinking that contraception was same as abortion. "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?”
– St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Romans, 24 (ca. A.D. 391).
Yes, disabled children (even microcephaly children) are gifts from God. Don’t tempt us to spurn God’s gifts because we need to discern and decide with our own consciences what is right and wrong in difficult circumstance (see post #482).

Contraception is intrinsically evil because it is against the Natural Law. No off-the-cuff statements and fanciful thinking -or even an Angel of Light appearing and telling us otherwise- can ever change Church teaching on contraception.

It is only recently that confusing- even messy, down and dirty statements and justifications (see post #248) -are polluting the Truth as it has always been taught. This doesn’t help the disadvantaged but drags them down into the mire of spiritual poverty along with their material poverty. There is nothing “pastoral” about confusing the sheepfold (see posts #171 & 209). There is no “curtain” being pulled back to expose the “OZ show” that had been Church teaching of past (see post #177)……only an attempt to disrobe the Spotless Bride of Christ of the unambiguous doctrine that used to help protect us from soiling ourselves with sin.

Please, study the treasure that is your Catholic faith. Do not substitute it for the newest shiniest trinket presented by the world, the flesh or the devil!

 

[awsiukiewicz]

I’m not believing this thread,I’ve prefaced the majority of my seriously genuine well meaning quotes regarding the Pope with disclaimers so as not be censored and nevertheless I’m put on suspension,just for the record,maybe not on this venue but it is ok to question what any Pope says ,and as the ongoing explanations for what His Holiness says,there is a litany of questionable quotes which can’t be explained,don’t repeat prayers ,please,ok let me have it now

 

[Rau]

I’ve read your posts on this thread - the 2 that exist now. I found both to be very difficult to understand. Perhaps try and express your ideas simply and in sentences. The rules with which you need to comply to avoid sanction are not difficult.