FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope signals possible limited opening contraception in Zika cases
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(02-23-2016, 02:47 AM)Truecharity Wrote: [ -> ]I do pray that the traditional Catholic media call out Francis' errors. Especially this one. For it is gaining traction:
Many souls will be lead into damnation.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has supported Pope Francis' statement suggesting artificial contraception can be used by women threatened by the Zika virus.

CBCP President Archbishop Socrates Villegas said " "Once more, the Pope has shown his sensitivity to complex human situations, allowed the world see the merciful face of the Church -- the sacrament of a Merciful Lord -- as he has remained the faithful steward of the message of the Gospel."
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-n...ion-458438

First it was save the whales and the trees (Laudato Si). Then it was "We are all one" and ecumenism of blood. Now it's artificial contraception in case of a virus. This is diabolical. 

If in fact Paul VI actually gave permission, it would speak volumes about the efficacy and/or the intent of the Vatican II "canonizations."

Hey TrueChairty, you sound an awful lot like one of my favourite bloggers Louie Verrecchio *wink *wink
(02-23-2016, 01:42 AM)Truecharity Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2016, 10:51 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Fr. Z wrote (or published a piece) on the lie of Paul VI (the great? Really?) allowing contraception for nuns: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-a...aceptives/

This piece from AkaCatholic is much more accurate and honest.
https://akacatholic.com/fr-zs-rejection-...mon-sense/


He denotes Francis' scandalous statement and Fr.Z's "rumor" dismissal with:

Francis is the pope who beatified Paul VI. He has complete access to every shred of evidence contained in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints’ dossier on Montini.

Does anyone believe for even a moment that the long running “rumor” of his involvement in the Congo nuns situation isn’t addressed therein?

The bottom line is this: When it comes to the relative accuracy of the “rumor,” Francis is among the most well-informed persons on the face of the earth; certainly he knows more about this than the rest of us.

This article simply accuses Fr. Z's report of not being able to find any evidence because everything was dealt « within a close group ». If this is true then the article still stands : as far as we know Paul VI did not say that (and we all take it to mean he did not say that publicly). But even worse, the whole point of the article is that it presupposes some strong evidence that is known by the pope and that the pope was both knowledgeable (really, I don't think the pope read everything he should, and in any case its quite easy to corrupt a report in a highly bureaucratic system) and honest.

I know among some so called trads the simple appearance of one defending the pope turns the person into a persona non grata. But the point of Fr. Z's article, so it seems to me, was not so much to defend the pope but to clarify that giving contraception to nuns was never a public instruction of the pope.

Stop trying to find pope defenders on every corner. This is getting really tiresome.
Honestly, I'm not sure what the controversy is about that event.  I don't see anything wrong with it if it did happen--and it is very much distinguishable from the current suggestion.

Non-abortive contraception in the case of rape, as a repelling of or holding oneself back from an unjust attacker, seems justified.  Take the most basic form of contraception: coitus interruptus.  Surely a woman would be justified in repelling an attacker or holding herself back from an attacker in this way. I don't see why this wouldn't also apply to other forms of contraception.

But a married couple using contraception for eugenic reasons would be ruled out by the doctrine definitively taught by the Church.

Also, as a side note, I have seem some people criticize the Pope for supporting eugenics by suggesting that concern about birth defects justifies the avoidance of pregnancy.  Again, I think the criticism is valid when it comes to contraception,  but eugenics is one of the justifications for NFP given by Pope Pius XII:

Pius XII Wrote:Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

So I think we need to make appropriate distinctions.  It's not problematic when it comes to rape victims (the episcopate has seemed unanimous in this regard with the various national policies for Catholic hospitals) and avoidance of pregnancy is not problematic when there is a likelihood of birth defects.  But using contraception to avoid pregnancy for eugenic reasons is the problem.
(02-23-2016, 09:52 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, I'm not sure what the controversy is about that event.  I don't see anything wrong with it if it did happen--and it is very much distinguishable from the current suggestion.

Non-abortive contraception in the case of rape, as a repelling of or holding oneself back from an unjust attacker, seems justified.  Take the most basic form of contraception: coitus interruptus.  Surely a woman would be justified in repelling an attacker or holding herself back from an attacker in this way. I don't see why this wouldn't also apply to other forms of contraception.

But a married couple using contraception for eugenic reasons would be ruled out by the doctrine definitively taught by the Church.

Also, as a side note, I have seem some people criticize the Pope for supporting eugenics by suggesting that concern about birth defects justifies the avoidance of pregnancy.  Again, I think the criticism is valid when it comes to contraception,  but eugenics is one of the justifications for NFP given by Pope Pius XII:

Pius XII Wrote:Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

So I think we need to make appropriate distinctions.  It's not problematic when it comes to rape victims (the episcopate has seemed unanimous in this regard with the various national policies for Catholic hospitals) and avoidance of pregnancy is not problematic when there is a likelihood of birth defects.  But using contraception to avoid pregnancy for eugenic reasons is the problem.

I don't think anyone is arguing that avoiding pregnancy because of the risk of disability isn't permissible. But if you're allowed to use contraception to prevent said pregnancies, it's the beginning of a very slippery slope as we've already seen in our society, that results in children with identifiable birth defects overwhelmingly being aborted. You cannot separate the two in this case - one pretty much unavoidably leads to another.
Pages: 1 2 3 4