Pope signals possible limited opening contraception in Zika cases
(02-20-2016, 10:25 AM)austenbosten Wrote: I agree with what Ann Barnhardt (Catholic vitriolic nut-case (though not so nutty) blogger) when she says not only did this comment make it sound like he was okay with contraception, but with eugenics.  Zika virus causes microcephaly, basically a life-unworth-of-life (hattip Barnhardt and 3rd Reich).  That's the only problem with the Zika virus...that it produces sick babies....this comment basically says no babies are better than sick babies.


[Image: EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg]

That's an excellent point. Sadly, eugenics is already acceptable in our society, with something like 90% of all babies identified in utero with birth defects already being aborted in North America. So why not extend it to South America and beyond?
(02-18-2016, 02:16 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: Be wary not to fall into consequentialist ethics in this discussion. The virtuous move would be to refrain from sexual relations until this issue is solved. Saying that contraception is okay because of this virus is basically saying you can engage in sexual license. If the point of sexual relations is procreation, then this non of this makes any sense.

Just have to say for people reading over our shoulders:  There are two purposes of sex, one being procreation, the other being the unity of the couple. An openness to procreation has to be there in order for sexual relations to be licit.

Back to the topic:  Anyone remember the kerfuffle over a Pope's -- I believe it was Pope Benedict (?) -- saying something to the effect that if two homosexuals are going to have sex, they should make use of condoms? I might have all that wrong in my head, but taking that as an example, that's the problem with a Pope saying anything about artificial contraceptive devices. Me, I can't imagine what'd be wrong, in itself, with an active homosexual putting latex on his penis IF he insists on committing the sin of sodomy and will do it anyway. I mean, there's no sin, inherently, in putting latex on your genitals; the sin is in the illicit sex.  IOW, I think that IF two homosexuals are going to go there and do that, they should wear condoms and at least be safe about it. [ETA: I should have written "physically safer" to make the points that condoms don't make things safe (they fail rather frequently, in fact), and that the physical isn't the only concern. Morally, it's not safe either.)

But a Pope's saying that leads people to come up with stuff like, "Well, if it's OK for gay people to use condoms, why not a man and his wife?", as if the issue is "fairness" in some way. They don't see that in the case of the homosexuals, they're sinning in the first place and that condoms don't prevent anything but disease (rather, help prevent disease!), while in the case of a married couple, procreation is being prevented. People really aren't that bright or logical, and you take that fact and mix it up with the media's twisting of what our Popes say -- and, in the case of Pope Francis, what he often, in fact, says -- you've got Big Heap Trouble any time sexual matters come up. Well, any time anything comes up with regard to Church teaching as it's "revealed" (or twisted) in the media.

Speaking of all this, don't you love the ridiculousness of the decimation of the homosexual community being blamed on the Popes? As if two homosexuals are all ready to go at it when one grabs a condom. His partner then says, "Darling, we can't use that. Think of what the Church teaches!" Pshaw.
Benedict XVI proposed a similar exception for birth control in the case of prostitutes.
Anyone who has ever read or listened to an interview, or participated in informal discussions knows that off the cuff responses should not resamble the ramblings of a mad man.

But then again, some people do talk this way. One example is that one could bet someone would make a comparison with some BXVI's interview, showing a gross contempt for logic.

In any case, the last couple of weeks I've been playing host to some fairly Catholic family members, and the worst thing so far is trying to explain how a clear moral reasoning, solemnly backed by Pius XI in Casti Conubii trumps a pope's interview.

I've never been more convinced that television (and secular media in general) is nothing but the world's voice in one's own home. I propose the following for the remaining Lent--and do suggest this for your family and friends: instead of reading about the pope, give away all secular news and read Casti Conubii, etc.
(02-20-2016, 09:47 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I've never been more convinced that television (and secular media in general) is nothing but the world's voice in one's own home.

I don't think it's "the world's voice," but the collective voice of those who own the channels of our cultures -- people we know are far, far from Christian. And not just "not Christian," but actively and explicitly anti-Christ. Their shenanigans, in turn, shape "the world's voice" (or maybe you were using "the world" in a more poetic sense), but I think the power of the media is very underrated by most people. It can be so insidious, so sneaky, so often on the level of the almost subliminal. People who don't know their Faith and/or who are easily swayed by demagoguery have to be careful about what they watch.

I also wouldn't say that television and the secular media in general are "nothing but" (whoever's) voice. There are a lot of great things on TV -- but one does have to shop around for sure LOL

Quote:I propose the following for the remaining Lent--and do suggest this for your family and friends: instead of reading about the pope, give away all secular news and read Casti Conubii, etc.

Not sure I agree with you here totally. I think we have to know what's going on (right now, especially, we Americans who are in the middle of an election cycle). But doing a lot more spiritual reading than secular news reading is always a good idea, especially now, during Lent, as you say.

BTW, I gotta ask:  Is English not your first language? Did you grow up speaking it? I have to ask because your English is perfect, and given that you're from Brazil, I'm guessing that English isn't your first language at all. I'm always AMAZED at how well non-Americans speak such great English so often! I've talked with German people to whom I'd have to listen realllllly closely to even pick up on the fact they're not Americans. It's unreal! And here you are, not just making idle chit-chat or small talk, but writing about really deep theological stuff sometimes -- in a language I'm guessing isn't your own. I find that so impressive!

Thanks for the compliment  :P . Yes, its not my first language, but I began early and most of my reading is in English.

I was using the world in the same sense St. John uses it, especially is his first epistle. While you take the world to be the peoples, right? So yes, we're in agreement but speaking on different perspectives.

What can you still learn about the elections? You're already suspicious of the folks who are shaping the culture. This is how they get people: make them believe they'll miss some crucial thing if they don't listen to your (media's) anti-gospel.
Maybe its easier for me because I have a bit of a temper, and just seeing some lies or social engineering on television I just get upset.
Hello Fisheaters. I wanted to weigh in on this topic.

The microcephaly linked to Zika (wholesale) is a UN hoax.  Francis purposefully gave an immediate ambiguous answer to a cut and dry subject.
Clombias president offered the medical report stating of the 3177 Columbian women who tested positive for Zika gave birth to normal babies.  (spanish source)http://www.actuall.com/vida/pacquiao-def...-genero-2/

Unfortunately Fr. Lombardi S.J., confirmed that Francis was referring to contraception in extreme cases as Zika.

Allow me to refer you to a site Akacatholic.com who explains with much greater detail what this demonic agenda is really about.
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/

Basically all goes back to an article debating the moral dilema. But a dense cloud of lies, half truths, insinuations, etc., produced by our beloved media (vide supra for what I think of them and infra for what I think about journalists) and liberal clergy that eventually turned an academic discussion into a rumor into an order from ROME and The Pope.

This is all a parable reinforcing my point that we should stick with official teaching and classical theology.

(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.

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.
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."

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."

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)