Pope suggests contraceptives could be used

[Guest]

to slow spread of Zika. Thoughts?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Guest

[NadaTeTurbe]

Didn't Pope Benedict authorized condoms for prostitutes ? 

[Guest]

Think so.

[Not A Real Name]

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

to slow spread of Zika. Thoughts?

 

2 minutes ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

Didn't Pope Benedict authorized condoms for prostitutes ? 

Source?

[NadaTeTurbe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22pope.html for pope Benedict. It's in "Light of the world" (first book by Pope Benedict that I read and it is SO SO great). 

[KnightofChrist]

2 minutes ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

Didn't Pope Benedict authorized condoms for prostitutes ? 

No, he did not authorize condoms for prostitutes. He said:

 

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, wherethis can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality.

[Papist]

My thought is this,

[Peace]

The question of whether/when condom use is "acceptable" for sex outside of marriage is kind of an open one I think. You are already sinning to start with. I think that there could be some situations (for example, a husband cheating on his wife with a prostitute and using a condom so that he does not risk giving his wife HIV or some other disease) where the use of a condom could be the "right" thing to do. Another example might be the case of rape. Using a contraceptive drug to prevent pregnancy in that situation might be acceptable.

[Nihil Obstat]

[DominicanHeart]

The virus is a scary thing. Something needs to fix it 

[Nihil Obstat]

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/seven-quick-thoughts-on-the-most-recent-papal-presser/

Seven quick thoughts on the most recent papal presser

February 18, 2016

Frankly, I don’t know how he does it. When I fly to Europe I have to sleep all the way over.  Not Pope Francis. Anyway, may I offer some comments on some topics mentioned in the latest mid-air papal presser?

1. Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives. It is obvious, though, that such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugalrelations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all. I hope that mentioning this unusual episode in a press chat will not contribute unduly to the world’s misunderstanding of the limitations of Paul VI’s position in this case and of the episode’s non-applicability to firm Church teaching on contraception within marriage.

2. An individual becomes “Christian” by, and only by, (valid) baptism. Donald Trump was apparently baptized Presbyterian, which faith community has valid baptism. Donald Trump is, therefore, as a matter of canon law (c. 204), Christian. Trump might be a good Christian or a bad one—I cannot say, and neither can anyone else. Trump might do and say things consistent with Christian values or in contradiction to them, but his status as baptized, and therefore as Christian, is beyond dispute.

3. There is no legitimate “principle” by which a “lesser of two evils” mayever be licitly engaged in. It is fundamental moral theology that even a small evil action may never be licitly engaged in—no matter how much good might seem to result therefrom and no matter how much evil might seem to be avoided thereby. There are, to be sure, principles by which a good or neutral action that has two effects, one good and one evil, might be licitly engaged in under certain circumstances despite the evil effects; and there are principles by which “lesser evils” may be tolerated(not chosen). But parsing these matters accurately and responsibly requires more time than can be devoted to them in a press conference.

4. Abortion (assuming we are talking about doing an action intended to kill a human being prior to birth, and not just suffering ‘abortion’, i.e., miscarriage) is, Francis observed, always evil. Abortion is not, however, “evil” because it is a “crime”. Not all criminal acts are by nature evil and not all evil acts are crimes. Other factors must be considered lest moral principles and legal principles become confused.

5. The Vatican City State, a sovereign nation, has the right to build, and has chosen to surround itself with, a giant wall. Evidently, building or using a national wall is not a non-Christian act nor a stance contrary to Gospel values. The pope’s criticism of building walls on part of a national border is probably better understood as prudential in nature, not principled.

6. It is important (though some might say it is too late) to distinguish between a Catholic’s stance toward “same-sex unions” and that toward “same-sex marriage”. These are not equivalent terms. Legal recognition of “same-sex unions” might be a good idea, a tolerable idea, or a bad idea, but, per se, “same-sex unions” are things over which reasonable minds (including Catholic minds) may differ; in contrast, Catholics may never approve or support “same-sex marriage”, this, upon pain of contradicting infallible Church teaching, if not of committing heresy.

7. The pope said nothing suggesting confusion about “celibacy” and “continence” (c. 277), although the Crux reporter seems to regard the former as another word for the latter. Anyway, I do not know whether there is such a thing as a (priest) who does not have the “friendship of a woman”, but I would not think the “friendship of a woman” is necessary to make a man ‘complete’.

 

 

16 minutes ago, DominicanHeart said:

The virus is a scary thing. Something needs to fix it 

Yeah, good thing the entire world has Planned Parenthood to protect everyone from scary junk!

[Not A Real Name]

1 hour ago, DominicanHeart said:

The virus is a scary thing. Something needs to fix it 

Don't worry. Once they've obtained their fear objective, Zika will go the way of Ebola.

[Nihil Obstat]

Look, we should not beat around the bush here.

IF the pope said that couples could licitly use contraceptives to avoid children during this health scare, THEN the pope was wrong. Perhaps he misunderstood, perhaps he misspoke. Perhaps he was inculpable for the mistake, and perhaps he did not say it at all. I certainly hope that is not what he said.

But IF what he said is as I described above, THEN he is wrong, period.

Do not let yourself be deceived. We cannot afford further weakening of Catholic moral teaching.

[Nihil Obstat]

Lifesitenews appears to confirm by way of Fr. Lombardi that the Pope did say what he was reported as saying. Big surprise.

I will reiterate, IF the pope said that contraceptive use could be licit in this case, THEN the pope is wrong.

[Peace]

34 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Lifesitenews appears to confirm by way of Fr. Lombardi that the Pope did say what he was reported as saying. Big surprise.

I will reiterate, IF the pope said that contraceptive use could be licit in this case, THEN the pope is wrong.

Sources please. That was my general impression of what has been taught by various popes, but I do not know if there are any dogmatic statements that would completely rule out contraception to prevent the spread of diseases such as HIV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the case where one married spouse contracts HIV, say through a blood transfusion? Apparently the only option for the other spouse is A) contract this deadly disease yourself and risk having your children get it too, or B) never have sex again. I am not entirely convinced that the Church would rule out contraception in this situation, but if you have something directly on point I will consider it. The point of using the condom here is to prevent the transmission of disease during sex. They are not using it to prevent pregnancy, although that is the consequence.