Pope suggests contraceptives could be used

[Peace]

5 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I don't think this has been posted here, but Pope Paul VI did not approve contraceptions for nuns. It actually came from a magazine published in Rome 2-3 before Paul became Pope.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/

Please stop spreading error. The Church has not and never will approve of contraceptions. Your position only serves to mislead others into error.

Do you have some prophetic vision that I am not aware of? It is nice to know that I can turn to the all knowing Knight when I want to know what the Church will do in he future.

If you think that I am spreading error please report me to Dust or one of the other moderators, or point out the specific reasons why you believe what I have wrote is wrong. I have changed my mind on this board before when presented with evidence contrary to what I wrote. But if you think you can just make these types of statements without backing up what you say, like I am just your child and I have to do what you say because you are the adult and you say so, let me just clarify that you are wasting both your and my time with all of that that. So with all due respect, please check your attitude at the door. We can discuss the issue like adults, as I and Nihil were doing before you rudely injected yourself into the conversation.

And what error did I spread? Please go back and read what I wrote. I did not say that the Church has approved contraception. I said that the specific question at hand is one that has not been considered in depth by the Church, for among other reasons, the main encyclicals that address contraception were written before the problem of HIV arose. And I wrote that one can make a reasonable argument that it passes the double-effect test. The analysis is right there on the page. If you disagree with it please feel free to state the reasons why you disagree. People are smart enough to judge for themselves without having you sweep in and pronounce the truth for all of us.

[MarysLittleFlower]

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I don't think this has been posted here, but Pope Paul VI did not approve contraceptions for nuns. It actually came from a magazine published in Rome 2-3 before Paul became Pope.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/

Please stop spreading error. The Church has not and never will approve of contraceptions. Your position only serves to mislead others into error.

Good to know about Pope Paul!

About Pope Francis..... His statement wouldn't fit the criteria for infallibility right?? I mean besides the point that the Church is against contraception. Was he just giving his own view not attempting to teach? Because a Pope can't ex cathedra teach something other than Church teaching...  I'm still not sure what he meant though and if he maybe meant something else...

[Peace]

Not even in the same area code as an ex cathedra statement. I still have some trouble believing that he really meant that condoms can be used in that situation, since it does contrast with what most people perceive to be the Church teaching on the issue. But perhaps there will be further clarification from Pope Francis on that point later, to clear up any misunderstandings of what he meant.

[Ice_nine]

So, just want to clarify, if you're getting raped but you've somehow managed to use contraception then you become a sinner too? Rape must be open to life?

Wonderful.

Gotta say, I get really miffed about the Church's relationship to sexual abuse (not just the modern day crisis but the implications and attitudes towards the topic, throughout the ages it seems). Was going to start a thread on it once upon a time but did not have the energy.

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Good to know about Pope Paul!

About Pope Francis..... His statement wouldn't fit the criteria for infallibility right?? I mean besides the point that the Church is against contraception. Was he just giving his own view not attempting to teach? Because a Pope can't ex cathedra teach something other than Church teaching...  I'm still not sure what he meant though and if he maybe meant something else...

No, of course not. Popes are wrong all the time.

[Maggyie]

41 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

So, just want to clarify, if you're getting raped but you've somehow managed to use contraception then you become a sinner too? Rape must be open to life?

Wonderful.

Gotta say, I get really miffed about the Church's relationship to sexual abuse (not just the modern day crisis but the implications and attitudes towards the topic, throughout the ages it seems). Was going to start a thread on it once upon a time but did not have the energy.

In the case of rape the use of contraception is not meaningful. A victim who somehow uses a condom in that situation, has zero culpability. They do not "become a sinner" and any non-insane moral theologian would explain this. To sin you have to be making a choice. Victims of sexual violence have no genuine choices when it comes to the sex act. Or they would "choose" to not be assaulted at all. 

It can be hurtful in the church because these discussions take place at an abstract level instead of pastoral reality.

I know that in the case of rape, some bishops have approved pharmaceutical emergency contraception as a form of "self defense" against the rapist. Of course if the woman had already ovulated it would possibly be an abortion, so it is important for the woman and doctors to ascertain whether that has happened before administering the meds... Could be arrived at by drawing a P4 (and hcg of course), taking the history of where she is in her cycle, and ultrasound visualization. Time is of the essence so it is also important for hospitals to be aware of what needs to be done. 

[Basilisa Marie]

4 hours ago, Maggyie said:

In the case of rape the use of contraception is not meaningful. A victim who somehow uses a condom in that situation, has zero culpability. They do not "become a sinner" and any non-insane moral theologian would explain this. To sin you have to be making a choice. Victims of sexual violence have no genuine choices when it comes to the sex act. Or they would "choose" to not be assaulted at all. 

It can be hurtful in the church because these discussions take place at an abstract level instead of pastoral reality.

I know that in the case of rape, some bishops have approved pharmaceutical emergency contraception as a form of "self defense" against the rapist. Of course if the woman had already ovulated it would possibly be an abortion, so it is important for the woman and doctors to ascertain whether that has happened before administering the meds... Could be arrived at by drawing a P4 (and hcg of course), taking the history of where she is in her cycle, and ultrasound visualization. Time is of the essence so it is also important for hospitals to be aware of what needs to be done. 

One of the things that seems to be missing about what did or didn't happen with the example of the sisters in the Belgian Congo is that it's not just that they lived under a theoretical threat of rape that might have happened once or twice.  Rape, torture, murder, and various humiliations were a horrific reality for these sisters. If any special dispensation for taking the pill occurred, it was only in reaction to a truly hellish situation to mitigate some of the consequences of the violence.  Fr. Z says it didn't happen, though. 

But even if it did, the situation of married couples facing the possibility of this virus affecting their children doesn't seem like a worthy comparison. It's usually not a good idea to start playing in the suffering olympics, but one example has vowed religious sisters defending themselves against a terrible evil by choosing a lesser evil, while the other involves a married couple choosing to engage in marital relations. One group vowed to live chastity through celibacy, the other vowed to be open to giving life to and raising children. Sex is inherent to one state of life, not the other. 

Anything beyond saying contraception might be a lesser evil proving evidence of the stirrings of a conscience in a situation like this is troubling. I haven't totally followed the Zitka situation in much detail, but it's clear to me that I wouldn't have used that comparison. 

[Amppax]

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I don't think this has been posted here, but Pope Paul VI did not approve contraceptions for nuns. It actually came from a magazine published in Rome 2-3 before Paul became Pope.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/02/its-not-an-urban-legend-its-a-lie-paul-vi-did-not-give-permission-to-nuns-to-use-contraceptives/

Please stop spreading error. The Church has not and never will approve of contraceptions. Your position only serves to mislead others into error.

Well, in 2006 a Pontifical Commission was asked by Pope Benedict to conduct a study of the very question that Peace was talking about. As far as my understanding goes, their answer was tentatively positive. Obviously, these sort of commissions can be wrong (see the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control), but their work wasn't rejected (yet). Making it thus an open question of sorts. Just to be clear, I would think it would not be permissible (Jimmy Akin gives a simple, but helpful, breakdown of the question here: http://jimmyakin.com/2006/05/condoms_hivaids.html, @Peace, that might answer some of your questions). But before we burn Peace at the stake, let's make sure we've done our homework.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

Well, in 2006 a Pontifical Commission was asked by Pope Benedict to conduct a study of the very question that Peace was talking about. As far as my understanding goes, their answer was tentatively positive. Obviously, these sort of commissions can be wrong (see the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control), but their work wasn't rejected (yet). Making it thus an open question of sorts. Just to be clear, I would think it would not be permissible (Jimmy Akin gives a simple, but helpful, breakdown of the question here: http://jimmyakin.com/2006/05/condoms_hivaids.html, @Peace, that might answer some of your questions). But before we burn Peace at the stake, let's make sure we've done our homework.

Thanks. Yeah. I think it is an issue that the Church is still considering.

I don't mind if anyone takes issue with what I wrote. That is what a discussion forum is for. What I do mind is when people try to pull rank when they have no rank over me.

Just stick to the merits of the debate and all is good.

[Seven77]

 I've been disturbed about the Pope's comments on this issue. At 1st, I thought as @Spem in alium did--- Pope Francis mentioned “avoiding pregnancy" which could refer to NFP.  But then came the Vatican clarification that confirmed the Pope was indeed speaking of contraception--which makes sense in light of the nuns in Africa scenario t-hat the Pope brought up. And this really bothered me, as it bothers almost everyone-- why would the Pope use this example? We are talking about 2 different things. In the case of a married couple with one of the spouses affected by the virus why would they be justified in using contraception when they should just abstain or perhaps make use of NFP methods if they are concerned about only having a child with the virus-- both of which seem to be the only 2 options for faithful and moral Catholics. After prayerfully thinking about it, reading this thread and articles mentioned here and other places, comments, etc,, I think I've come to understand what Pope Francis was trying to get at:

 Contraception, specifically the morning after  type of drugs within the window before a child is conceived, could be used--- suppose that a married couple found out that one of them has the virus within that timeframe  window, they could use a pharmaceutical emergency contraceptive.  This make sense of the POPE's comments--  This  explanation, if you really think about it and take everything together, totally works, right?

[Nihil Obstat]

11 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 

 Contraception, specifically the morning after  type of drugs within the window before a child is conceived, could be used--- suppose that a married couple found out that one of them has the virus within that timeframe  window, they could use a pharmaceutical emergency contraceptive.  This make sense of the POPE's comments--  This  explanation, if you really think about it and take everything together, totally works, right?

No, I do not think that would be morally licit. We have no need to read the pope's comments like some sort of secret code which only make sense after they have been translated. If he said what we are being told he said, then he is wrong. He made a mistake. It happens. We should hope and pray that he corrects it, not make excuses for him.

[Amppax]

36 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 I've been disturbed about the Pope's comments on this issue. At 1st, I thought as @Spem in alium did--- Pope Francis mentioned “avoiding pregnancy" which could refer to NFP.  But then came the Vatican clarification that confirmed the Pope was indeed speaking of contraception--which makes sense in light of the nuns in Africa scenario t-hat the Pope brought up. And this really bothered me, as it bothers almost everyone-- why would the Pope use this example? We are talking about 2 different things. In the case of a married couple with one of the spouses affected by the virus why would they be justified in using contraception when they should just abstain or perhaps make use of NFP methods if they are concerned about only having a child with the virus-- both of which seem to be the only 2 options for faithful and moral Catholics. After prayerfully thinking about it, reading this thread and articles mentioned here and other places, comments, etc,, I think I've come to understand what Pope Francis was trying to get at:

 Contraception, specifically the morning after  type of drugs within the window before a child is conceived, could be used--- suppose that a married couple found out that one of them has the virus within that timeframe  window, they could use a pharmaceutical emergency contraceptive.  This make sense of the POPE's comments--  This  explanation, if you really think about it and take everything together, totally works, right?

Totally works? Not necessarily, it has the same sort of problems that have been used against this scenario in the past (when talking about HIV/AIDS). I don't think there is much of a difference between a condom, and oral contraceptives taken after the fact. 

[Peace]

Good paper on the topic:

www.mycatholicfaith.org/blogs/sexualcommonsense/SmithThomist.pdf

[rkwright]

I haven't posted in here in forever but after hearing the Pope's words I came here. I can't find any good explanation that I feel comfortable with. I tend to agree with Nihil on this - perhaps the Pope is just wrong on this one.  It's still troubling and has been bothering me all weekend. 

 

One comment/question I had. The nuns in Africa (if that even happened) have taken a vow of chastity. If they take contraception for whatever reason, is this even a sin? They are by definition committed to not having children.  This is why I don't think this is a fair analogy. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I had meant to post this yesterday. Ed Peters always has great commentary.

Misunderstanding the (alleged) ‘Congo contraception’ case

February 21, 2016

Even by the standards of his reign, the presser Pope Francis conducted on his return flight from Mexico has provoked an unusual number of questions. I wish to address only one of those here.

Preliminarily, I note that the burden is not on the negative to prove that something did not occur, it is on the affirmative to prove that the alleged something did occur. That said, though, it now seems all but certain that the ‘permission’ or ‘approval’ which Francis has claimed his predecessor Pope Paul VI gave for Congo nuns facing rape to use contraception simply does not exist. See e.g. Fr. Zuhlsdorf or John Allen*.

Unfortunately this myth has been invoked by the pope as if it were a fact of Church history, and, more importantly, in a way that suggests it might be a precedent to be considered in deciding whether contraception may also be used to prevent pregnancy in some cases of possible birth defects. That claim would take Pope Francis’ contraception remarks into a very different area. No longer are we musing about a point of Church history (as interesting as that might be), now we are dealing with Church moral teaching. The stakes become dramatically higher.

So here’s my point: not only does the Congo nuns permission seem NOT to exist, but, even if it does exist in some form, it could NOT, I suggest, by its own terms, be used by Francis (or anyone else committed to thinking with the Church) to call into question the Church’ssettled teaching that “each and every marital act [quilibet matrimonii usus] must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse [coniugale commercium], is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).

Obviously the Congo nuns case (or the Balkan nuns story in the 1990s, to take another variation of the myth) was not about marital acts, it was about religious women facing criminal acts of violent sexual intercourse; the Congo question was not about possible birth defects, it was about stopping rapists’ sperm from reaching ova that perchance had been ovulated. Between women facing rape and wives worried about birth defects there simply is no parallel relevant to the moral question of contraception. One can like that fact or hate it, but one cannot change it or ignore it. Moreover, Church teaching on the immorality of contracepted marital acts is, I believe, taught infallibly; but, even if I were wrong about that technical claim, there is no question about whatthat teaching is, namely, that contracepting acts of marital intercourse, whether doing so as an end in itself or as means to some other end, is objectively immoral.

A discussion could be had, I think, on whether non-marital sexual intercourse is subject to the same moral requirements as that to which marital intercourse is held. Humanae vitae does not, as far as I can see, address that question. But, as to whether a permission allegedly given to nuns to take contraceptive measures in the face of rape establishes a precedent for spouses wanting to contracept their sexual relations out of fear of possible birth defects, the conclusion seems inescapable: there is no parallel between the two cases, and so there is no precedent set.

*A note on Allen’s article cited above: As I feared he did earlier, Allen is once again arguing that papal non-action is papal action.

After claiming that then-Cdl. Montini was “close to the currents that shaped [the journal] Studi Cattolici” and that it “was assumed” that Montini approved of an article defending contraception by Congolese nuns, an assumption that Allen says “appeared to be confirmed later” when as pope Montini later promoted one of its authors, Allen tops off this journalistic house of cards with a zinger: “The Vatican [sic] never repudiated the 1961 position [taken by theologians, not by Montini], so the takeaway was that it remained a legitimate option. To Italians — and remember, Francis’ ancestry is Italian … that meant Paul VI approved.”

Good grief. I say it again, good grief.

I can imagine not a few Italians are hitting the roof right about now over Allen’s opinion of their formal logic skills. But my question is, How many conjectures fromassumptions based on silence may a journalist pile up before someone shoutsEnough!? Here’s one for ya: God could have stopped this evil or that if He wanted to, but He didn’t stop it, so bingo, God is the author of evil. Talk about bad logic skills. Seriously, there are plenty of terrible things that John Allen has never written about, let alone condemned; may we assume that his silence on such matters signals hisconsent to them? If not, should not the same deference be accorded to a pope?