Pope suggests contraceptives could be used

[Peace]

Here is a slightly different take on it:

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/20/pope-takes-classic-vatican-approach-to-birth-control-and-zika-virus/

Speaking about birth control in the context of the Zika pandemic, Francis cited his predecessor, Pope Paul VI. Here’s what he said, translated from Italian:

Paul VI — the great! — in a difficult situation, in Africa, permitted sisters to use birth control for cases of violence. It’s necessary not to confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy, by itself, with abortion … avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil, and in certain cases, as in that I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.

The reference is to Congo in the late 1950s and early 60s, where Catholic nuns faced widespread sexual violence and the question was whether birth control could be used to avoid pregnancy after rape.

Francis said Paul VI “permitted” birth control in that context, which, to Anglo-Saxon ears, implies a formal juridical act. The line sparked a frenzy of fruitless Internet searches, as people went looking for a Vatican edict or decree that just doesn’t exist.

Here’s what happened: In December 1961, the influential Italian journal Studi Cattolici (“Catholic Studies”) published an issue in which three Catholic moral theologians agreed that in the Congo case, contraception could be justified.

The future Paul VI, at that stage, was still the Archbishop of Milan, and close to the currents that shaped Studi Cattolici. It was assumed the conclusions reflected his thinking. That appeared to be confirmed later when Paul VI made one of the authors, Pietro Palazzini, a cardinal.

Paul became pope in 1963, and never issued any edict writing that position into law. Thus, when pressed about it some years later, a Vatican spokesman could accurately say, “I am not aware of official documents from the Holy See in this regard.”

Still, the Vatican never repudiated the 1961 position, so the takeaway was that it remained a legitimate option. To Italians — and remember, Francis’ ancestry is Italian, and he’s very wired into the country’s ecclesiastical scene — that meant Paul VI approved.

All this is not terribly different from the way the Vatican has approached condom use in the context of a married couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn’t, and the aim is to prevent the other partner from becoming infected.

In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI asked the Pontifical Council for Health Care under Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, who has since retired, to examine the question. After polling doctors and other health care professionals, as well as theologians, Barragán presented the pope with a tentatively positive response.

To date, that conclusion hasn’t been codified, but it also hasn’t been rejected. In 2010, Benedict said in an interview — note, an interview, not a formal dogmatic statement — that although the Church does not regard condoms as the solution to the AIDS crisis, there are cases in which they may be “a first step” toward responsible behavior.

But I agree with Ed Peters main point - that even if it happened it is not a good analogy. Although perhaps it would tell us that contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

I have kind of changed my mind on the issue. The "no contraception" argument appears to be stronger, although not for any of the reasons that have been advocated in this thread. The Jimmy Akin article that Ampax posted and the Janet Smith article that I posted make the better argument I think. That condom use in that situation would fail because it frustrates the unitive purpose of sex (as opposed to the procreative aspect that has been unconvincingly advocated in this thread). I would check out those arguments and run with that if you find yourself debating it in the future.

[KnightofChrist]

17 hours 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.

Never said we should burn Peace at the stake, (that would be a strawman you are more than welcomed to burn all you'd like) merely stated the truth that he was in error and is misleading others into error. A maybe draft, from unknown sources, about things this maybe draft may say isn't worth anything. It certainly doesn't call into question the Church's settled teaching on the matter.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

Never said we should burn Peace at the stake, (that would be a strawman you are more than welcomed to burn all you'd like) merely stated the truth that he was in error and is misleading others into error. A maybe draft, from unknown sources, about things this maybe draft may say isn't worth anything. It certainly doesn't call into question the Church's settled teaching on the matter.

There is no explicit teaching on the matter. Even theologians who advocate for your conclusion admit that. See the Janet Smith article I posted, for example.

[Amppax]

29 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Never said we should burn Peace at the stake, (that would be a strawman you are more than welcomed to burn all you'd like) merely stated the truth that he was in error and is misleading others into error. A maybe draft, from unknown sources, about things this maybe draft may say isn't worth anything. It certainly doesn't call into question the Church's settled teaching on the matter.

My point is that you're not necessarily  correct, in stating there's settled teaching on this specific issue. Or if the teaching is settled, perhaps new circumstances and knowledge allow for a reappraisal of what once was considered settled.

Also, I thought my statement about stakes was obvious hyperbole. You called his orthodoxy into question, and I don't think that was warranted. This is a really frustrating discussion for me, because I don't necessarily agree with Peace, but what frustrates me even more is when someone does what you're doing and pronounces him "in error." 

I did enjoy the quip about burning strawmen though, even if it's not applicable.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Amppax

[KnightofChrist]

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

There is no explicit teaching on the matter. Even theologians who advocate for your conclusion admit that. See the Janet Smith article I posted, for example.

There are no loopholes around the Church condemnation of contraceptives.  There's no way out of it, no way around it, no way to make their use acceptable.

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

-  On Christian Marriage  CASTI CONNUBII  ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE DECEMBER 31, 1930

3 minutes ago, Amppax said:

My point is that you're not necessarily  correct, in stating there's settled teaching on this specific issue. Or if the teaching is settled, perhaps new circumstances and knowledge allow for a reappraisal of what once was considered settled.

Also, I thought my statement about stakes was obvious hyperbole. You called his orthodoxy into question, and I don't think that was warranted. This is a really frustrating discussion for me, because I don't necessarily agree with Peace, but what frustrates me even more is when someone does what you're doing and pronounces him "in error." 

I did enjoy the quip about burning strawmen though, even if it's not applicable.

No, I am correct, I've read what the Popes (rather than online bloggers and like) have taught about the subject many times. This is not my first dance on this subject. This is not the first time I've seen someone, in error, try to find loopholes around what the Church has always taught about and against contraceptives. The Popes are quite clear there is no reason however grave to justify use of contraceptives.

[Amppax]

32 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

No, I am correct, I've read what the Popes (rather than online bloggers and like) have taught about the subject many times. This is not my first dance on this subject. This is not the first time I've seen someone, in error, try to find loopholes around what the Church has always taught about and against contraceptives. The Popes are quite clear there is no reason however grave to justify use of contraceptives.

To start, your last line is incorrect, there are licit uses for hormonal contraceptives (granted without contraceptive intent). That's besides the point. I'm glad you've done your reading, and think that because you can proof-text documents it makes you an expert on the subject, and able to magisterially pronounce others heterodox (for the hyperbolically challenged, I'm exaggerating). On a less caustic note, I do admire your zeal in defending what you think is correct, but respectfully, you're overstepping. 

I've taken several classes on the subject (on both the undergrad and masters level), so I know a thing or two about it. There is legitimate debate among  theologians on this specific point. I can send you a bibliography of the relevant literature if you'd like (just like I offered Peace). I posted the article from Jimmy Akin earlier because it's a helpful, simple examination of the problem. If you want to read journal articles be my guest, I'll send you a list. 

I'll note again, I don't think Peace is necessarily correct (in fact I disagree with that position) and I would caution restraint in exploring this subject (especially considering the confusion it can cause), but blanket condemnation of Peace's speculation really is counterproductive. 

Edited February 22, 2016 by Amppax

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

There are no loopholes around the Church condemnation of contraceptives.  There's no way out of it, no way around it, no way to make their use acceptable.

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

-  On Christian Marriage  CASTI CONNUBII  ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE DECEMBER 31, 1930

No, I am correct, I've read what the Popes (rather than online bloggers and like) have taught about the subject many times. This is not my first dance on this subject. This is not the first time I've seen someone, in error, try to find loopholes around what the Church has always taught about and against contraceptives. The Popes are quite clear there is no reason however grave to justify use of contraceptives.

Knight:

Thanks for posting that. It looks pretty convincing at first glance. I will think about that and see if I have anything to say in response, but for the moment I would advise that you turn your attention to the words "deliberately frustrate" and review what has previously been written in this thread (the part on the double-effect test in particular).

I object to your characterization of me as someone trying to find a loophole around Church teaching. That is an insult. If I believed that the Church's teaching on the matter was settled then I would not be trying to "find a loophole" around it. And for your information, I have no intention of using contraceptives myself (as I have already stated in this thread). What then would my motivation be to contravene Church teaching and find a loophole? Just for fun? You are questioning my faithfulness as a Catholic and I find that quite offensive.

Nevertheless, you are learning. You are now participating in the thread as an adult rather than as a petulant child or a dictator. You have an argument, and you posted evidence to support your argument. That is how adult conversation works. Now we can have a discussion like adults on the matter.

You should consider not acting like a jerk in the future. It might suit you well and help you to advocate your position.

[Nihil Obstat]

14 minutes ago, Amppax said:

If you want to read journal articles be my guest, I'll send you a list. 

 

(Actually, I would not mind such a list either.)

[KnightofChrist]

23 minutes ago, Amppax said:

To start, your last line is incorrect, there are licit uses for hormonal contraceptives (granted without contraceptive intent). That's besides the point. I'm glad you've done your reading, and think that because you can proof-text documents it makes you an expert on the subject, and able to magisterially pronounce others heterodox (for the hyperbolically challenged, I'm exaggerating). On a less caustic note, I do admire your zeal in defending what you think is correct, but respectfully, you're overstepping. 

I've taken several classes on the subject (on both the undergrad and masters level), so I know a thing or two about it. There is legitimate debate among  theologians on this specific point. I can send you a bibliography of the relevant literature if you'd like (just like I offered Peace). I posted the article from Jimmy Akin earlier because it's a helpful, simple examination of the problem. If you want to read journal articles be my guest, I'll send you a list. 

I'll note again, I don't think Peace is necessarily correct (in fact I disagree with that position) and I would caution restraint in exploring this subject (especially considering the confusion it can cause), but blanket condemnation of Peace's speculation really is counterproductive. 

But hormonal contraceptives, used as a medication cease to be contraceptives, and are rather medicines if the person using them uses them as a form of medication and are not engaged in sex or does not interfere with the act of procreation. In a similar manner a condom isn't a contraceptive if it is used to put a body mic inside it to protect an actor from electric shock or destroying the mic. It becomes a contraceptive when it interferes in procreation. Anything used as a contraceptive is intrinsically evil.

Clearly we don't agree, and I do believe you are also in error and I have no need to mock or belittle you as you do me, I will simply state you are in error and we do not agree. There is no room for debate here outside some purely hypothetical theological discussion that has no possibility of effecting real life Catholic teaching. 

 

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

Knight:

Thanks for posting that. It looks pretty convincing at first glance. I will think about that and see if I have anything to say in response, but for the moment I would advise that you turn your attention to the words "deliberately frustrate" and review what has previously been written in this thread (the part on the double-effect test in particular).

No loophole there sorry.

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

I object to your characterization of me as someone trying to find a loophole around Church teaching. That is an insult. If I believed that the Church's teaching on the matter was settled then I would not be trying to "find a loophole" around it. And for your information, I have no intention of using contraceptives myself (as I have already stated in this thread). What then would my motivation be to contravene Church teaching and find a loophole? Just for fun? You are questioning my faithfulness as a Catholic and I find that quite offensive.

An characterization would be to call you a jerk, which is insulting but which I've not done. Your position is one based on loopholes around established Church teaching. It's good that you have no intention of using contraceptives, I never thought you would or said that you would. Others however may read your position and believe they can and that is the danger that concerns me. You leading other people into error by your position.

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

Nevertheless, you are learning. You are now participating in the thread as an adult rather than as a petulant child or a dictator. You have an argument, and you posted evidence to support your argument. That is how adult conversation works. Now we can have a discussion like adults on the matter.

You should consider not acting like a jerk in the future. It might suit you well and help you to advocate your position.

I think I may go back to having the flu instead. It's a lot more time consuming anyway.

[Amppax]

40 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

(Actually, I would not mind such a list either.)

I'll PM you. 

8 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

But hormonal contraceptives, used as a medication cease to be contraceptives, and are rather medicines if the person using them uses them as a form of medication and are not engaged in sex or does not interfere with the act of procreation. In a similar manner a condom isn't a contraceptive if it is used to put a body mic inside it to protect an actor from electric shock or destroying the mic. It becomes a contraceptive when it interferes in procreation. Anything used as a contraceptive is intrinsically evil.

Clearly we don't agree, and I do believe you are also in error and I have no need to mock or belittle you as you do me, I will simply state you are in error and we do not agree. There is no room for debate here outside some purely hypothetical theological discussion that has no possibility of effecting real life Catholic teaching. 

Agree with the first paragraph, my statement was imprecise, I meant to erase it, but didn't get there in time. I appreciate that you put that it's your belief I'm in error, that's a much better way to state that. I don't think I am (and I would hazard a guess we agree more than you think, considering I haven't actually weighed in on the topic) but I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. I think the theological discussions do have more practical import than you're admitting, but I think this would be an excellent point at which to stop beating this dead horse. 

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

An characterization would be to call you a jerk, which is insulting but which I've not done.

I apologize for calling you a jerk Knight. That was wrong of me. Please accept my apologies.

21 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Your position is one based on loopholes around established Church teaching. It's good that you have no intention of using contraceptives, I never thought you would or said that you would. Others however may read your position and believe they can and that is the danger that concerns me. You leading other people into error by your position.

My position was that there is not an explicit teaching that all contraception is intrinsically evil (as opposed to morally wrong in most circumstances), and that there is a reasonable argument that the double-effect test could apply in a narrow set of circumstances such as where one person is HIV positive. Nevertheless, I admitted above that the "no-contraception" argument appears to be stronger.

As for me leading people into error, let's be realistic about the situation. Who am I going to lead into error? Nihil? Ampax? Look. We are all adults here. We all have normally functioning brains. We can have a discussion about moral theology without the risk of one of us going out and committing a mortal sin as a result of the discussion. It is not like our local Bishops are reading Phatmass in order to educate themselves on the issue. It is not like a married couple who takes the teaching of the Catholic Church seriously is going to go onto Phatmass to make a determination as to whether they might use contraception in the case that one of them has contracted HIV. If someone were in that position and honestly wanted to know what the Church teaches and determine what is the most faithful thing to do they would consult the pastor of their parish. They are not going to come to the Open Mic section of Phatmass and say "Aha - Peace said that there is a reasonable argument that it might be permissible. Let's break out the condoms baby!" Your concerns are unwarranted.

This is a discussion forum and that is precisely what we are doing - discussing. If you want to participate in the discussion please do so. Your contributions would be welcome. If you do not think it is worth the time you can bow out of the discussion as well. But you can't just swoop in, make an unsubstantiated pronouncement, and declare anyone who may think otherwise a heretic, and not expect people to not take offense to that. That is simply not the way that the world works.

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

(Actually, I would not mind such a list either.)

Or I would, if you could receive them.  

 

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Or I would, if you could receive them.  

 

That is odd. Let me check my settings. Maybe my inbox is full.

There we go. I had not noticed that it was full.

[rkwright]

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

I apologize for calling you a jerk Knight. That was wrong of me. Please accept my apologies.

My position was that there is not an explicit teaching that all contraception is intrinsically evil (as opposed to morally wrong in most circumstances), and that there is a reasonable argument that the double-effect test could apply in a narrow set of circumstances such as where one person is HIV positive. Nevertheless, I admitted above that the "no-contraception" argument appears to be stronger.

As for me leading people into error, let's be realistic about the situation. Who am I going to lead into error? Nihil? Ampax? Look. We are all adults here. We all have normally functioning brains. We can have a discussion about moral theology without the risk of one of us going out and committing a mortal sin as a result of the discussion. It is not like our local Bishops are reading Phatmass in order to educate themselves on the issue. It is not like a married couple who takes the teaching of the Catholic Church seriously is going to go onto Phatmass to make a determination as to whether they might use contraception in the case that one of them has contracted HIV. If someone were in that position and honestly wanted to know what the Church teaches and determine what is the most faithful thing to do they would consult the pastor of their parish. They are not going to come to the Open Mic section of Phatmass and say "Aha - Peace said that there is a reasonable argument that it might be permissible. Let's break out the condoms baby!" Your concerns are unwarranted.

This is a discussion forum and that is precisely what we are doing - discussing. If you want to participate in the discussion please do so. Your contributions would be welcome. If you do not think it is worth the time you can bow out of the discussion as well. But you can't just swoop in, make an unsubstantiated pronouncement, and declare anyone who may think otherwise a heretic, and not expect people to not take offense to that. That is simply not the way that the world works.

Actually I disagree with your idea that people aren't coming here reading this - I am exhibit #1. The Popes comments are troubling to me, and I doubt my pastor has the time or knowledge to really sit down, research the topic, and provide the sources you guys do. I am married with 3 children and another on the way. 

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, rkwright said:

Actually I disagree with your idea that people aren't coming here reading this - I am exhibit #1. The Popes comments are troubling to me, and I doubt my pastor has the time or knowledge to really sit down, research the topic, and provide the sources you guys do. I am married with 3 children and another on the way. 

I assume that you are a practicing Catholic, participating in the life of the Church, who cares about what the Church teaches and desires to act in a way that is consistent with what the Church teaches.

If you or your husband/wife contracted HIV and were attempting to make a determination as to whether it may be acceptable to use contraception - the Open Mic Section of Phatmass is where you would go for advice?

That would not be a very responsible thing to do for someone who takes his faith seriously would it? And I doubt that if you found yourself in that situation that is what you would do.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Peace