Pope suggests contraceptives could be used

[rkwright]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

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.

I respect many of the posters on phatmass because frankly they've demonstrated they know what they're talking about.  Phatmass is not the only source I would consider, but it is a source.   Truth is truth - even if it's in the Open Mic section. 

[Seven77]

18 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No, I do not think that would be morally licit.

 

17 hours ago, Amppax said:

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. 

Ah-- I think I understand, and I think I would say that both of you are correct:

 Only in the case of a rape would it be permissible to use an oral contraceptive (within a quick timeframe), because of the circumstances. But, for a married couple, for example, both of whom freely consented to the act, there is no justification for using an oral contraceptive within a quick timeline to avoid pregnancy, for whatever reason whatsoever. And now that I think about it, this is exactly what @Basilisa Marie said in her last post.

So, I would have to conclude that the Pope simply made a mistake in the way he answered the interviewer's question, unfortunately.

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 

Ah-- I think I understand, and I think I would say that both of you are correct:

 Only in the case of a rape would it be permissible to use an oral contraceptive (within a quick timeframe), because of the circumstances. But, for a married couple, for example, both of whom freely consented to the act, there is no justification for using an oral contraceptive within a quick timeline to avoid pregnancy, for whatever reason whatsoever. And now that I think about it, this is exactly what @Basilisa Marie said in her last post.

So, I would have to conclude that the Pope simply made a mistake in the way he answered the interviewer's question, unfortunately.

If and only if it remained morally certain that the contraceptive would not act in an abortifacient manner.

[Seven77]

22 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

If and only if it remained morally certain that the contraceptive would not act in an abortifacient manner.

 You mean in the rape scenario and not the latter one I mentioned? Just to clarify.

And, I should say that the Pope made a mistake if Father Lombardi's so-called clarification holds weight.

[Nihil Obstat]

18 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 You mean in the rape scenario and not the latter one I mentioned? Just to clarify.

And, I should say that the Pope made a mistake if Father Lombardi's so-called clarification holds weight.

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

[Peace]

I do feel like the HIV infected prostitute makes the moral decision when she decides to use a condom though, especially if her intent is to stop transmission of the disease. I do think that a different framework should apply to situations like that, where there is a sinful context in which the actors are operating in, in the first place. It kinds of seems that the traditional framework that is applied when deciding whether an action is moral has a set of assumptions that don't apply to the context in which the prostitute question is raised. 

The question seems likely to remain in the realm of academia though. Even though it might be the moral choice for a HIV infected prostitute to use a condom, the Church can't exactly get into the business of teaching people how to sin the least badly. 

Edited February 22, 2016 by Peace

[Spem in alium]

Just thought I'd share: http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/pope-francis-zika-and-contraception

[Nihil Obstat]

Interesting article run by Rorate today. Whether or not you like Rorate should be irrelevant; in this article they simply publish verbatim an open letter written by Fr. Richard Cipolla, who as I understand it is a pastor at St. Mary's parish in Norwalk, Connecticut. I will link and copy/paste it here with no comment.

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/dear-pope-francis-parish-priest-writes.html

 

"Dear Pope Francis" - A parish priest writes to the Pope following the confusion caused by his recent interview

 

Dear Pope Francis:

 

I write this letter to you as a priest to the Bishop of Rome and as a son to a father.  I write with a heavy heart, and I know that heaviness of heart is shared by many of my Catholic brethren both clergy and laity.  

 

I watched the early news one morning last week to find that one of the headlines proclaimed that in an interview on the flight from Mexico to Rome you indicated that the Church’s teaching on contraception may be undergoing a change.  As in the past, I went to the official translation of the interview to ascertain what you said.  You never said that the teaching contained in Humane Vitae is no longer part of Church teaching.  But you did speak about contraception not being an absolute evil and then went on to offer an example concerning Paul VI’s allowing nuns to use contraceptives because they were in danger of rape, which, even if that were the case, is a context quite different from marriage.   You must be able to see how secular reporters could take your words and jump to the conclusion that your words were a signal that the Church’s teaching on the moral evil of contraception is undergoing a change toward a more permissive view. 

 

Dear Pope Francis, you are not a good teacher in these situations.  Teaching the truth about good and bad is a difficult task in a secular and self-centered world.  It requires both clarity and nuance, neither of which was present in any of the conversations you had with the reporters.  Often when I am perplexed or disheartened   I turn to the writings of Blessed John Henry Newman.  Please allow me to send you the two following passages from his writings that I believe would be of great benefit to you and to all who are commissioned to teach the Catholic faith in an authentic manner.  The first quote is from Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, that amazing work in which Newman talks about conscience and its relationship to the teaching of the Church, specifically the teaching of the Petrine Office.

 

"The sense of right and wrong, which is the first element in religion, is so delicate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted—so biased by pride and passion, so unsteady in its course, that, in the struggle for existence amid the various exercises and triumphs of the human intellect this is at once the highest of all teachers, yet the least luminous."

 

Dear Pope Francis, what Newman is telling you and me is that teaching right and wrong is very difficult and must be approached with great humility and careful use of reason.  Emotion and off-the –cuff remarks have no place in the teaching of right and wrong, and certainly no place in random remarks with reporters who are much more savvy than you are on how to get headlines in the morning news.

 

The second quote from Newman is from Development of Christian Doctrine, which some consider his magnum opus. This section deals with the need for Revelation in matters of faith and moral and the teaching role of the Church.

 

"The common sense of mankind…feels that the very idea of revelations implies a present informant and guide, and that an infallible one; not a mere abstract declaration of Truths unknown before to man, or a record of history, or the result of an antiquarian research, but a message and a lesson speaking to this man and that…We are told that God has spoken.  Where? In a book? We have tried it and it disappoints; it disappoints us, that most holy and blessed gift, not from any fault of its own, but because it is used for a purpose for which it was not given.  The Ethiopian’s reply, when St. Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading, is the voice of nature:  “How can I, unless some man shall guide me?”  The Church undertakes that office."

 

The teaching Office of the Church is as important as Scripture.  We do not believe in sola scriptura.  And you, Pope Francis, are the head of that Teaching Office.  But you are not the Church. You are the Pope, the Supreme Teacher of the Church.  But you are not the Church, nor can the Church be reduced to you alone.  The latter error of reductionism is embraced not only by worldly reporters but also by faithful Catholics.  This is the result of the transformation of the papacy in the past fifty years into a world super star, which transformation is a deformation in the development of the doctrine of the papacy.  That you bear the burden of the Supreme Teacher of the Church in an unbelieving world is the reason why you are loved by the Catholic faithful and are the object of their prayers.  But please remember that your burden is the burden of the Cross, and therefore you must always be seen as a sign of contradiction by the world, such that when the world sees you and hears you, they see through you to the Cross of Jesus Christ and the love and mercy of God that the Cross shows forth. 

 

Please accept a piece of filial advice from a humble priest.  Make a long, silent retreat this Lent and do what has to be done to listen to the God who is not heard in earthquake, storm or fire but in a tiny whispering sound.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Father Richard G. Cipolla

[Peace]

Is he implying that Pope Francis believes that he alone is the Church? It certainly seems that way. Not a good thing to accuse someone of. 

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

Is he implying that Pope Francis believes that he alone is the Church? It certainly seems that way. Not a good thing to accuse someone of. 

I did not really glean that from the letter at all, personally.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I did not really glean that from the letter at all, personally.

His way of writing makes it ambiguous. He could have written "many people might make the mistake of reducing the Church to you alone" but instead he writes "But you are not the Church alone". There is no reason to tell someone, in a direct letter, that he is not XYZ unless you presume that the person views himself as XYZ.

But that is just how I read it.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

His way of writing makes it ambiguous. He could have written "many people might make the mistake of reducing the Church to you alone" but instead he writes "But you are not the Church alone". There is no reason to tell someone, in a direct letter, that he is not XYZ unless you presume that the person views himself as XYZ.

But that is just how I read it.

Oh, that part. Well I am seeing that as the author referring to the tendency of quite a few modern Catholics to simply treat the person of the pope as the be-all and end-all of Catholicism, and I think he is inferring that this tendency is both contributing to and being contributed to by Pope Francis' 'interview magisterium'.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Oh, that part. Well I am seeing that as the author referring to the tendency of quite a few modern Catholics to simply treat the person of the pope as the be-all and end-all of Catholicism, and I think he is inferring that this tendency is both contributing to and being contributed to by Pope Francis' 'interview magisterium'.

Maybe. I dunno man. I don't think all of that needs to be said in public. Do you know if that was a private letter that got leaked somehow, or did he just post it on the internet? 

[Nihil Obstat]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

Maybe. I dunno man. I don't think all of that needs to be said in public. Do you know if that was a private letter that got leaked somehow, or did he just post it on the internet? 

I do not think Rorate is really known for leaks, although I guess one could ask. I believe this priest has written for them before. (EDIT: A quick check, which I had missed before, indicates that Fr. Cipolla is actually the one who posted the article.)

There is merit in open letters. Whether or not it is warranted in this case is really more a reflection of your belief as to whether or not the situation itself is worthy of concern, more so than whether the idea of the letter itself is problematic. Paul corrected Peter publicly.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Peace]

23 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think Rorate is really known for leaks, although I guess one could ask. I believe this priest has written for them before. (EDIT: A quick check, which I had missed before, indicates that Fr. Cipolla is actually the one who posted the article.)

There is merit in open letters. Whether or not it is warranted in this case is really more a reflection of your belief as to whether or not the situation itself is worthy of concern, more so than whether the idea of the letter itself is problematic. Paul corrected Peter publicly.

I dunno. Somtimes I think it would be better for Pope Francis to speak with greater clarity too.

I don't think that the gravity of a subject makes it more appropriate for an open letter. I might think that my neighbor needs to stop cheating on his wife. That is serious. That doesn't mean my rebuke should be more amenable to a public letter than by rebuking him privately.

In this particular case, what do you think is the benefit of making the lecture public?　It adds a greater shame factor therefore the Pope is likely to speak more clearly in the future? Somehow I doubt that. 

The letter to me just seems like something else that will cause division among traditionalists and us attenders of the NO. 

But I guess the open letter is cool. Letting folks speak their mind does seem to be something that Pope Francis encourages. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Peace