The second type of abortifacient directly kills an existing preborn child. Also referred to as “medical abortion,” these include: RU-486, the “abortion pill” The methotrexate/misoprostol combination “Emergency contraception.” These abortifacients have many forms and are sometimes called “morning-after pills” (MAP). They consist of high doses of the artificial steroids used in oral contraceptives. Two brand names are Plan B and Preven. What Are Abortifacients? Are Contraceptives Abortifacient? (hli.org) Let us not forget, a chat as this was on the plane, is no reason to declare it as heresy, the Good book tells us this in Matthew 5:21-22. Matthew 5:21-22 New American Bible (Revised Edition) 21 “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. So, this speaks to our need to be careful with what we say about others. Mark 10:19 New American Bible (Revised Editi 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’” Even the Pope deserves the right to justice. When he does wrong, I think it's right to say, however, I'm not going to distort truth. The quotes have been given above already on what he said on a plane. This reading "abortifacients" into the equation is a bit of a red-herring. Sometimes, we need to remove the stick in our own eye as well. I'm guilty but I will seek to not be judgmental.
This is true, it is very basic Catholic moral teaching that you cannot do something evil in order to achieve something good. This is First Grade Catholic stuff. In either case Artificial Contraception is against Catholic Teaching. What Pope Francis claims or teaches does not change that. A Pope is in place to maintain Catholic Teaching , not to contradict it, or attempt to change it on the hoof. The Truth of Catholic Teachings remain the same and unchanging no matter what Pope Francis came up with in one of his infamous Airplane Press interviews.
Nonsense. It might not be formal heresy, but it is material heresy. And whether he was referring to abortifacient contraception or barrier contraception, if he said it was ok, it’s heresy. The type of contraceptive is immaterial to his material heresy; contraception is mortally sinful whether it’s abortifacient or barrier.
I'm sick to death of this, 'Who am I to judge?' nonsense. Judging is how we get through our day. When a Pope publically contradicts the Teachings of the Catholic Church of course we are to judge it and him for it. Why on Earth wouldn't we? If someone were to steal your car I bet you wouldn't be too long in judging the act and the person who committed it and having them thrown in prison. What's the difference?
Material vs formal heresy. In Catholic theology, the term material heresyrefers to an opinion objectively contradictory to the teachings of the Church, which as such is heretical, but which is uttered by a person without the subjective knowledge of its being so. A person who holds a material heresy may therefore not be a "heretic" in the strict sense. Material heresy is distinguished from "formal heresy", i.e. a heretical opinion proposed deliberately by a person who is aware of its being against the doctrine of the Church. More: An important distinction is that between formaland material heresy. The difference is one of the heretic's subjective belief about his opinion. The heretic who is aware that his belief is at odds with Catholic teaching and yet continues to cling to his belief pertinaciously is a formal heretic. This sort of heresy is sinful because in this case the heretic knowingly holds an opinion that, in the words of the first edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, "is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith ... disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church" and "strikes at the very source of faith."[2]Material heresy, on the other hand, means that the individual is unaware that his heretical opinion denies, in the words of Canon 751, "some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." The opinion of a material heretic may produce the same objective results as formal heresy, but because of his ignorance he commits no sin by holding it. The penalty for a baptised Catholic above the age of 18 who obstinately, publicly, and voluntarily manifests his or her adherence to an objective heresy is automatic excommunication ("latae sententiae") according to Can. 1364 par.1 CIC.
There's a big difference, did the Journalist ask a specific question? Sounds like he did. Let's see what Catholic thinkers have said, the Catholic Thing is hardly some bastion of liberalism. The journalist asked: “[Concerning the Zika virus,] some authorities have proposed abortion, or avoiding pregnancy. With regard to avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of ‘the lesser of two evils?’” Francis replied: “Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime, an absolute evil. . . .Regarding the ‘lesser evil’: avoiding pregnancy is a case – we are speaking in terms of conflicts between the fifth and sixth commandments. Paul VI, the great, in a difficult situation, in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape. Do not confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. . . . [A]voiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil.” Francis affirmed Catholic doctrine when he asserted that, unlike abortion, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In fact, whereas the Church always prohibits abortion, she acknowledges that there are serious moral reasons for avoiding pregnancy. In these cases avoiding a pregnancy can be a moral duty and is never treated as a “lesser evil.” That is why couples who practice abstinence or Natural Family Planning, for serious reasons, commit no evil at all. Read more at: Francis, Contraception, and the Zika Virus - The Catholic Thing Article by Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek And from Catholic University Santa Clara I think, the reporter asked the Pontiff and largely repeating what is already posted: ....As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of 'the lesser of two evils?'" Pope Francis unequivocally condemned the abortion option: "Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That's what the Mafia does. It is ... an absolute evil." He then added, "On the 'lesser evil,' avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape." --- Federico Lombardi, S.J., director of the Holy See Press Office, explained that the Pope's remarks "cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift" in church teaching. He pointed out that "numerous moral theologians and authoritative personalities have sustained, and still sustain, a similar position. .... In the current concerns about the Zika virus present in pregnant women and its link to microcephaly, a husband with a well-formed conscience might use a condom to reduce the likelihood of Zika transmission. Ideally, a husband might abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife as along as she is infected, or employ the method of natural family planning. If these measures seem to be a moral impossibility13 for a couple, the use of a condom in this case is justified under the traditional principle of double effect.14 ... They rather demonstrate that in dire circumstances traditional moral principles such as legitimate self-defense and the lesser evil can appropriately be used. Contraception is, then, not always a sin. Pope Francis and the Zika Virus (chausa.org) The 2nd article also talks of AIDS in Africa, interesting. But anyway, it looks like Clergy find nothing wrong with what Francis said on this issue with Francis even affirming Catholic Doctrine. No mention was made by Francis of abortifacients and the 2nd article discusses condoms. I see how having a child with microcephaly would be problematic; I'm not sure if it needs to be spoken about in terms of self-defense. I think the first article actually reads something like that this African policy via St. Paul VI Pope can not be affirmed per the Nuns in the '60s but the 2nd article seems to indicate it happened.
On Dec. 21, 2010, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a "Note on the Banalization of Sexuality Regarding Certain Interpretations of 'Light of the World.'" It explains that Benedict's remarks were aimed at rediscovering "the beauty of the divine gift of human sexuality" and do not represent "a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church." The CDF stated that "those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment — because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behavior which has repercussions on public health." The Note concludes that "those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another — even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity." The 2001 pastoral letter of the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference similarly asserted that in a case of a married couple in which one spouse was HIV-positive and the other was not, the use of "appropriate" protection to prevent the spread of HIV was acceptable. They defended their position by affirming that everyone has a right to defend one's life against mortal danger. Pope Francis and the Zika Virus (chausa.org) So, it sounds to me like they are saying, there was some acceptability in using condoms to save the lives of others while still recognizing the great evil of prostitution. Again, it brings it up to me again, Zika is very problematic but is it threatening the very lives of people? I guess I do see where health is an issue. Looks like it was Zika and not COVID but I remember pictures from Latin America where they were even fumigating some graveyards, this is apocalyptic. I can't help but toss that in too, it made an impression.
Many of the victims of prostitution are the prostitutes themselves. Millions of women, men and children are forced into sexual slavery by human traffickers. They are not willing participants although they need to act and perform a certain way so that they (and their families) don't incur the wrath of the traffickers. Human trafficking is a very serious evil in this world and it could happen to anyone including your loved ones. With this in mind, I think you can somewhat grasp why the Pope would say something like this.
TinNM, It is a more caring position for a prostitute to not want to spread HIV, but as Benedict pointed out, it is merely a first step in reforming one's conscience. And objectively speaking, the sin of prostitution is and remains mortal. And if I had HIV, my love for my spouse would bar me from engaging in the conjugal act with her at least on one level- condoms fail! Why on earth would I take the risk of infecting the one I love? The pattern I see in your thinking is the same as found in Amoris Laetitia, where there is a tendency to reduce God's moral law to that of ideals. Yes, we are sinful, weak human beings in need of God's Mercy and accompaniment. But the path of true Mercy is not to harp on mitigating circumstances, but to walk with my struggling brother and call him to the path of perfection. That is true compassion. We live in a world always looking for the easier way out and the Enemy plays that tune all the time. Every Christian should memorize Christ warning in Luke 14:27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. I'll offer to be Simon of Cyrene, but I will never recommend the easier and more traveled path! Lord, be my joy and my strength today!
“The pattern I see in your thinking is the same as found in Amoris Laetitia, where there is … heresy.” There. Fixed it for ya’.
Great post. But Wisdom needs the loan of a listening ear to take effect and a listening ear needs an open heart. You can lead a horse to a well, but you can't make it drink, so sad. Such sad, sad times Terry. Prayers.
It is easy to understand that one would think that contraception would never, ever be permitted in Catolicism and I am sure many would say it is never permitted but I can understand that problem with prostitutes spreading AIDS. Others too? It's not for me to decide.
You fail to note the difference between recommending a prophylactic within the act of illegal fornication to prevent the spread of disease, and conflate it with recommending it in the context of the fully licit sacramental marital embrace. They’re not morally equivalent. One can recommend the former, not as contraception per se but as disease control within the context of an inherently immoral act. One cannot recommend it in the case of the latter as contraception is never morally licit within sacramental marriage. You’re either deliberately being obtuse or you’re just too slow and poorly catechized to know the difference. Admittedly we’ve been having a high level of troll behavior so we have a twitchy trigger finger, so my apologies if it’s simply the latter of the two.
It's not necessarily my thinking, Rome has spoken! Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV | Pope Benedict XVI | The Guardian And this is during the Pontificate of Pope Benedict who is even pictured at the link: Vatican shifts ground on condoms, HIV, conception (nbcnews.com) https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ead-of-aids-trafficking-of-women-and-children That's fine if one says "I can abstain", how about others? And in Africa particularly, prostitution exists everywhere, so what is different in Africa? BBC NEWS | Africa | Africa 'needs anal sex awareness' Also, our neighbors are from South Sudan, from wars in Africa to Yugoslavia, rape has been a weapon of war. I may not mark up the likes but I have said what apparently the Vatican teaches. I would kindly request one be considerate in what I have written, this is Catholic Doctrine. I am not the one who has been argumentative. Defender of the Faith. Perhaps write to the Magisterium if you have a problem with this. I'd have more problems with anyone, not you, speaking calumnies against the Vicar of Rome.
I'm sorry, TinNM. Your compilation of "facts" that indicate Rome has changed its mind creates a false economy of compassion. I know what situation ethics is all about. I need but return to my "Catholic college" days in 1974. In one of my Religion classes there was a four-way debate concerning various sexual lifestyles: 1) Marital fidelity 2) Marriage with an escape clause 3) Consensual sex 4) Healthy orgasm Four members of the class were selected to argue in favor of each of the positions. The classmate chosen to endorse number (4) won the debate and received a round of applause. The professor was delighted. I was the one who won the debate. Of course, the basis for victory was rooted in "freedom of expression". In your examples above suggesting exceptions to the moral code, the principle now is compassion, but it matters little. The result is the same for once you start down that path, what initially looks like compassion leads to the Pit of Hell. At what point will it stop? Truth is truth. I strongly suggest you read Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Veritatis Splendor: https://www.vatican.va/content/john...hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html God bless you; for me it's time for bed!
Speaking of Veritatis Splendor, the Good Pope states the following: 18. Those who live "by the flesh" experience God's law as a burden, and indeed as a denial or at least a restriction of their own freedom. On the other hand, those who are impelled by love and "walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:16), and who desire to serve others, find in God's Law the fundamental and necessary way in which to practice love as something freely chosen and freely lived out. Indeed, they feel an interior urge — a genuine "necessity" and no longer a form of coercion — not to stop at the minimum demands of the Law, but to live them in their "fullness". This is a still uncertain and fragile journey as long as we are on earth, but it is one made possible by grace, which enables us to possess the full freedom of the children of God (cf. Rom 8:21) and thus to live our moral life in a way worthy of our sublime vocation as "sons in the Son". I can do all things in Him who strengthens me!
