Posted on 02/18/2016 12:27:41 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Pope Francis has suggested it is acceptable to use artificial contraception methods in countries affected by the Zika virus.
"Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil," he told reporters en route to Rome following his five-day trip to Mexico.
He cited Pope Paul VI's decree in the 1960s that allowed nuns serving in Africa to use contraception due to the threat of rape.
He said, "In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear."
But he maintained the church's stance against abortion calling it "an absolute evil".
CDC's advice
Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised men who have been to an area with Zika virus to abstain from sex or use condoms. It added that men with pregnant partners should abstain or use condoms for the duration of her pregnancy.
Experts suspect Zika could cause microcephaly, a condition in which babies are born with unusually small heads because the brain has not developed properly or has stopped growing.
(Excerpt) Read more at voanews.com ...
You misused a word in post 8, in a way that is not uncommon. If you don’t like the correction, don’t misuse the word, don’t pretend that you didn’t misuse it, and don’t attempt to hide from it by attacking the one correcting from you.
And now I am happy to cease and desist. I trust you are as well.
Nuts.
I know that essentially all Protestant denominations have abandoned the prohibition on contraception that was inviolate just a century ago. And I am aware that a large percentage of Catholics ignore the Church in this area. However, in retrospect, it is easy to look back and see how permitting contraception was the beginning of the incremental slide into complete sexual immorality.
That’s exactly what it was for. One country did approve abortion for this cause - I can’t remember which one, because while LatAm was very united in opposition to abortion, states with radical leftwing governments have been approving it. However, they’ve had to put some restrictions on it because the people didn’t like this idea. But Zika (which, like any virus, can cause microcephaly and a host of other birth defects) gave them the perfect excuse, even though the “cause” of all but 14 cases of microcephaly in this state was probably maternal drug and alcohol abuse or some other viral contagion early in pregnancy. Only 14 women had ever been exposed to Zika, and it may or may not have been at the time of their pregnancy or any time before or after.
Pope Francis is either a fool or working for the other side.
Noting I predicted was nearly as outrageous as the tow utterances that came from Frankie today.
<sarc> Of course it was all mistranslated. </sarc>
Wow! Good for you.
So did Obama and Bergoglio.
Except he didn’t:
Avoiding a pregnancy under such circumstances, Francis said, “is not an absolute evil.†However, he did not say specifically that he would approve contraception in the fight against Zika.
Love,
O2
Whatever. I’m not Catholic. Guess that’s between the sinner and to whomever they think they are accountable.
Well there’s a lot of Catholics on FR so you know their sensitivity issues come into play as they’re accustomed to “feeling” like victims for any that speak unfavorable about the Pope or their Church ‘Denomination’.....something they don’t like to call their church but it nevertheless is one.
I believe the Catholic church along with their outreach to those of other faiths will be the Laodecia Chirch Revelations speaks of......it’s shaping up to be just that at the rate they’re going. It will have a form of religion but not the Christ of Christianity as central to their faith....Mary I think will become the figurehead that the faiths will all gather around at that time.
Ping
“But you are not held accountable if you lie to a Nazi to protect a Jew.
The intent and situation are always considered.”
No, lying to a Nazi Officer to protect Jews is STILL a sin. You can refuse to answer, or you can say something irrelevant, but you cannot LIE. For example, if you were captured by Space Aliens who were going to destroy the entire world if you admitted your favorite ice cream was chocolate, you could NOT lie and say it was vanila instead. But you could ignore them, or you could say “What makes you think chocolate is so great?”
Well, Livius, how are we going to get the word to the Pope? I prefer to think the Pope is simple and easily duped, but it’s hard sometimes to hold onto that magnanimity.
RE: No, lying to a Nazi Officer to protect Jews is STILL a sin.
Well, we’ll have to disagree on this.
Sometimes — HIGHER MORAL LAWS (protection of innocent lives ) collide with LOWER MORAL LAWS ( LYING ).
I’ll only go as far as saying LYING IS A SIN, but the circumstances and the motive mitigates against culpability.
In other words, I believe God takes those into account when He deals judgment.
The Bible gives us such a case....
Before Moses was born, the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt had given a direct order to the Hebrew midwives to murder the newborn Hebrew boys.
“But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive” (Exodus 1:17).
Not only did the midwives disobey Pharaoh, but when he questioned them about their actions, they lied saying, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them” (Exodus 1:19).
In spite of this, Exodus 1:20 states that God “dealt well with the midwives ... He provided households for them” (v. 21). How could God bless the midwives for disobedience and lying?
There is little question that the midwives both disobeyed Pharaoh by not murdering the newborn male children, and that they lied to Pharaoh when they said they arrived too late to carry out his orders. Nonetheless, there is moral justification for what they did.
First, the moral dilemma in which the midwives found themselves was unavoidable. Either they obeyed God’s higher law, or they obeyed the lesser obligation of submitting to Pharaoh.
Rather than commit deliberate infanticide against the children of their own people, the midwives chose to disobey Pharaoh’s orders. God commands us to obey the governmental powers, but He also commands us not to murder (Ex. 20:13).
The saving of innocent lives is a higher obligation than obedience to government. When the government commands us to murder innocent victims, we should not obey.
God did not hold the midwives responsible, nor does He hold us responsible, for not following a lower obligation in order to obey a higher law (see for instance Acts 4; Revelations 13).
In the case of the midwives, the higher law was the preservation of the lives of the newborn male children.
Second, the text clearly states that God blessed them “because the midwives feared God” (Exodus 1:21).
And it was their fear of God that led them to do what was necessary to save these innocent lives. Thus, their false statement to Pharaoh was an essential part of their effort to save lives.
Third, their lying is comparable to their having disobeyed Pharaoh in order to save the lives of the innocent newborns. This is a case where the midwives had to choose between lying and being compelled to murder innocent babies.
Here again the midwives chose to obey the higher moral law. Obedience to parents is part of the moral law (see for instance Ephesians 6:1).
But if a parent commanded his or her child to kill a neighbor or worship an idol, the child should refuse. Jesus emphasized the need to follow the higher moral law when He said, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:37).
I think you’re being very kind. That said, I do think he’s partly well meaning, but he’s completely in thrall to the UN, the elderly leftists in the clergy, and the leftist media.
I think this trip to Mexico has been one of his strangest trips yet, though. The Church in Mexico is actually doing better than in many other Latin American countries (including Argentina!); the only place it’s doing poorly is Chiapas, which of course is the place where Francis went to pray at the burial place of the horrible bishop Ruiz of Chiapas, who had been removed by JPII for his associations with leftwing terrorism and his heterodoxy but who simply refused to leave. JPII wasn’t much of a fighter, unfortunately, so he left Ruiz there until he reached 75, in the year 2000.
The current BXVI appointed bishop is very good, has rebuilt the diocese and the seminary, and Francis basically went to undermine him. Very strange. The Mexican bishops are all wondering why Francis attacked them and said nothing about Cuba. Mexico has had more priests and even bishops assassinated by the criminal/leftist alliance than any other country in LatAm, and yet the Pope attacked them as “capitalists” and “careerists.”
Very, very strange. I think it’s not necessary to get word to him and he already knows...but I think his ideological slant is overcoming everything else.
Ok tery; spin THIS one!!
FR Catholics pontificate all the time about their chosen religion's highest ranking leader.
Usually in the negative.
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
-- Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
But didn't you get a LOT of work done around the house during this timeout?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.