Pope Open to Discuss Contraception as Response to Zika Epidemic

Catholic Culture ^ | 2/18/16

[marshmallow]

Pope Francis hinted that the use of contraceptives may be morally acceptable as a response to the Zika epidemic, during an question-and-answer session on February 18.

Speaking to reporters who accompanied him on his return flight to Rome, after a visit to Mexico, the Pope said that "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil." While abortion cannot ever be justified, he suggested, avoiding pregnancy could be a "lesser evil" in light of the alleged dangers of birth defects.

During an interview session that proved controversial even by the standards of this pontificate, the Pope said:

* US presidential candidate Donald Trump is "not Christian" if he believes that a wall is the best solution to immigration problems (see today's separate CWN headline story);

*He would not comment on the Italian government's proposal to allow for registration of civil unions because "the Pope doesn't get mixed up in Italian politics."

*Bishops who have moved pedophile priests from parish to parish should resign;

*Pope Benedict XVI was-even before his election as Pontiff-instrumental in leading the fight against sexual abuse; he was "the brave one who helped so many open this door;"

*He would not comment on what was said during a "private conversation" with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, but "I walked out of it happy, and he did too."

*The Church must do more to prepare couples for marriage; the Pontiff pointed out that priests prepare for their vocation for eight years, while engaged couples have only a few counseling sessions.

*Catholics who divorce and remarry must be integrated into the life of the Church-but, the Pope cautioned, "Integrating in the Church doesn't mean receiving Communion."

[Mrs. Don-o]

"All Catholic single women are expected to remain celibate until marriage."

Did anybody deny that? (Real question: I hadn't heard of anybody denying that, but perhaps you have more information.)

Here's an article about Catholic use of contraception in the case of rape: Note Luke Gormally quote. (LINK) Gormally, a sound, conservative Catholic moral philosopher and a son-in-law of contraceptive opponent Elizabeth Anscombe, is likewise a learned advocate of the Church's changeless teachings on chastity.

The case of the nuns in 1960 in the Cong did not involve Pope Paul VI, nor a "ruling" made by any other pope. It was simply a clarification of the fact that the SIN of contraception is, precisely, the sin of choosing a disordered sex act, in this case, an intentionally sterilized act.

The fact is, anyplace where women are threatened by rape --- Congo 1960, more recently in the war in Bosnia, or any other circumstance --- using a contraceptive, e.g. a barrier method like a diaphragm, is as justified as using a bullet-proof vest.

Wearing a diaphragm does not involve a desire to be sexually assaulted, any more than wearing body armor involves a desire to be shot at. It is entirely defensive. It does not involve choosing to engage in a forbidden act.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Abrtifacients are not contraceptives. Abortifacients are always morally prohibited because they deliberaely kill the conceived child.

[Dajjal]

The case of the Belgian nuns in the Congo in 1960 involved vowed celibate women who were in remote mission stations threatened by rape in the course of the war. They were not choosing any sex act at all. Therefore they were not committing the sin of contraception.
In the case of rape, the rapist's semen can legitimately be considered an extension of his invasion of your body. There is no sin in limiting this invasion.

In terms of morality, how is the case of "Belgian nuns in the Congo" being in danger of rape different from any other girl or woman anywhere else in the world who lives in danger of being raped to a greater or lesser degree every day of her life?

Are you saying that "danger of rape" is always a legitimate exception from the prohibition against contraception?

[Mrs. Don-o]

If this is true, then these women whose unborn babies have ALREADY been damaged, will need help in dealing with the trauma of miscarriage and/or the steep costs of a child who needs ongoing specialized medical care.

It is not clear, however, that Zika causes birth defects. At least, some epidemiologists are urging caution because causality has not been firmly established.

"Zika hysteria is way ahead of research into virus, says expert (Microcephaly? Maybe not..)"

A lot more research is needed --- and fast.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"how is the case of "Belgian nuns in the Congo" being in danger of rape different from any other girl or woman anywhere else in the world who lives in danger of being raped to a greater or lesser degree every day of her life?"

It's not different.

"Are you saying that "danger of rape" is always a legitimate exception from the prohibition against contraception?"

If there's an effective protection for the woman which does not need cooperation from the rapist (!) (i.e. the condom is not an option) and does not involve abortifacients (most hormonal "contraceptives" can sometimes function as abortifacients) --- then yes, any woman at real risk of rape could use a protective device. For instance a diaphragm and spermicide.

The immediate priority, of course, would be to get women out of a rape danger zone. The salient feature in the Congo case, was that that the nuns were operating medical mission stations and did not want to leave their patients.

[ebb tide]

The case of the nuns in 1960 in the Cong did not involve Pope Paul VI, nor a "ruling" made by any other pope. It was simply a clarification of the fact that the SIN of contraception is, precisely, the sin of choosing a disordered sex act, in this case, an intentionally sterilized act.

So is it OK for single Catholic women, who have no intention of sexual intercourse until sacramental marriage, and residing in Syria and Nigeria (and Juarez and Chicago) to take the Pill?

I'm asking again, do you have any documentation of said "ruling"?

Today is the first I've heard of it and Francis is known for making up stuff up out of thin air.

Finally, if it didn't involve Paul VI, why did Francis say it did?

[ebb tide]

The topic is not rape. It’s birth defects. Shame on Francis for comparing it to rapes and shame on those who defend his rationalizing.

[ebb tide]

You are setting a very bad example for young Catholic women, in my opinion. I would advise these women to ignore you. It is not sound Catholic advice.

[Dajjal]

The immediate priority, of course, would be to get women out of a rape danger zone.

That can mean "anywhere where there are men."

For instance a diaphragm and spermicide.

Can you cite me a Church document giving this permission to use diaphragms and spermicides?

[piusv]

Actually, contraception is “intrinsically evil”, so not a “lesser evil”.

[piusv]

It’s not Catholic. Period.

[Mrs. Don-o]

1. I think this assertion is ove-the-top. I don't have such a low opinion of men, and crime ststistics do not bear out your idea that most men are a significant rape risk.

2. No one needs "permission" from the Church the State or anyone else to use protective body armor. The same applies to a barrier in the vagina. A barrier is not a sin. Choosing contraceptive sex is a sin.

I know you would like to see a more definitive statement. I'm just on my way to Mass and I have my mother-in-law's funeral in the afternoon, so I might not be able to get to it for you. You might try googling Congo 1960 rape Catholic nuns diaphragm

If you find anything interest4ing, pleas post us a link because I'd like to read it, too.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This would be very concerning, if true.

1. How am I setting a bad example for young Catholic women? Direct quote please.

2. What part of what I have said should be ignored? Direct quote, please.

Thanks in advance.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Nobody OK'd "The Pill." This is an oral hormone which, when used for contraceptive purposes, is forbidden.

If used for non-contraceptive purposes (e.g. some unmarried, chaste, non-sexually active women use these pills legitimately to correct some kinds of hormonal imbalances) it is not a sin. If used with NO INTENTION of having sex, it is not a sin.

Moreover, all the hormonal "contraceptives" can react with female sexual physiology in three ways

• by blocking ovulation (in this case, they would be sterilizants);
• by causing changes in the cervical mucus which would block sperm (in this case, they would be true contraceptives);
• by making the uterine lining unsuitable for implantation of the zygote /conceived child (in this case, it would be an abortifacient.)

This would all depend on the stage of the women's cycle, and her own hormonal levels.

For this reason, some informed prolife non-Catholic women (Protestant/Evangelical for instance) will not use The Pill for birth control.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I didn’t defend any “rationalizing.” I think Pope Francis’ statement was dangerously ambiguous, even incoherent. What I did, is clarify what the Congo situation was actually about.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually, I don't "get" the Pope Paul VI connection apparently made by Pope Francis. Pope John XXIII (regnal years 1958-1963) was pope during the 1960 Congo crisis. Pope Paul VI would have had nothing to do with it, as far as I know.

Pope Francis' statements are sometimes ambiguous to the point of incoherence.

[Pollster1]

“Is the Pope Catholic” used to be a rhetorical question.

[MDLION]

I agree with you, murron. Why is it assumed he was talking about contraception and not natural family planning?

[Legatus]

There are serious questions being raised as to whether this discussion (Nuns in the Congo) ever went to the Vatican. The local ordinary seems to be the source of the “permission”.

[ebb tide]

Why is it assumed he was talking about contraception and not natural family planning?

Because Francis mentioned Paul VI supposedly allowing Belgian nuns in the Congo to use contraceptives.

NFP has long been recognized by the Catholic Church. There was no reason to bring it up just for the Zilka patients.