[Mrs. Don-o]

The sin of contsaception consists in deliberately rendering a chosen sexual act infertile; that is, choosing a disabled--- sterilized --- a sexual act.

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.

This is utterly unlike abortion, because abortion involves not the rapist, but another person: a conceived child. In no way can you legitimately target and destroy the child.

It's also different from the sin of contraception, because it does not involve planning/hoping for a sterilized sexual act. The medical missionary nuns in the Congo mission stations didn't plan, hope for, choose, or want any sexual act at all.

As for married Catholics who have a legitimate reason to want to postpone pregnancy, --- like, possibly, say the wife has a Zika infection which could do teratogenic damage if she conceived a child--- the only morally legitimate way to postpone pregnancy to a safer time, is periodic or temporary abstinence from intercourse.

Pope Francis should make this clear. If he does not --- or if the media do not report all the nuances --- then <>we've got to get out there and make this clear.

[ebb tide]

More horse hockey. All Catholic single women are expected to remain celibate until marriage.

Do you have documentation of Paul VI’s supposed permit for contraceptives for these nuns. If so, why doesn’t Francis grant permission to single Catholic women in war torn Syria and Chicago, due to imminent threats of rape in both regions?

[Mister Da]

The virus can also cause miscarriage or birth defects in women already pregnant.

[Ransomed]

I don’t get it, what about the abortifacient possibility?

Freegards

[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?