Pope Francis, Contraception, and the Zika Virus Dan Lynch On his return airplane flight from Mexico, Pope Francis gave his customary in-flight press conference. As usual, the results of the media driven agenda of the press conference overshadowed any news of good words or actions done by the pope before it during his pilgrimage in Mexico. This is one reason why Pope Francis should not give press conferences. It is beneath the dignity of his office. It also creates confusion as to what are the authentic teachings of the Church. On the flight, a reporter raised the issue of the morality of the use of contraception in the case of the involvement of the Zika virus. Pope Francis said that Pope Paul VI “permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.” However, to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence that Pope Paul VI ever said this. These and other remarks of Pope Francis and his spokesman have led most people to conclude that he has approved contraceptive acts in cases of sexual intercourse of a husband and wife if the Zika virus is somehow involved. However, we don’t know what kind of supposed involvement of the virus, whether by exposure to the virus or infection of the virus by one and there is a danger of transmission to the other, or whatever else, because nothing has been “clarified” by the Pope’s spokesman. The Zika virus is transmitted primarily by mosquitoes and can produce mild symptoms such as fever, rash, conjunctivitis and joint pain. The disease is not life-threatening. In fact, it is so mild that researchers estimate that most of those infected with the Zika virus won’t even know they have it and, even if they do feel symptoms, they will only last for up to a week. There are only a few scientifically proven cases of transmission of the virus between husband and wife through sexual intercourse. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the virus can cause birth defects. And even if there were such evidence, that would not justify the use of contraceptives as there is no justification for such use for the danger of any other birth defects. Some other viruses that cause birth defects are chickenpox, Cytomegalovirus, Enteroviruses (Hepatitis A, B, Polio, etc.), Rubella (German measles) and Fifth disease. These viruses have been scientifically proven to cause birth defects. However, there is no justification to use contraceptives to prevent them. Coincidence between Zika virus and a birth defect is not causation and even if it were, permissive use of contraceptives would have been approved for the other viruses that knowingly cause birth defects, but the Church has never done so. The Church has always recognized that children with birth defects are equal in human dignity to perfectly formed children since they are all gifts from our Creator. Nevertheless, most of the world now believes that it is morally justified for a husband and wife to practice acts of contraception if the Zika virus is somehow involved, although in what way we are not told how. This belief of the world is contrary to the teaching of the Church. The Church does not teach through papal press conferences and we are not bound to submit our mind and will to what Pope Francis says in them. We are only called to submit our mind and will to the Pope’s authority as follows: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (The Documents of Vatican II, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), 25). Pope Francis’ press conferences are not part of his authentic magisterium or teaching authority, especially because answers at press conferences do not constitute “judgments made by him…according to his manifest mind and will.” Even more so, the Church does not teach through subsequent supposed press conference “clarifications” of his spokesman, Father Lombardi. He has no teaching authority whatsoever. None of his statements are authoritative, they are just confusing and misleading.The extemporaneous remarks of a Pope in an interview, and the commentary of his spokesman do not constitute authentic Church teaching and we have no obligation to make a “religious submission of mind and will” to them. The truth is that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil. Also, the proper term is “contraception”, not so-called “birth control” or “artificial contraception”. Contraceptive acts do not “control” birth and they are real and not “artificial”. Pope Paul VI exercised his supreme and authentic magisterium and teaching authority in an encyclical letter. He defined a contraceptive act as “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended - whether as an end or as a means - to prevent procreation.” (Encyclical Letter, On Human Life, (Humane Vitae), 14). Contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil and prohibited in any and all circumstances, regardless of the intention of the actor. The use of contraceptives by homosexuals in sexual acts in an attempt to prevent the transmission of Aids is morally irrelevant since, unlike conjugal marital acts, homosexual sexual acts are intrinsically sterile and cannot be contraceptive. Conception of a human being is impossible through these acts. The underlying homosexual sexual acts are always a grave evil, regardless of whether a condom is used or not. Some Catholics think that because some popes said nothing about the supposed use of contraceptives by nuns in cases of rape, they can now be used in the case of conjugal acts of a husband and wife with some kind of involvement with the Zika virus. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that any popes ever overtly approved the use of contraceptives by nuns in cases of threatened or actual rape. Furthermore, popes do not teach by silence and their saying nothing about contraceptive acts in cases of rape cannot be construed as an approval of them. Moreover, some contraceptives also act as abortifacients and kill conceived human beings and those popes probably knew that and would never approve of it. The first rules of moral theology are that the intention of the actor, the means of the act itself and the end of the act all must be good. The act itself may never be evil and evil means cannot be used for a supposed good end, even if the actor’s intention is good. The end does not justify the means. The supposedly good end of preventing birth defects, is not justified by the intrinsically evil means of contraception in any case whether the Zika virus is involved or not. Acts of contraception are intrinsically evil means under any circumstance, before, during or after sexual intercourse, without exceptions. This is the truth. Everything else is interpretation, speculation, opinion or false. Dan Lynch is the Director of Dan Lynch Apostolates promoting devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe, Jesus King of All Nations, Our Lady of America and St. John Paul II. He is an author, public speaker and a former judge and lawyer in Vermont. He has appeared many times on radio and television and has spoken at conferences throughout the world. You may learn more about Dan here. Dan Lynch Apostolates promoting devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe, Jesus King of All Nations, Our Lady of America and Saint John Paul II 144 Sheldon Road, St. Albans, VT 05478 Phone: 802-524-5350 - Fax: 802-524-5673 Visit our website at www.JKMI.com E-Mail Us at JKMI@JKMI.com The Dan Lynch Apostolates’ Facebook Page May Our Lady of Guadalupe keep you under the mantle of her protection and may the Reign of Jesus King of All Nations be recognized in your heart!
Catholic and pro-life leaders seek clarification from the Pope about his comments on contraception and the Zika virus. February 23, 2016 – Pope Francis’ remarks on contraception on the plane returning from Mexico, affirmed by Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, have launched an unprecedented issuance of public concern from Catholic and pro-life lay leaders, some begging for a clarification from the pope. Excerpts from significant leaders have been reproduced below with links to their full comments. Professor E. Christian Brugger (Senior Fellow in ethics and director of the fellows’ program at the Culture of Life Foundation in Washington, and Professor of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, holding the Stafford Chair of Moral Theology) wrote at the National Catholic Register: Some, perhaps many, will be elated by the Pope’s words. But those of us who support and defend the magisterium, in particular the successor of Peter, in their proper roles as guardians and interpreters of the deposit of faith, find Pope Francis and Father Lombardi’s words baffling and troubling. It appears that the Pope has asserted something that is false and contrary to salvation. I very much hope that I have misread the situation. Whether or not I have, I would like to say two things. First, the extemporaneous remarks of a pope in an interview, and the commentary of his spokesman, do not constitute Church teaching. So these assertions are not guarded by the Holy Spirit and are not invested with ecclesial authority. Catholics have no obligation whatever to render to the pope’s words a “religious submission of mind and will” (Lumen Gentium, 25). Second, Pope Francis is our beloved father. We esteem him in virtue of his office and will stand by him whenever he is falsely attacked. We wish for his good and for the good of the whole Church. And we certainly will never follow the pathway of Martin Luther into a rejection of papal primacy and apostolic succession. But the Church is Jesus’, not the pope’s or the bishops’ (and certainly not mine). And so I say to beloved Pope Francis, my father: Please do not delay in reaffirming to the whole Church the truth and moral implications of the two-fold goodness of the marital act, which by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring (Canon 1055, §1); therefore if anyone acts intentionally against either the unitive or procreative goods, they ipso facto render their intercourse non-marital. Jill Stanek, pro-life nurse turned speaker and famed blogger after having exposed “live birth abortions” at the hospital where she worked, in comments to LifeSiteNews said: As a Protestant pro-lifer, I am devastated. I count on the Catholic Church to be the firewall on the contraception issue. The Pope is opening a Pandora's Box. He is contradicting foundational Catholic doctrine, doctrine which is also a cornerstone of the pro-life movement, even if people don't realize it. This shakes my confidence in the solidity of Catholic doctrine. I can't believe this is happening. This constitutes a crisis for the Catholic Church. Dr. Gerard Nadal, president and CEO of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer and an esteemed scientist and Catholic writer, wrote on his blog: Even the dimmest wit in the Society of Jesus can make his thoughts plainly understood. So it must be that Pope Francis knew what he was saying when he broke with 2,000 years of sacred Tradition and magisterial teaching this week when he alluded to Paul VI permitting nuns being raped in Africa to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and used that as the moral grounds on which to permit the use of contraception in the midst of the Zika virus outbreak…. For all of his stated love of the poor, Francis has invited International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes to a blood meal on the very poor whose dignity he portends to uphold. By invoking Paul VI and the Congo episode with artificial contraception, he ignored NFP and the volumes written by his predecessors. To permit artificial contraception for Zika is to have sold the family farm, to permit it for all developing nations where endemic disease is present. Public health doesn’t involve nonexistence. Public health concerns itself with preventing and curing disease. It is clear that the Holy Father doesn’t grasp this essential truth that I learned in training as a medical microbiologist. Public Health officers cannot morally and ethically resort to killing patients or preventing human reproduction as a legitimate means of addressing crises. The same holds true for popes. Francis should stick to matters concerning his Holy Office, and in all humility allow himself to be guided by the unchanging wisdom of 2,000 years of magisterial teaching. He. Is. Peter. He should start behaving as such
Dr. Ed Peters, famed canonist blogger, who has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 2005, wrote on his blog: Even by the standards of his reign, the presser Pope Francis conducted on his return flight from Mexico has provoked an unusual number of questions. It now seems all but certain that the ‘permission’ or ‘approval’ which Francis has claimed his predecessor Pope Paul VI gave for Congo nuns facing rape to use contraception simply does not exist. Unfortunately this myth has been invoked by the pope as if it were a fact of Church history, and, more importantly, in a way that suggests it might be a precedent to be considered in deciding whether contraception may also be used to prevent pregnancy in some cases of possible birth defects. That claim would take Pope Francis’ contraception remarks into a very different area. No longer are we musing about a point of Church history (as interesting as that might be), now we are dealing with Church moral teaching. The stakes become dramatically higher. So here’s my point: not only does the Congo nuns permission seem NOT to exist, but, even if it does exist in some form, it could NOT, I suggest, by its own terms, be used by Francis (or anyone else committed to thinking with the Church) to call into question the Church’s settled teaching that “each and every marital act [quilibet matrimonii usus] must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse [coniugale commercium], is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14). Between women facing rape and wives worried about birth defects there simply is no parallel relevant to the moral question of contraception. John F. Kippley, founder with his wife Sheila of the Couple to Couple League and of Natural Family Planning International, wrote on the Couple to Couple League blog: To speak the divine truth about human love and to point out its counterfeits is not to be obsessed with these issues but simply to bear witness in an evil age. Please keep praying for Pope Francis, especially that he will give the Church and the world a post-Synod document that will clearly convey the teaching of the Lord and his Church regarding love, marriage and sexuality. In the light of other comments floating around, I think it can be said that Pope Francis could have and should have used these questions to evangelize the reporters. He certainly should have pointed out that Humanae Vitae teaches that married couples can use periodic abstinence from the marriage act to avoid pregnancy. That involves using natural family planning. He should know and be able to teach that couples can use cross-checking systems of NFP at the 99% level of effectiveness. He missed an excellent opportunity to remind himself and his audience the most difficult job of the Pope is to affirm the difficult truths, especially those that affect huge numbers of people. He needs to remind himself and all of us that the entire world stands in the shadow of the cross on which our Savior died. He needs to teach what Jesus taught—the price of discipleship is to take up one’s cross daily. Certainly that applies to difficulties associated with love, marriage and sexuality. Voice of the Family, an initiative of Catholic laity from major pro-life and pro-family organisations supported by 26 pro-life groups around the world, wrote: Catholic campaigners for family values are disturbed by unconfirmed reports of comments said to have been made by Pope Francis on contraception. The Vatican has yet to confirm Pope Francis’s comments, but whatever the meaning of those comments, the Church’s teaching has not changed and cannot change. Catholic teaching remains that contraception is wrong in all circumstances. Philip Lawler, news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org, wrote: But this time, the problem cannot be attributed to sensationalistic reporting; the Pontiff definitely conveyed the impression that he was ready to discuss the morality of contraception in the context of the Zika epidemic. The Pope’s own words are—at best—confusing…. The Pope’s frequent public interviews, and his unhappy record of maladroit responses, have become a predictable source of confusion, frustration, and even embarrassment for the faithful. In the distant past, then-Cardinal Bergoglio admitted: “Interviews are not my forte.” Thoughtful Catholic leaders should use their influence to persuade the Holy Father that he was right then, and is wrong now to use interviews as a regular facet of his public ministry. Human Life International, the largest Catholic international pro-life organization, headed by Fr. Shenan Boquet, wrote: Human Life International is extremely concerned that, rather than clarify the comments with references to the very clear doctrine of the church, Father Lombardi instead made statements that contradict established Church doctrine on contraception, referring to both the non-magisterial decision of Pope Paul VI to which the Holy Father also referred, and adding a reference to a non-magisterial statement from Pope Benedict XVI that contradicts Pope Benedict’s own explanation of the statement. We must repeat, with the Church, her own condemnation of the act of using contraception. Headlines such as “Pope approves contraception in areas threatened by Zika virus” immediately went around the world following the interview, and since this misunderstanding is already being used to pressure bishops in Latin America, we hope to see a clarification on this aspect of the Holy Father’s comments as soon as possible. We hope that the clarification emphasizes the unchangeable teaching of the Church on the absolute immorality of the use of contraception for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy, even as the permissibility of natural methods of postponing pregnancy for serious reasons is affirmed, along with the need to ensure that those threatened by Zika receive the best possible prevention advice and support, and those affected receive the best possible care.
It's heartening to read all of these Catholics (and even 1 protestant) defending the Truths of the Church and knowing they reach 1000's of souls. The bloggosphere is alive and well with soldiers for Christ.
Pope Francis, the Zika Virus, and Contraception by Christopher O. Tollefsen within Sexuality February 23rd, 2016 267 34 409 Moral reasons exist for the use of contraceptives to defend against sexual assault, thanks to the principle of double effect—but these reasons do not apply to using contraception because of the Zika virus. Pope Francis recently made headlines with his discussion of the steps that it might—or might not—be permissible to take to prevent the spread of the Zika virus. Central to his remarks was a comparison between using contraceptives to “avoid pregnancy” so as to avoid passing on Zika to a child, and using contraceptives in an environment in which one faced a high risk of rape. The comparison, however, is misleading: The use of contraceptives by those at risk of rape need not be an act of contraception, whereas the use of contraceptives in the Zika case surely is an instance of contraception. To act with the intention to prevent procreation is to contracept. Anyone who, foreseeing that his or her action might lead to the conception of a child, takes steps to prevent that possible child from coming to be, has contracepted. This is why one who takes contraceptives in order to prevent transmission of Zika to a baby whom one might otherwise conceive has contracepted: She has used contraceptives in order to prevent the coming to be of a child, so as to prevent the further transmission of the disease. Use of contraceptives in this case “works” by preventing conception. But the use of contraceptives by rape victims can be different. To explain why, we need the analysis characteristic of double-effect reasoning. If I am deliberating about taking a contraceptive, and believe that contracepting is always wrong, then I must ask myself whether I intend to impede procreation as either an end or a means—and in the event that that effect is not intended, whether there is proportionate reason to accept the procreation-impeding side effect. Double Effect in the Case of Sexual Assault In a case where a woman is the victim of a sexual assault, it is surely permissible for the woman to defend herself against the attack. This is true both before the attack has commenced, if the attacker’s intention is manifest, and so long as the attack continues. Consider, then, her defense against the initiation of the attack, or the attack in its first moments. Following St. Thomas Aquinas, the intention must be only to use force to ward off harm, even if it is foreseen that the force used—the use of a gun, perhaps, or a bat—will have harmful, perhaps even lethal, effects. It is the acceptance of such side effects that the right of self-defense justifies, not the intention of harm to the attacker. Thus the fact of an unjust attack is not itself sufficient for justifying a possibly lethal defense. Any victim of a violent crime might be tempted to use force not merely to ward off harm but to kill. The Thomistic analysis recognizes such an intention as wrong and the act shaped by this intention as impermissible. In the case of some violent attacks on the person of another, such as a punch, the attack ceases with the disengagement of the attacker’s body from the victim. In other cases, this is not so: If the attacker has fired a bullet, then even though the attacker is no longer engaged in a bodily way, the bullet works as an extension of the attacker’s body to continue to pose a threat. The victim may, obviously, ward off such extended threats. And in some cases, the extension of attack beyond the disengagement of the attacker’s body is, in fact, carried out by a bodily part of the attacker. Specifically, in the case of rape by a man, the sperm, a part of the attacker, becomes disengaged from the attacker’s body and continues to invade the victim’s bodily integrity. This form of invasion is unique, for it comes to fruition as an invasion in the same event that sexual intercourse comes to fruition as a one flesh union, namely, the penetration of the ovum by a sperm. This penetration may also be the initiation of a new human life. Many who believe that contraception is immoral do so on the grounds that it is impermissible to do anything intended to prevent or impede the initiation of a new human life. But there is no wrong, it seems, in attempting to prevent or impede that penetration considered precisely as the culmination of an unjust attack. One might raise the objection that the only reason this further invasion is thought undesirable is precisely because it might lead to a new life. If so, preventing the invasion of the sperm really would be tantamount to an act of contraception. This objection, however, is flawed. It is true that the significance of the invasion of seminal fluid is shaped by the capacity of the sperm, in conjunction with the ovum, to initiate new human life. That is precisely why the forcible deposit of sperm in the victim’s vagina is so much more grievous an offense than many other forms of violence: Initiating a new human life together is the most profound and intimate of activities that two persons can engage in, and that initiation—the child—is an extension of the personal being of both parties. The attacker’s sperm is thus profoundly invasive precisely in consequence of its reproductive significance. But this does not bear at all on whether it is the potential new life that is willed against, or the invasion itself. Even the moment of penetration of the ovum by the sperm itself can be understood and accepted, or rejected, under two entirely different descriptions: the initiation of new life, or the culmination of the attack—even if its significance as a culmination is dependent on its significance as life-initiating. An adequate act analysis leaves us with the clear conclusion that an upright agent can only will against the latter. Contraception is morally impermissible, so our intentions must be upright and not contra-life. Just as it would be impermissible, in defending one’s person against the rapist’s bodily attack, to will him harm or death, so it is impermissible, in defending oneself against the continuation of the attack made by the rapist’s sperm, to will the non-existence of the possible child. To will the non-union of sperm and ovum insofar as that union was the initiation of new life would be to contracept and that is ruled out by Church teaching as intrinsically impermissible. Yet, just as defenders of the doctrine of double effect have held that one can intend only the use of force to defend oneself, so I believe that such defenders can also hold that rape victims can, and should, intend only the repelling or destruction of sperm, or the suppression of ovulation, as a means of defense. But it seems obvious that in intending such defense, one can accept as a proportionate side effect that a child might well not come into existence. Just as, for serious medical reasons, one may accept infertility as a side effect of the use of contraceptives, similarly, one may accept infertility as a side effect of legitimate self-defense against rape. Zika Virus But all this is at a great distance from the topic on which Pope Francis was asked to speak, the use of contraceptives to prevent the conception of children who might be infected by Zika. Whatever his intended meaning, it is clear that such an act would be completely unlike the non-contraceptive acts of victims of rape: It would be an act of contraception, and, if contraception is impermissible, this act would be impermissible as well. Is there room here for double-effect analysis? If so, then perhaps that is what Francis was indicating in his comparison to the nuns in the Congo. Perhaps the use of contraceptives has as its intention the prevention of disease transmission, with infertility as a side effect. But if the earlier analysis is sound, there is no such room for double effect. Contraceptives are chosen in the Zika case not because they have a prophylactic effect against the disease, nor because they prevent transmission from mother to child; they are chosen to prevent a child who might suffer from microcephaly from coming into existence. Thus, Catholics who accept their Church’s teaching on contraception (and others who accept natural law arguments against it) should refrain from using contraceptives in this case. There can, of course, be serious reasons to abstain from sexual intercourse, and the possibility of maternal-fetal transmission of Zika is surely one such reason. Couples concerned about the health of their children should give that serious consideration and in some cases, at least, judge that abstention is the prudent course of action. Christopher O. Tollefsen is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina and a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. He is the author of Lying and Christian Ethics (Cambridge, 2014), which will be out in paperback in April. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/02/16517/
That's a well written explanation, thank you. For those of us who have been involved in promoting the Church's teachings on this subject for decades, it just seems obvious to us, and we assume it is obvious. But for those who have not studied it for years it probably is mysterious at times. For those instances where I've taken this basic understanding for granted and assumed others should know these things but don't, my sincere apologies.
Yes, but I think only briefly, bflocatholic... We are both agreed on this presentation of the Church's current understanding of the situation. However, whereas I think Brian will consider this understanding to be set in stone, I do not. Pope Francis' response on the plane to the question regarding the Zika virus suggests he views the situation to be a little more 'fluid'. My position is that the Church's understanding of the faith has always developed and will continue to do so. I am a great supporter of Paul VI and, in particular, his Humanae Vitae encyclical but I do not preclude developments in our understanding of the matters involved in that letter. Brian, presumably, rejects such a possibility and so believes Pope Francis is a bad Pope. For me, the Pope is self evidently a good and holy man and I will accept where he leads us because that is what Jesus wants from us.
The teaching on contraception can no more change than the teaching on abortion. Or maybe abortion isn't that important after all? For Francis: an abortionist with more than 10,000 victims is “one of the great names of Italy today”. What would saint Pio say of this? We have enthusiastically watched the public veneration of the incorrupt body of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, a great saint of the 20th century, in Saint Peter’s Basilica. In this way, Francis wishes to pay homage to the saint who reconciled so many people with God, for he knew how to encourage many penitents to abandon their errors, sins and crimes. Among these, the crime of abortion. Confession is marvelous! For Padre Pio, abortion was not just a crime against an innocent being, but rather a true suicide. Father Pellegrino once confronted him with this question: —Padre Pio, today you denied absolution to a woman because she had voluntarily undergone an abortion. Why have you been so rigorous with this poor unfortunate? The stigmatic saint responded: — The day that people lose their horror for abortion, will be the most terrible day for humanity. Abortion is not only a homicide but also a suicide. Shouldn’t we have the courage to manifest our faith before those who commit two crimes within one act? —Suicide? — asked Father Pellegrini. —The suicide of the human race will be understood ‒ replied the saint ‒ by those who will see the earth populated by the elderly and depopulated of children: burnt as a desert. Perhaps these words, pronounced by such a kind person as the saintly capuchin, were unknown to Francis when he put Emma Bonino — the propagator of abortions in Italy — as an example for the Italy of today – yes Italy, depopulated by a low birthrate and overflowing with elderly. Bonino herself declared that she performed more than 10,000 abortions during 1975 alone, employing a very precarious system: she would vacuum the unborn child from the womb of the abortive mother with an air pump — the kind used for bicycle tires! — putting the mangled remains into a glass jar. There even exist historic photos in which Bonino herself wished to immortalize the feat. Just as Saint Padre Pio had taught, the Catholic Church has always considered abortion to be an abominable crime. It may be pardoned through repentance, but nonetheless it should be the object of horror within any society that does not want to commit suicide – just as suicide, murder and theft are a cause of horror… All are sins that may be pardoned, if there is repentance. Francis justified his praise for the abortionist Emma Bonino with the phrase: “we have to look at people, at what they do”. Bonino did abortions… maybe Francis didn’t know? We are not so naive as to believe that. Consequently, we do not understand how the pontiff could affirm that she is, “among the greatest names of Italy today”. (Corriere Della Sera, February 8, 2016 – English summary) Does abortion continue to be a sin, as the Catechism teaches? Or has a new moral emerged with Emma Bonino and her fellow party members? Why this double-faced attitude of Francis? Without manifesting the slightest repentance for the more than 10,000 clandestine abortions she performed in 1975, the elderly Bonino thanked the eulogies of Francis: “These words are what have pleased me most in my entire life” (Lultimaribattuta, February 9, 2016). Repentance? Not a bit. At least she is not manifesting repentance, and in confession we know that we must seek at least some sign of repentance. Perhaps she only experiences satisfaction in seeing the one who should be, ex officio, her greatest enemy, obsequiously bending himself before her. And what about the remains of Padre Pio, venerated these days in St. Peter’s? From heaven, what is Padre Pio thinking about these 10,000 murders performed in 1975 and perpetrated by the ideal woman for the Italy of today, according to Francis? What does he think of his figure being manipulated in such a way? Indeed, many questions arise about this new moral model being proposed to the modern world. (see study) How different this model is freom what was taught by Saint Padre Pio, and for which he was elevated to the honor of the altars! http://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/20...italy-today-what-would-saint-pio-say-of-this/ (I don't know anything about this source, I saw it posted on Facebook.)
Mr david is the perfect example of the confused so-called vat II catholic who belongs firmly in the crazy 70s. The Pope has no authority whatsoever to change the fundamental truths of the faith. He has no authority whatsoever over the fundamentals of the moral law. It's well time sir that you confined all your Charlie Curran books to the dustbin
Yes, the peace didn't last long did it.... This post is just the awful propaganda against Francis that the traditionalists churn out endlessly. I will respond on just the two main points in it. 1. Pope Francis made his position on abortion absolutely clear in his interview on the plane: 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 a crime, an absolute evil..... Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned. 2. Regarding politician Emma Bonino, the Pope's support for her is for her work supporting refugees. Her situation regarding abortion seems bad. But we do not know her present attitude nor what the Pope knows of all this. He just sees a lady who has cared for the refugees.
But he is THE authority (as Christ's chosen leader of the Church) to develop our understanding of the fundamental truths of the Christian Faith.
Have a wee read of Newman sir i t may just be of benefit. I consider your influence on this forum toxic. I have a pet hamster more catholic than you.
The Church is not a creator of doctrine, but its guardian. She has authority only to pass on what she has already received, not to invent new dogma. "[N]othing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." (Pope St. Agatho) "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." (First Vatican Council) "To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received is never permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary, and never will be unnecessary" (St. Vincent of Lerins, c. 434 A.D.)
David is a thoroughbred modernist. He is a danger to the souls of Catholics on this forum not well grounded in their faith.
Oy. That didn't take long to devolve into name-calling and finger pointing. Once a saloon, always a saloon, I guess. Keep shootin' fellers.
It is nothing to do with name calling and point scoring. I consider this a serious matter and my sympathies are with blue Horizen who met with much resistance and criticism for comments not unlike David's.