Where Does Pope Francis Really Stand on Contraception?

With regard to the Fundamental option which the Church condemns our Blessed Lord gave stark warning about sin.

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

The modernists want a Christ without the Cross. And they want a Church without mortification.

They are the people who scoffed at Christ on the Cross

'Come down and we will believe'!

 

The bottom line is none of us are praying enough

 

Thank you for posting this article Fatima. As a baby Catholic new to the faith it sometimes appears to me as if I am constantly being assaulted by friends, family, friends from my old Church, other message boards etc attacking the statements of Pope Francis and the doctrines of the church. I have been amazed time and time again at the deliberate misquoting, leading questions asked and intentional misdirecting by the media and laymen regarding virtually anything that the leaders of the Church speak of. It has been very confusing at times.

In truth, it was one of the principals I saw time after time which peaked my interest as an evangelical in why or rather what the motivation would be behind such things from the top all the way to the bottom of society. I saw no such thing coming from the Catholic church in retaliation. This too caught my attention and affected my decision to follow the Catholic faith as absurd as that may sound. I asked myself repeatedly why this Church would be attacked so diligently by seemingly everyone.

When I began reading the doctrine of the Church it became very clear to me that praying for the Pope and all the Church leadership is the right course of action. In fact Pope Francis often asks us to pray for him.

I am in no position to be an apologetic but this I can certainly do.

 

You hit the nail on the head there Padraig!
I think the leaders we have and the degree to which they do or do not follow Catholic teaching is in direct proportion to how well we responded to Our lady's requests at Fatima and other apparitions from the past 200 years.
The Chastisement could even have been avoided altogether if people responded sufficiently.

Here is what St. John Eudes had to say about that:

That perspective is given by St. John Eudes quoting Sacred Scripture. Jeremiah tells us, speaking in God’s name: “Return, O ye revolting children, saith the Lord... And I will give you pastors according to My own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.” (Jeremiah 3:14-15)

St. John Eudes deduces from this passage that if you don’t turn back to God, then God will send you pastors who are just pastors in name — pastors who are really wolves in sheep’s clothing. He goes on to say that when God is particularly angry with His people, He sends them bad pastors. It is the worst chastisement He can give!

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr85/cr85pg3.asp

 

The 1/25/17 message from our Lord to Luz de Maria speaks pationitly to to what you have said in your post. Time is very close now for major global changes.

 

Listen to the truth about the contraceptive pill - EWTN frequently has statements about it. The huge doses of hormones which women have to take are synthetic, not the actual oestrogen and progesterone and are extremely harmful to health. They are strong carcinogens as well as being abortifacients. No doctor with any morality should prescribe these things - giving danger to a previously healthy woman. The effluent from these pills goes into rivers and produces malformed wildlife. This is all true. The "Pill" should be taken off the market and the suggestion made that a little abstinence is not a bad thing.

 

At the end of the day, one has to ask oneself if the pope is pro-life? Not like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi but like Fr Frank Pavone.

 

My suspicion is that the epidemic of breast cancer in younger women may be an effect of these hormones.

 

I'm a member of the board of a tiny pro life group dedicated to fighting this. I can assure you there is a direct link. http://www.polycarp.org/overviewbreastcanceroralcontraceptives.htm
View attachment 6145

Q-D: Does OCP use cause an early abortion and if so, could this also be playing a role in the increased risk of breast cancer?

Both pro-life and pro-abortion groups openly admit that OCP use causes early abortions, with the latter doing so publicly in testimony before the Supreme Court in 1989 [8]. Induced abortion before a woman’s first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) has been noted to increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 50% [9]. Could an abortion (defined to be the death of the zygote, embryo or fetus after conception has occurred) within the first week after conception have a deleterious effect as concerns breast cancer? The hormonal physiology of early pregnancy is difficult to measure but Stewart et al [10] and Norman et al [11] have shown that estradiol and progesterone levels (ie, the female hormones) start to rise above baseline levels within 4 days of conception, thus prior to implantation and before hCG levels begin to rise. An early abortion would cause a sudden fall in the levels of these hormones. Could this early “hormonal blow” be playing a role? To this author’s knowledge, no one has asked or studied this question.

Q-E: Can you give a brief history of the studies that showed a link between OCP use prior to a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) and the increased risk of breast cancer?

In 1981, Pike et al [12] found that women who took OCPs for 4 years before their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had at least a 2.25-fold (125%) increased risk of developing breast cancer before the age of 32. This startled the research world and led to additional studies, including a very large American trial called the CASH study (ie, Cancer And Steroid Hormone study). In 1993, the CASH study showed that women who took OCPs prior to their FFTP and were under 44 years of age had a 40% increased risk of breast cancer, which reached statistical significance in the 35 to 44 year-old age group [13].

Later in England, Chilvers et al [14] published the results of another large study called the United Kingdom National Study. She showed that young women under the age of 36 who had used oral contraceptives for at least 4 years before their FFTP had at least a 44% increased risk in breast cancer. The last large study was performed in 1995 by Brinton et al [15]. It showed a 42% increased risk for women who used OCPs for more than 6 months prior to their FFTP.

Q-F: If the major studies showed the risks that have been mentioned, then why do doctors and pharmacists fail to inform their patients of those risks?

That is a good question. Major journals and major medical associations (eg, the AMA [American Medical Association], the ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics]) have failed to stress or properly note this risk. Part of the problem is that because the OCP/breast cancer debate is complicated, most people have to rely on what “the experts” tell them.

A good example of this occurred recently in the Oxford study reported in a condensed version inThe Lancet [16] and in complete form in Contraception [17]. This study was and remains the largest meta-analysis (ie, a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field, concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) regarding the studies of OCPs and breast cancer. Researchers from around the world studied and combined the data from 54 studies, involving 25 countries and 53,297 women who had breast cancer. It concluded that: “Women who are currently using combined oral contraceptives or have used them in the past 10 years are at a slightly increased risk of having breast cancer diagnosed, although the additional cancers tend to be localized to the breast. There is no evidence of an increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after cessation of use. . .” Unfortunately, this study is known more for what it did say, than what it did not say! There were several major weaknesses of the study.​

 

1). "...why do doctors and pharmacists fail to inform their patients of those risks?"

One reason would be fear of being labelled misogynistic. There is also an incomprehensible amount of money at stake for Big Pharma. This is mass, prolonged medication. The combination of pharmaceutical and secular, ideological power would be a terrifying prospect for any doctor to take on.

2). "Unfortunately, this study is known more for what it did say, than what it did not say! There were several major weaknesses of the study".

Again, the aforementioned financial and secular powers ensure that it is even a pleasant surprise that such lukewarm studies reach the light of day. The media fellow travelers ensure that they go largely unreported.

 

Paul VI was right in "Humanae Vitae", although he didn't know of the consequences at the time. The widespread use of the contraceptive pill causes promiscuity in some women and in married couples results in the husband being able to "use" his wife at any time, without the benefit of discussing "love". I'm not a doctor or a scientist but I've known several friends who have lost their first baby very early in pregnancy. This may or may not have been due to the use of the Pill prior to marriage, but I suspect that many if not all Catholic couples do have sex before marriage.We would be naive not to consider this. I also read that one third of first pregnancies are "lost". I'm sure this was not the case before the Pill was invented. If women had problems conceiving, when they did they nearly always had a healthy baby.
Moving slightly away from this, I was horrified when I met a lovely young lady whom I hadn't seen for a few years. She and her husband had a nuptial Mass concelebrated by three priests, all of whom I know. She had been married for eight years when we met and I asked her if they had any little ones yet. She told me they had agreed not to have children at all, because both had careers. Are they married in the eyes of the Church?

 

They vowed to accept children willingly from God....if this was not their intention, then I would think their marriage is invalid.

 

Careers...in the long run, worth no more than a hill of beans.

 

This is true and very sad. I too was of the opinion kids could wait as a young man and deeply regret it now. Well, to be completely honest I was more interested in my own selfish desires (Regardless of the excuse, and that's what it is.) than anything good let alone a true blessing from God.

 

Don't be too hard on yourself for following a narrative that has been drummed into us all through just about every societal institution. Indeed, many Catholic schools (and this is not a recent phenomenon) have been inclined to over-emphasise material success. The issue has been greatly exacerbated by feminism which has led to men and women being exploited by corporate business so that in most of the industrialised world a 'living wage' (the ability of one half of a married couple to earn enough to support a spouse and children and deemed a right by traditional Catholic social teaching) has become impossible for most. It is not so damaging if one partner in a marriage is very devoted to a career if the other is around to attend to domestic and child-rearing duties).