The response was to get off my ass and go to a Library and look it up...rough quote...lol Garabendal gave a good link to an LA times piece about this http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-22/news/mn-5211_1_roman-catholic-church
I am not sure as the source just says the Vatican sent the BC pills. But Blessed Pope Paul VI was under much duress from many of his bishops to succumb to the contraceptive mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control But the Holy Spirit protected the teaching authority of the Petrine Office by inspiring him to write Humanae Vitae.
Right and that is for exceptional circumstances, which I can see. I was referring to regular reception of the Holy Eucharist by Protestants.
But it would not be licit for a sexually active married woman to have recourse the pill to regulate problems with her menstrual cycle. In this case, therapeutic intention or medical purpose never justifies the intrinsically evil act of contraception and abortion.
Your right G, the article does say the Vatican sent the BC to the nuns. But, Padraigs earlier post said PPVI sent BC to the nuns and later regretted doing so... etc ,
Not at all. The act would no longer be an act of contraception. The moral object is utterly different
Padraig said Paul VI personally gave permission for them to have abortions. That's a world away from someone at the Vatican sending BC.
So to quote my loving mother...since the beginning of time people thought the world was ending. And in a sense it is...we will all be gone soon enough. But the bigger issue is these Church battles between priests have been happening...since the arrival of Our Lord Jesus. Its interesting that even the apostles had pride...may i sit next to you in heaven or when the Apostles were upset that a outsider was casting out demons using the name of Jesus. The scripture tells us about how the early churches were divided. Each church had its individual sin. And lastly, what other members of the forum have mentioned...there have been different saints divided by Popes and theology. Some people here make it sound like it is the first time there has been debates with Bishops and Popes. This is part of the very make up of the church. I get there are bad priests and bishops...but it has always been. It is a human church built on the Laws of God (supernatural). Maybe we should look at the cup 1/2 full not 1/2 empty.
Pope Paul VI: “all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14). Humanae Vitae is very clear that a therapeutic reason, i.e. a medical purpose, never justifies any direct abortion. But abortifacient contraception is a type of direct abortion. Therefore, abortifacient contraception is not justified for a medical purpose.
In In all my years in the pro life fight i never heard a report of Paul VI encouraging abortion for rape. He was a champion of the pro lofe cause. He never gave into the tremendous pressure to even allow contraception. How could he then encourage abortion as Padraig says.
I don't think you understand this excerpt. What he means here is that it is never licit to directly target the child in order to save mothers life as is often done under spurious circumstances. You may however undertake a medical action that as I consequence that is foreseen but not intended brings about the death of the child. I
I think we sometimes forget that the apostles and saints had maturing spiritual lives just as we do. They didn't just spring into super saints. St. Peter was not the same person he was when Jesus initially called him as he was three years later when Jesus died or even many years after that when he gave His life for Our Lord as an old man.
Maybe that is why our church is very reserved on who is excommunicated. Our whole life might be a conversion experience.
I had a friend in her late 40s who suffered dreadfully from adeno myosis which resulted in prolonged pain, swelling and bleeding every month. She was anti abortion. One day her husband heard her calling out for help yet again from the bathroom. He found her crouched over in woese agony than ever and the floor covered in huge clots of blood. The doctor suggested an IUD called Merino as the best way to treat this condition. This course of action was approved by a priest because he said the intention was never to kill but to preserve her health. I was never comfortable with this story or the advice of the priest. She could have had a hysterectomy but she did not want this and my friend was at peace with the advice. Would hysterectomy have been justified? Would you expect her to refrain from sex after this because the act was not open to life? Morphine is given to relieve pain. It can easily kill if the recipient's health is poor. Does that mean it should not be given? I think not. Don't jump down my throat...I am not agreeing with the priest. This is real life and I say the priest was wrong but how my heart went out to my friend.
Judgement is coming soon enough, The time now is of Mercy, true Mercy to all who seek it... Keep your powder dry.
Right, but since canon law permits those sacraments under the same (usually rare) conditions, if the law were being broadly/loosely interpreted to permit regular communion, it makes sense that that interpretation would also permit regular confession. (I'm in no way saying I think this is a good idea, btw. Just trying to understand the mind of the Church.)
If Paul VI collaborated in abortion as Padraig says that means he was excommunicated and probably received Communion unwothily. How can this be true. Please give us a fuller account of the story and your source Padraig. Let us know its broader context and if anyone else was involved in the so called permission. Your silence on this is worse than the silence of which you accuse Pope Francis. You may have reported accurately but you owe it to us to back it up with all the facts.
Remember there is a Remember there is an important distinction between giving someone something so that they will die and giving something and they may die
