"Francis has been totally orthodox..can only be faulted by faulty reading"

It is not possible to make a statement like that. I copy a paragraph from the nicely argued article I posted:

Double effect is invoked all the time in Catholic theology. For example, in cases of abortion, Catholic hospitals may remove a cancerous uterus with the baby inside if the death of the child is foreseen but unintended; in war one may drop a bomb that kills an innocent person as long as the death of the person is foreseen but unintended. One may also take a patient off life support — their death must be — you guessed it — foreseen but unintended.
​

Using condoms in the way Pope Francis had mentioned is another example like those mentioned here.

 

The Catechism and the teachings of HV are clear with regard to contraceptive use being intrinsically evil.

"Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.

Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (CCC, n. 1756.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (CCC, n. 2399).

The pope’s brief reflection must be considered within the context of the definitive teaching of the Magisterium according to which there is a divinely created “unbreakable connection between the unitive meaning and procreative meaning . . . inherent in the conjugal act.” (Humanae Vitae 12). Consequently, it is never “possible to justify deliberately depriving conjugal acts of their fertility by claiming that one is choosing the lesser evil,” even “to defend and advance some good either for individuals or for families or for societies.” (HV 14)

This means that while avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil, using contraception within marriage is always evil. Therefore, spouses cannot justify contraceptives by the argument that they are trying to prevent birth defects or disease rather than a pregnancy.

 

I need to come back here because I'm not sure you are reading the paragraph I highlighted. I am not arguing about whether condom use is intrinsically evil.

The paragraph I posted is about the 'double effect' principle and involves 'intrinsically evil' actions. I copy the paragraph again:

Double effect is invoked all the time in Catholic theology. For example, in cases of abortion, Catholic hospitals may remove a cancerous uterus with the baby inside if the death of the child is foreseen but unintended; in war one may drop a bomb that kills an innocent person as long as the death of the person is foreseen but unintended. One may also take a patient off life support — their death must be — you guessed it — foreseen but unintended.

​

 

The cases you give above in you paragraph are not intrinsically evil acts. You say they are intrinsically evil actions but they are not.

There are two lives involved in your first example and it might be that the only available remedy, while not a direct abortion brings about the death of the child.

But direct abortion is always intrinsically evil.

The primary purpose of the condom is to prevent conception, which the Church teaches is an intrinsically evil act in the first font.

If the Pope did say contraception is permissible to prevent disease transmission or putative birth defects then he is wrong.

If the Pope believes that --- then contraception would also be moral in the case against Aids for example.

Good intention or dire circumstance does not justify an intrinsically evil act.

If contraception can be justified by intention or circumstance then direct abortion and every other intrinsically evil act would also be justified on the same basis.

In both the cases of Aids and Zika the good intention (avoiding disease) and the bad consequences can be avoided by refraining from sexual relations. So the use of the condom is not a dire necessity.

 

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. The examples in the paragraph I quoted do involve actions which are as 'intrinsically evil' as condom use.

You are free to view the Holy Father's view as mistaken but a Catholic should be very careful in following this increasingly common behaviour of rejecting the Pope's guidance and preferring our own or other people's judgement. Ultimately, the latter leads to something very similar to the protestant approach.

 

I don't believe I am giving my own view but promoting what the Church has taught throughout the ages. I believe Pope Francis gave his opinion and not teaching.

Neither Pope Benedict or Pope Francis have changed Church teaching with regard to contraception. Humane Vitae is a clear and precise document that will stand the test of time.

But we could flog a horse dead so that's it from me over and out.

 

This is a subject I've studied at length. The principle of double effect says that a hysterectomy for an ovarian or uterine tumor is not intrinsically evil. A secondary effect might be the loss of a child in the womb, but it is not intrinsically evil. Abortion is intrinsically evil. There are never any circumstances in which it is prohibited; one cannot do a hysterectomy simply to end a pregnancy. That s not a hysterectomy but an abortion.

War is morally neutral. It can be a just war or an unjust war, according to the teaching of the Church. If a bomb is dropped during a just war, the dropping of a bomb, even if it has a secondary effect of harming civilians, is not ever intrinsically evil if that is not its primary intent.

NFP is morally neutral. Avoiding an act, in this case the marital embrace, is neither licit nor illicit. However NFP can be used licitly in the case of serious reason. Where no serious reason exists, it's use in immoral. But it is not intrinsically, by its very nature, immoral.

The use of contraception is, however, intrinsically evil according to the constant teaching of Christianity. It's use, even in the (small) chance of a virus causing birth defects, is still intrinsically evil. The principle of double effect does not apply. It cannot ever make an intrinsically evil act morally acceptable.

Unfortunately, the pope is mistaken if he believe the presence of a virus can make something intrinsically, by its very nature, evil, into something morally acceptable.

In this case, critics are simply agreeing with the constant teaching of Christianity, which a pope cannot change. They are not preferring the guidance of "individuals" but of the constant teaching of the Church.

Unfortunately in this case, if a pope thinks contraception is not inherently evil (and if in this case Pope Francis thinks so) he has preferred the guidance of an individual, himself, over the constant teaching of Christianity. But a pope does not have the authority to do so. He must simply defend and proclaim the deposit of faith. That closed with the death of the last apostle, and a pope cannot make any contrary 'deposit' to Divine Revelation in opposition to it.

Development of doctrine may provide a deeper understanding, but it may never reverse prior teaching.

 

Thank you.

That is what I was trying to say but you explained much better than me

 

Thank you.

Correction:

There are never any circumstances in which it is not prohibited​

 

I'm pleased to hear that you have studied this matter 'at length'. As you are new on the forum (joining yesterday), perhaps you could give us a bit of background on where you studied the topic?

I'm less pleased to hear that you are another recruit to the 'I know better than the Pope' brigade but that seems to be life at the moment.

I'm not going to get into an argument or discussion with you on this but let me just copy two sentences for you to reflect on. The first sentence is a simplified version of one sentence from your post while the second sentence uses your same logic to 'show' that the use of condoms to control the Zika virus would also not be intrinsically evil:

the dropping of a bomb which kills innocent people is not ever intrinsically evil if that is not its primary intent.

the use of a condom which prevents conception is not ever intrinsically evil if that is not its primary intent.
​

 

Hi David,

I'm not the new guy, but am interested in your question. Are you really trying to vet new members now? Is that the welcome committee?

You've been here a long time, but I don't recall seeing a bit of background on where you studied theology and religion. In another thread you felt confident in your ability to judge a seminary professor and exorcist as "being out of his depth" on the subject of discerning apparitions. What do you bring to the table as an MOG expert? I've never asked before, but if you're opening the door to that kind of questioning here, perhaps you will model the behavior you are demanding from "catechist."

I am mostly away from MOG discussion, but will be back in a few days.

 

We are all a little testy lately.

But David only asked a simple question. It depends how you read it. I'm interested too...because his answer was well written.

Brother al

 

I think you used a little bit of 'poetic licence' in suggesting that I 'demanded' to know a bit about 'catechist'. I asked him the question because he encouraged us to believe he knew more than most on the topic in question.

See you in a few days then, Harper.

 

1. L et me get this straight Janet, do you believe in the theory of global warming?

I have no idea whether its true or not, but I do know that we have a moral duty to care for creation..

Father Dwight Longnecker explains the strategy behind the encyclical: “The Pope successfully integrates a theology of creation into the ecology debate. He affirms, as so many environmentalists affirm, that ‘all things are connected.’ In doing so he then connects the rights of the unborn, the needs of the poor, the rights of immigrants, the needs of the elderly and disabled, and the rightful demands of the workers.” Many non-Catholics who are interested in reading the Papal encyclical will learn about Catholic teaching on a host of moral issues that they have probably have never been willing to listen to before. There is a lot in this encyclical that the global warming establishment will not like. For example, warmists will be challenged by Pope Francis when he states that it is “incoherent” to be concerned with climate change while at the same time supporting abortion."

2. Are you Joe Crozier's sister?

No..I am not Joe's sister.

 

So where is is the offending material?

 

http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=47706

 

http://www.educazioneaffettiva.org/?lang=en

 

That wasn't the question...we want to know what is wrong. You stated over and over it was offensive but you never said what. I skimmed most of the pictures and didn't find anything offensive.

But maybe you found something.

Brother al

 

Lol . I expect Janet to say the same.

That is what is wrong. The fact you can no longer recognise error. Some of you are hopeless .