Posted on 02/18/2016 6:29:35 PM PST by marshmallow
I would like to know more about this case. I first heard of it 30 years ago from Richard Doerflinger over at the USCCB Office for Pro Life Activities.
My understanding-— admittedly fragmentary -— is that it was not precisely a question of permission. One does not, cannot, seek permission for a sin. They just needed a clarification of what constitutes the sin of contraception.
Makes sense to me.
I don’t think there is a lot more to know about it, the Paul VI part seems apocryphal. There’s a comment from a doctor over at Fr. Z’s blog that confirms parts of it.
Regardless, the Holy See has doubled down and emphasized that the Pope was speaking of contraceptives and not nfp.
I’m thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis close to casting my lot with the sspx. I think they may be on to something.
BREAKING: Vatican affirms Pope was speaking about contraceptives for Zika
The “pill” is abortifacient.
Right here, from your post #25:
...then yes, any woman at real risk of rape could use a protective device. For instance a diaphragm and spermicide.
Every woman is at a real risk of rape, except maybe for cloistered nuns. Read the papers. Sheesh.
Mrs. Don-o, I've just spent nearly an hour searching, and everything seems to rest on a 1993 article in the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica. This seems to be the only source for the assertion that the Belgian nuns received permission from somebody. I am not certain who the author of the article is, let alone who allegedly gave the permission, let alone if it was written permission.
Every other justification for using contraceptives without sin if in threat of rape hinges on this article in La Civilta Cattolica.
La Civilta Cattolica does not seem to be available online. I am going to hunt for a copy at a university library.
I had read an essay some years ago where a Catholic ethicist said that nuns in missionary countries had this permission, and I was astonished -- and, frankly, appalled. If memory serves, the ethicist wrote that the nuns were given IUD coils, which I believe fall under the category of abortifacients.
Unfortunately, I did not write down where I'd read it, and later attempt to find that essay were unsuccessful. (And on the rare occasion when I'd remember it, I never thought of searching the topic on the internet.) I never came across the assertion again until Pope Francis brought it up the other day.
So I will try to track down that article, now that I know where to look. But I'm expecting that the Jesuit won't have any documentation, and that we're just supposed to take his word for it.
“close to casting my lot with the sspx.”
No, please don’t do that, Legatus. Paul VI defended the truth in Humanae Vitae. But Popes can make off the cuff remarks that don’t broach infallibility such as these words of Francis at a press conference, or Benedict’s book interview, or Paul VI’s interpretation of the African situation. This is disappointing, but stay with the Church, offer up your sufferings, and take up Francis’ request to pray for him because he needs it, as he says.
I would have heard about the incident in 1986, when I was working (in the lowliest of munchkin capacities) for the USCCB Pro-Life Office. So Richard Doerflinger's source must have been earlier than that Civilta Cattolica article.
I'll be gone most of today but will tr to get back to things this evening. God bless you.
The uniqueness of the Belgian medical missionaries' situation was that they operated remote mission stations and did not think it right to abandon their patients. The Congolese rebel forces were using universal rape as a terrorist tactic. The Sisters were not recklessly resigning themselves to being raped, but foreseeing the awful possibility and trying to limit its effect, which is morally blameless and proportional.
My answer, which you cite, can't stand on its own, but only in the context of a similarly extreme situation.
I do reject, however, the notion one sometimes encounters on threads like this one, that most women face an extreme rape exposure because most men present a rape risk. I think that's Andrea-Dworkin-level anti-male propaganda. And the statistics do not bear it out.
I'm applying the principle of Double Effect here, and that always requires a very strict scrutiny all of the elements: motive, method, effect, and proportionality. It's not something I would propose for situations short of what the medical mission nuns were facing.
BTW, contraception is wrong in itself, but abortion is worse.
An IUD is abortifacient, and moreover, it does not meet the criterion of providing an actual barrier to the invasion of a rapist's sperm.
That seems to have been the key point in the application of Double Effect. The analogy is with body armor, a bullet-proof vest to prevent shooting injury, or, say, a "chastity belt" to prevent entry into the body.
A person has a moral right to prevent invasion of their body. A barrier method (diaphragm) would do that as its intended effect, which is morally licit. The contraceptive effect is not what is directly intended: the "no-invasion" effect is what is intended.
I take this to be the key part of the moral analysis.
But I know so little for sure about the Congo case. I really hope somebody publishes something on this which will clarify both the exact conditions and the moral reasoning. To come back to the original point of this discussion: Zika? This actually has nothing to do with Zika. The more I think of it, the more I am perplexed and disturbed that Pope Francis would bring this up in the context of the Zika situation.
If Pope Francis means what I think he means, he is seriously in the wrong.
I wonder what we actually know about this supposed case. Maybe Pope Francis will fill in the details or someone will do a story about it.
So you are thinking the Congo nuns asked permission to basically see if they could talk their rapists into letting them use some sort of physical barrier method when they were raped, or were hoping to try to sneak it past their rapists?
Freegards
However, you can see the practical problem. They really didn't have any kind of long-acting barrier method in 1960. Diaphragms with spermicide can be inserted hours, maybe a much as 12 hours, before possible sexual contact. However, the more time-lapse between the insertion of the diaphragm w/ spermicide, and sexual contact, the greater chance that the contraceptive will not work anyway. In truth, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.
If I'm right in thinking that interposing a "barrier" was the whole point--- preventing the deep entry of sperm into the uterus --- it would make more sense to have a barrier against any penetration whatsoever, i.e. something like a chastity belt? But maybe then the Congolese rebels would become infuriated and kill you.
The complicating part is that the nuns didn't want to flee, because that would mean abandoning their patients at the mission stations. In that case, the real options seem to be: (1) evacuate everyone: nuns, patients and all; (2) if that's not possible, just order the nuns to get outta there, whether they want to or not. Holy obedience! Or (3) give them guns to defend themselves and their patients.
Nasty situation, that. What do you think?
That it is a nasty situation, like you said. God bless them, no matter what they did as far as I am concerned.
Without further details I reckon it is only speculation as concerns what they supposedly asked permission to use. Chastity girdles were probably only practically effective in cultures that valued the purpose of such things in the first place. I reckon the nuns needed something that would prevent conception, undetectable or accepted by a Congolese rapist, and wouldn’t be an abortifacient.
Freegards
Actually abortion:contraceptive mentality = symptom:cause
Many more children are killed by the pill than abortion, roughly a dozen per year times 30 years. I would not want those witnesses at my tribunal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.