I am feeling a little despondent, the German bishop are stirring up the waters of the Rhine, by teaching the acceptability of the "morning after" pill even some of our own sillier bishops lapsing into that political nonsense of left and right, conservative and liberal. Part of this is political manoevering, part is silliness and part is a deliberate and diabolic attack on the Church's unity.
On the Feast of the Chair of Peter, it is worth remembering that not only is the Petrine charism giving to the Bishop of Rome but it is something given to the whole Church. Being Catholic means that we accept that Peter speaks not only to us but for us, this is not a "bolt on" to the Church but something of its very essence, and certainly something given to it by Jesus Christ, for those not in visible and recognisable communion with Peter there is something deficient in their Christianity.
In order for Peter to exercise his charism it is necessary for the members of the Church to excercise a certain docility, not merely to Peter but through Peter to Christ. In order for Peter to feed Christ's lambs and sheep it is necessary the should be willing to accept the food they are offered.
Disunity is a scandal, it takes away the credibility of the Church which is wicked, but more importantly it destroys credibility in Christ himself.
During this time of confusion, the last week before the See of Rome becomes vacant it is perhaps easy to identify the hired men rather than the true shepherds.
11 comments:
And one or other of those B's (Bishops, of course!) could become Pope! But then...it would not be the first time we had a bad Pope.
We should prepare ourselves for the election of a less than fully orthodox pope, not letting that unfortunate event weaken our faith.
Remember the Apostles distress on the stormy sea while Our Lord slept.
Here's what the late, great Fr. Haydock said about those verses:
(Matthew 8:23-25)
Ver. 23. This bark is the Catholic Church. The sea denotes the world, the winds and tempests shew the attempts of the wicked spirits to overturn the Church. The Lord seems to sleep, when he permits his Church to suffer persecution and other trials, which he permits, that he may prove her faith, and reward her virtue and merits. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxiii. in Mat. viii.) The apostles had followed their divine Master. They were with him, and executing his orders, and it is under these circumstances they are overtaken with a storm. If their obedience to Jesus Christ, if his presence did not free them from danger, to what frightful storms do those persons expose themselves, who undertake the voyage of the present life without him? What can they expect but to be tossed to and fro for a time, and at last miserably to founder? Faithful souls ought, from the example here offered them, to rise superior to every storm and tempest, by invoking the all-powerful and ever ready assistance of heaven, and by always calling in God to their help before they undertake any thing of moment. (Haydock)
Ver. 26. Why are you fearful, having me with you? Do you suppose that sleep can take from me the knowledge of your danger, or the power of relieving you? (Haydock) --- He commanded the winds. Christ shewed himself Lord and Master of the sea and winds. His words in St. Mark (iv. 39,) demonstrate his authority: Rising up he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace, be still. (Witham) --- As before our Lord restored Peter's mother-in-law on the spot, not only to health, but to her former strength; so here he shews himself supreme Lord of all things, not only by commanding the winds to cease, but, moreover, by commanding a perfect calm to succeed. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxix.) How many times has he preserved his Catholic Church, when (to all human appearance, and abstracting from his infallible promises) she has been in the most imminent danger of perishing? How many times by a miracle, or interposition of his omnipotence, less sensible indeed, but not less real, has he rescued our souls, on the point of being swallowed up in the infernal abyss? (Haydock) --- He commands the mute elements to be subservient to his wish. He commands the sea, and it obeys him; he speaks to the winds and tempests, and they are hushed; he commands every creature, and they obey. Man, and man only, man honoured in a special manner by being made after the image and likeness of his Creator, to whom speech and reason are given, dares to disobey and despise his Creator. (St. Augustine, hom. in Mat.)
I think it is important to point out the fact that the bishops only approved of those forms of emergency contraception which do not cause abortions and only in the case of rape.
A woman always has the right to stop a rape at any time before conception and by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force against her attacker.
What the bishops said is in full agreement with all the official teachings of the Catholic Church. There is no dissent here.
If in the case of rape, why not at other times?
Isn't the "morning after pill" an abortofacient?
Yes this pill is both a contraceptive and an abortofacient.
So it is unacceptable. Here we have the problem of unapostolic inventions called episcopal conferences and the core of national churches. Matters like this are not voted on by bishops. How dare a group of bishops (German bishops) repeat and cave in to the same sort of pressures they historically have already fallen for. The Church didn't put up much of a fight before WWI and WWII. Yes there were brave individual bishops...but being any nationality must come second to being a Christian. That includes cultural bias such as conforming.. which whether politically left or right Germans seem to fall for in a most predictable way.
I suppose the question is that a woman can take whatever steps she can to prevent conception as a result of rape. The morning after pill can prevent conception but how does she know if conception has not taken place in which case she would be killing an innocent human being? It seems to me therefore that the morning after pill is therefore not licit.
It appears that the German Bishops have been misadvised on the nature and effects of the "morning after pill"
As has been mentioned above, whatever other effects it has, it is always an abortifacient and so its use can never be morally justified.
It is amazing to see what liberal cancers are exposing themselves before the Pope has even stepped down. All the more prayers needed for a strong, orthodox successor.
Some "morning after pills" are abortifacient. The bishops specifically said that what they approved is not.
As to your first question, rape is clearly different from consensual sexual relations. A woman can stop a rape in any way possible because it is a matter of self-defense. Hence, the principle of double effect applies as explained by St Thomas Aquinas. The contraceptive is used to stop the violation of her person by the rapist. That is the object of choice by the woman and her doctor and that is a good.
The prevention of the pregnancy is an unavoidable consequence just as the death of an attacker can be the unavoidable consequence of a legitimate act of self-defense.
To argue that a woman must allow a rape to continue to its natural biological conclusion would result in making all forms of self-defense illicit. Certainly not something that the Church teaches.
My understanding is that the Morning After Pill is not always abortifacient but is potentially so. It apparently can prevent the ovum being fertilised and if it only did that it would be acceptable in the circumstances of rape. But if conception has taken place it can prevent the conceptus attaching itself to the wall of the womb which is essential for development. Thus it becomes an abortifacient. That is the problem which makes it unacceptable.
"A woman always has the right to stop a rape at any time before conception and by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force against her attacker."
The baby is not the attacker.
Mundabor
Mundabor,
She might have the right but generally not the physical strength.
Post a Comment