Contrasting Views on Contraceptive Devices

Although some people (mostly conservative Romanists) would like you to think that the Roman Catholic Church has only one view on contraceptives, the issue is actually one on which there is a degree of disagreement, as illustrated in the following two articles:

On the “pro” side, Manuel Clemente, Bishop of Porto (link to article).

“Speaking to journalists, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Porto Manuel Clemente said condoms in such cases are ‘not only recommendable, they can be ethically obligatory.'”

vs.

On the “con” side, Matthew Bellisario, editor of the “Catholic Champion” web site (link to article)

“Well how does this genius think that AIDS is spread? Does MR Juppe know that it spreads by having sex, and that condoms promote sexual intercourse among people in Africa that have AIDS? Condoms are not 100% effective and the disease is primarily spread by sexual intercourse. Wow, I just wonder how someone like this clown becomes a Prime Minister in any country outside of Wonderland.”

***

Obviously, Mr. Bellisario is not making his comment directly to Bishop Clemente, and perhaps he’d be embarrassed to call one of the bishops of his church a “clown” – though he does not hesitate to law on the compliments when it comes to the former prime minister. But leaving aside the bombastic nature of Bellisario’s remarks, what we see from this comparison of views is that the typical Romanist apologetic argument that we need Rome to give us unity on issues like contraception (which are not explicitly addressed in Scripture) is wrong as a matter of fact: although Rome provides organizational unity, that organizational unity masks great doctrinal and moral disunity.

-TurretinFan

6 Responses to “Contrasting Views on Contraceptive Devices”

  1. Kelly Says:

    TF, you may find the discussions at my blog surrounding the Winnipeg Statement interesting. You probably don’t know what the Winnipeg Statement was, but it was a response by the Canadian Bishops to Humanae Vitae, and the Statement remains controversial…I think also I will have to produce a post on this matter of those calling for the necessary use of condoms…

  2. Turretinfan Says:

    Kelly, I had noticed this post of yours, although it does not seem to address the full measure and extent of the number of bishops that don’t necessarily agree with a rigid interpretation of Humanae Vita (HV).Furthermore, it’s worth noting that Vatican II does not attach any anathemas to a rejection of its teaching on life (or to any of its teachings at all).If you are familiar with the theology of Rome, you will understand the significance of such an omission.-TurretinFan

  3. Turretinfan Says:

    Oops – fake link. Here’s the real link to Kelly’s blog.

  4. Kelly Says:

    You no doubt are perhaps aware that instead of commenting explicity on artificial forms of birth regulation during Vatican II, Paul VI commissioned a study of the matter, and when the majority report produced their conclusions on the matter, they were not the ones followed by Paul in Humanae Vitae. I’m not judging one way or another, simply noting the disagreement…And I agree, the Winnipeg Statement though condemned by people who most often haven’t read it as liberal or revolution, is fairly conservative, and since then others have had to move beyond it…

  5. Anonymous Says:

    It seems Bellisario is engaging with you again. He has just referenced you in his most recent post, and in my latest post, I reject his claim…

  6. Turretinfan Says:

    Link to Kelly’s Post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: