A moral question - which is moving more efficaciously towards the good?

[Suslar]

After reading an article on Our Sunday Visitor website with Fr. Martin Rhonheimer’s thoughts about the Pope’s comments in “Light of the World,” someone posted this question:

There are two men - one has sex with a prostitute but uses a condom in order to avoid disease transmission. The second has sex without a condom because he is raping a woman and wants to conceive a child with her. In short, both men are committing an evil act, but both do so with a good moral intention, so both men are moving towards the good, right? Except one merely wants to inhibit disease transmission, while the other hopes to bring into existence an immortal human person who may praise God for all ages. So, which is moving more efficaciously towards the good? The fornicator with the temporary good of disease transmission in mind, or the rapist with the eternal good of bringing a new human person into existence in mind? Both are moving towards the good, so which is doing a better job?

osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7267/Ethicist-Pope-intended-condom-useAIDS-reflection.aspx

I responded that the fornicator, while still engaging in immoral behavior, but who suddenly realizes that he should have concern for his partner, is at the first step in moral awakening; the first step in living more humanly and realizing that people do not have the right to do what they please or to treat people without regard. And that the rapist, who may have an intention of transmitting life, is contemplating an act of violence that forces the victim to submission through intimidation and fear – which is hardly the most appropriate scenario for transmission of new life – but also trying to use an “ends justifies the means” situation. Would it be the morally correct teaching of the Church to say in this example the first man is attempting to reduce evil; the second is planning on causing great evil (rape) in the hopes of possibly generating some good. But both men are still committing evil acts – the good intention does not convert an evil action into good one. Was my response sound and in line with Church teaching? How would you have responded?

 

[Corki]

The flaw in the argument is that the rapist does not have a good intent. His intention is to rape. He is inserting his DNA through agression. His hope is that there will be a good result but the child is a fortunate side effect not a truly good end in the moral sense.

 

[EmeraldWings]

well, regarding that scenario, i’d say neither men are “moving” towards good, because for one, the ends never justify the means, and two, there is no real love in either motive,

the men in that hypothetical scenario may think they have good intentions, but in reality, no good would come from it, they are both committing mortal sins, and whatever “good” they think will come of it, will not, because God would certainly not bless such evil,
instead, as slaves to sin, and therefore slaves to satan, they would be leaving themselves weaker and more subject to his evil suggestions and to their own evil inclinations…

the motives, despite what they may think, are not in tune with Gods law,
because in the first place, a child should be conceived and brought up in a loving family and not outside marriage, and secondly, the reason these kinds of diseases came about in the first place is because of these sins against purity,
sin never causes good, it never moves towards good,
although God can bring good out of evil, but we cannot,

the men may think they have good motive, but in reality it is selfish motive, because it’s about what they want, and not about what God wants or what the other person wants.
and while they think good will come of it, they are not considering what bad will come from it, because there is no guarantee that good will come from it, but we know for sure that bad will definitely come from it…

so, that is what i have to say on the matter.