ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_1

[Ella]

I wouldn’t have put that last post (about condoms and Aids) in this thread, Josea because it muddies the water. It needs a thread of its own.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

1. It is not directly contraceptive. It is a “preventive sterilization” and I and others consider it indirect.

What you are trying to do is sterilize a woman (preventive sterilization) to prevent her from having children because doing so might cause her death? Sounds like direct sterilization. It is direct sterilization because that is all that is present…sterilization.

Show me soemthing anything that is wrong with the organ now…a disease name…something that harms the bearer of this cross that is present when they are not pregnant. If it is sufficently negative in effect then removal of the organ (if no other options are available ) may be possible because of what the organ is doing…NOT…NEVER what the organ **might **be doing.

Under the Mercy,

Matt

Got to go to work…more to come.

 

[felra]

josea:

We will see if I am correct or not. If a pregnancy can not be happily ended because it would kill the woman and the baby (for sure) I would not say the “reproductive function” is alright! Sorry but it is not. It would be alright if the whole process would take place without danger until the end. You are looking only to the ovaries, fallopian tubes and uterus as a reproductive organs. I am talking about the whole reproductive function that starts with the possibility of fecundation until the delivery of a kind. This is the reproductive function. If one of the steps fails the whole process fails. If one of the steps is disturbed by a disease the whole process is affected by the disease. Jose

The fatal flaw in your whole argument/logic, is your repeated attempts to redefine the intrinsic procreative good of our human sexuality and conjugal love to one simply of *biological function and processes. *“Sexuality, ……is not something simply biological, but concerns the inmost being of the person as such” (CCC 2361). Take out/redefine the procreative good and replace with biological process/function then you can logically extend any argument for contraceptive intercourse.

 

[felra]

josea:

I understand the Church teachings so: **if a woman has a serious medical problem with her reproductive function she has to give up her normal sexual relations (I do not consider NFP here), even if medicine would help her to achieve a normal sexual life preventing the risk for ever. **

This is what I think is totally illogical. …As I said before the Church neither approves in this case … But it neither accepts this preventive sterilization as licit …Jose

The problem is not that the Church does not approve or accept your “special case”, but that you do not accept and give approval (assent) to what the Church authoritatively and consitently has taught.

 

[felra]

josea:

But it neither accepts this preventive sterilization as licit because the woman can exercise her free will IN THE FUTURE to abstain from sex!

To me this is also illogical.

Jose

**"…to abstain from sex!" **my gosh, how could God via the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morality request such a thing! Is this really the crux of the matter?

 

[felra]

josea:

I think that, while the teachings about contraception are irreformable and definitive, the teachings about this particular case are far from definitive because a big misunderstanding is taking place here: This is not about contraception.Jose

Correct. This is about morality, and what it means as a faithful Catholic to live out our vocations in holiness of life and person in the particular circumstances and difficulties (crosses) of our lives.

 

[felra]

josea:

To me this is also illogical. I think the whole issue is* very complicatedand* depends on the point of view**:… That is why there are so many people among many Church authorities thinking that this principle can be apply here without any problems. …I have learn this from an authority (not suspicious at all) of the Church …I pray to God that He might bring the whole thing clear to all of us
Jose

Yes, let’s keep the whole issue* very complicated* and seek out a multitude of teachers and “Church authorities” to confirm your point of view. Morality by consensus?

 

[felra]

**This is nothing to do with our discussion because I am not talking about contraception but there is an example of a theological problematic about the use of condoms in case of Aids that is changing within the Church. In this case the theologian of the Pope does not consider it as “intrinsically evil” because it is not aimed as a contraceptive method. **He is the most senior figure so far to argue that condoms should be admissible in exceptional circumstances.

Look at the following article:

“Cardinal says condoms could help to stop Aids**” at**

guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1403083,00.html

And now …the next authoritaive “Church authority” to offer dissenting opinion … for this “exceptional circumstance” …

You really are becoming quite transparent in your subjective, relativistic morality.

 

[josea]

**"…to abstain from sex!" **
my gosh, how could God via the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morality request such a thing! Is this really the crux of the matter?

Dear felra,

You are saying all the time that sexuality is more than the physical thing and it is. That is why should be considered as part of a totality. But I did not want to bring this here because of the danger of being classified as a proportionalist. Sexual life is more than procreation is also communication and brings the spouses together in a way than few other means can achieve.

That is why is so important to preserve it even if the woman is not able to have more children because a medical condition. That is why it should be allowed to eliminate the procreative part of sexuality for medical reasons in favour of the whole.

This is not proportionalism. This is the application of the principle of totality.

The traditional moral allows also the two effects case when the action taken is not intrinsically evil. In this case the action is not intrinsically evil because it is a medical amputation necessary to safe the totality of a normal life, and sexuality is a part of this totality. The secondary effect, indirect, non-wanted effect is the impossibility to procreate.

We are not the only ones discussing this. This is a big discussion among theologians and that is why a brought the issue about the condoms. Traditional moral principles apply in the case of the condoms also. The primary intention is not to avoid procreation but to prevent disease. In our case the primary intention is not to contracept, it is to suppress a medical risk for the woman. You could also argue that the person affected with aids should abstain and not use a condom but it does not seem to be taking into account as the only way to act.

Take it as you want, we can not solve this here.

Jose

 

[fix]

I think the Church has “solved” it already. She rejects ABC, within the conjugal act, for any reason. Period. I have heard for years it will change, or came “close” to changing. It will never happen.

 

[felra]

josea:

Dear felra,
You are saying all the time that sexuality is more than the physical thing and it is. That is why should be considered as part of a totality. But I did not want to bring this here because of the danger of being classified as a proportionalist. Sexual life is more than procreation is also communication and brings the spouses together in a way than few other means can achieve.

That is why is so important to preserve it even if the woman is not able to have more children because a medical condition. That is why it should be allowed to eliminate the procreative part of sexuality for medical reasons in favour of the whole.

This is not proportionalism. This is the application of the principle of totality.

Jose

You are advancing the proportionalist principle of totality in your flawed argument that has beenm definitively refuted by the Magesterium:

“As Paul IV made clear in *Humanae Vitae, *no. 14, the proposal to evaluate actions directed toward *premoral *goods by the proportionalist principle of the lesser evil does not avoid the inconsistency between proportionalism and the received moral teaching of the Church on the meaning of the principle that the end does not justify the means” and “To allow contraception one must deny that procreation is a good, or assert that it is sometimes permissible to act directly against basic human good”, (Catholic Sexual Ethics,Updated, p. 162-163, Lawler, Boyle, and May, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Our Sunday Visitor, 1996. “It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow there from”(Humanae Vitae).

 

[felra]

josea:

Take it as you want, we can not solve this here.

Jose

I am not looking to solve what the Church has already spoken clearly and authoritatively about.

 

[josea]

Dear felra,

You, an others, insist in saying that “preventive sterilization” is always “intrinsic evil” and I, and others, insist saying that it is not intrinsically evil and that it is morally correct.

There is no way to solve this here.

Regards,

Jose

 

[josea]

and I insist: I am not talking about contraception but about “prophylactic sterilization” for very serious medical reasons.

If you see it as contraception then there is no way that we could reach an agreement. Because contracpetion is always morally wrong.
But I am a bit tired of repeating the arguments.
Bye now,
Jose

 

[fix]

josea:

and I insist: I am not talking about contraception but about “prophylactic sterilization” for very serious medical reasons.

If you see it as contraception then there is no way that we could reach an agreement. Because contracpetion is always morally wrong.
But I am a bit tired of repeating the arguments.
Bye now,
Jose

But, your intention is to contracept. Just changing the name does not change the intent.

 

[Ella]

*“But, your intention is to contracept. Just changing the name does not change the **intent.”

*Is that his intent? Perhaps someone really does want kids, doesn’t want to contracept, but knows that she cannot have children because if she gets pregnant she and the child will die. In this situation the ability to conceive is not a ‘normal function’ because it always results in her death. Thus why must she preserve the ability to conceive? I think that is what Josea is asking.

Also, I know that on the Internet people can pretend they are someone in a situation, and Josea might not really have a wife with this sort of condition, but on the chance that he does, remember that you are talking to someone who very well may never have children, and that is a sadness that he is having to bear. I will pray for you and your family, Josea.

 

[fix]

Is that his intent?

Well, yes. Why would someone want to render themselves sterile when there is no pathology present?

Perhaps someone really does want kids, doesn’t want to contracept, but knows that she cannot have children because if she gets pregnant she and the child will die. In this situation the ability to conceive is not a ‘normal function’ because it always results in her death.

Abstain or NFP.

Thus why must she preserve the ability to conceive? I think that is what Josea is asking.

I would say because their organs are healthy…

Also, I know that on the Internet people can pretend they are someone in a situation, and Josea might not really have a wife with this sort of condition, but on the chance that he does, remember that you are talking to someone who very well may never have children, and that is a sadness that he is having to bear. I will pray for you and your family, Josea.

I hate to speak to specific situations online because it is not fair or prudent. Let us stay in the general sense. Many want a loophole. It does not exist. The Church has spoken. Why is obedience so hard? We all struggle with it, but it is part of salvation.

 

[josea]

fix:

But, your intention is to contracept. Just changing the name does not change the intent.

NO!!! That is the big difference!!! My intention is not to contracept and I do not change the name. My primary (and teh work primary is important) intention is to avoid that a diseased reproductive function, when at work, will kill the woman. The secondary unwanted effect is that she will no have more children.

The same is also being considered in the case of condoms and aids.
Regards,
Jose

 

[josea]

Sorry about my dyslexic fingers.

 

[josea]

*"But, your intention is to contracept. Just changing the name does not change the *intent."

Is that his intent? Perhaps someone really does want kids, doesn’t want to contracept, but knows that she cannot have children because if she gets pregnant she and the child will die. In this situation the ability to conceive is not a ‘normal function’ because it always results in her death. Thus why must she preserve the ability to conceive? I think that is what Josea is asking.

Also, I know that on the Internet people can pretend they are someone in a situation, and Josea might not really have a wife with this sort of condition, but on the chance that he does, remember that you are talking to someone who very well may never have children, and that is a sadness that he is having to bear. I will pray for you and your family, Josea.

Ella, You see the point. But our situation is real. We have already three children but my wife would be in a serious risk with a new pregnancy.
Fix insists in NFP or abstain from sex. He still does not see that clasical moral principles could be applied to our situation.
Thanks for your prayers,
Jose