Barrier Method vs. NFP

[Questionful]

To start with, what makes you think I am a “sir”?

I’m sorry if I’ve made the wrong assumption. I felt that it if the opposite were the case, you would be less offended.

I’m sorry that you cannot see how to equate NFP with skipping a meal. It’s a very straightforward analogy. You say that it’s unfair to connect it with intentionally throwing up – but I would simply ask you why intentionally throwing up a meal is bad? If you can answer that, then we can see if the leap to birth control is feasible.

It’s bad because society has deemed it immoral, and because it has negative biological effects on the body. I find that bulimia is an immoral act not because of the claim that it degrades the purpose of food, but because it’s a reflection of how badly a person’s self-image has been degraded.

Yes, analogies can only go so far, but I again have to point out that you are hung up on the ends while I am discussing the means.

Then what can your argument possibly be? That a strip of latex is intrinsically evil? I’ll concede that my attempt at an analogy was a poor one, and one that does not demonstrate my point after the stated events.

I’ve been arguing for the morality of both means. NFP, to you, is perfectly okay because semen flows into the vagina. You’re arguing that every aspect of the sexual act must be present except for the egg. The egg exist, but it isn’t present – thus, it can’t be fertilized. If that’s your reasoning, what’s the difference in using the barrier method? You’re keeping the sperm from fertilizing the egg. The sperm exist, but they aren’t able to meet the egg.

BTW, did you get a chance to read the items from Seatuck’s post or Mark’s? Since my explanations seem to be falling flat, their links may be very helpful.

I have looked at their links, but I know their arguments, and I think that the reasoning stems more out of loyalty to authority than inspired, knowledgeable thought. Their conclusions were made for them, and they attempted to justify their conclusion.

 

[surritter]

If the goal is to have avoid pregnancy, why is it wrong to use barrier methods over NFP?

FYI – your assumption was correct. I was just playfully yanking the chain.

I’m glad that you say that bulimia degrades the person. That’s exactly what artificial contraception does (and why my analogy was closer than you are willing to admit). Catholics aren’t prudes, and we aren’t hung up about every egg getting fertilized. But we realize that messing with the purposes of sex is degrading to the personhood of the spouses. The man should respect everything about the woman, including her fertility. If they decide that fertility is to be avoided for now, then the man respects that and stays away. Isn’t that different than engaging in the marital act but shunning her fertility? Their goals would be the same, but we claim that the woman can’t be divided up into a “pleasure” person and a “babymaking” person. Yet that’s what condoms are designed to do! A strip of latex is not intrinsically evil. But in this case the way it is used drives a wedge into the personhood of the wife.

Your quote that I’ve isolated above is exactly the issue, and I’m glad that you put it so succinctly.

First, your question prompts an important baseline that needs to be in place first. I maintain that just because a goal is moral does NOT mean that all means to achieve that goal are moral. Based on your other responses, I think you agree. So let’s look at what sex is for, and see if its purposes are fulfilled by the NFP couple and the condom couple.

Tell me where you think I go wrong here…

Sex is for expressing love between spouses, sharing intimacy, also for fun/pleasure, and it is a way of propagating the species.

If any of those elements are missing by chance, it is not wrong. (Example: if one spouse isn’t finding this particular time fun, he/she can still go through with it.)

However, if the couple intentionally isolates and eliminates any of those elements, they are saying that “we want to engage in sex, but must take this element out and put in on the shelf for tonight.”

The NFP couple does not say that. They say: “we don’t want this element (pregnancy) tonight so we’ll avoid sex.” They have the same goal as the condom couple, but they refuse to isolate one element. That is why NFP is moral but barrier methods are not; NFP respects the entire person, fertility and all.

Perhaps another can of worms, but these same reasons are why in vitro fertilization is also immoral. (It’s not immoral to want a baby, but again it’s the MEANS that can be degrading to human sexuality, and thus to the person.)

 

[tjm190]

I’m highly reluctant to allow myself to become involved in a debate on this subject once again, but here are the fruits of insomnia.

At this point in time, we are in agreement on the following things-

1. It is not a sin to skip a meal (although skipping meals is a highly ineffective way to lose weight)
2. It is not a sin to abstain from sex (although I’m not convinced Paul was of this opinion)

Since it is not a sin to abstain from sex, NFP can not be a sin right? The argument is, as I understand it, since none of the individual actions are sinful (abstaining from sex) the process itself can not possibly sinful. True?

 

[Questionful]

FYI – your assumption was correct. I was just playfully yanking the chain.

I’m glad to know that we both aren’t taking adversarial positions with one another. That means that we both can respectfully argue our stances on this controversial issue.

I’m glad that you say that bulimia degrades the person. That’s exactly what artificial contraception does (and why my analogy was closer than you are willing to admit). Catholics aren’t prudes, and we aren’t hung up about every egg getting fertilized.

Well, I later changed that. It’s my opinion that Bulimia doesn’t degrade a person, but it shows signs that their self-image has been degraded to such a point that they participate in behavior.

But we realize that messing with the purposes of sex is degrading to the personhood of the spouses. The man should respect everything about the woman, including her fertility. If they decide that fertility is to be avoided for now, then the man respects that and stays away.

Yes, but barrier methods do not mess with the purposes of sex, and it does not lead to the degradation of our spouses.

I’d also argue that because most American Catholics have practiced a form of artificial contraception in the past, that most Catholics probably don’t believe that barrier methods/condoms are degrading to the individual.

Reference: harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=608
+/- 2 Margin of Error.

If anything, it’s NFP that messes with the purpose of sex. I say this because sex is occurring only under circumstances where conception isn’t even probable, because you’re only having sex when the egg is no longer present. With condoms, sex can probably be more open to life. Conception may occur when a person uses condoms, even when they use them perfectly! Condoms can tear, they can be poorly used, and sperm can be transferred just by handling them!

Isn’t that different than engaging in the marital act but shunning her fertility? Their goals would be the same, but we claim that the woman can’t be divided up into a “pleasure” person and a “babymaking” person.

I know that your intentions are pure, but I think that in the process of arguing your point, the people involved have been dehumanized to a theoretical notion of what a person is, and what they experience.

I feel that it’s been this experience that has led the Church to their teachings. They’ve become so involved in the argument, and less involved in the humanity – And that humanity is where the truth ultimately lies. That’s just my opinion, though.

Back to the matter at hand, it’s my opinion that NFP shuns the fertility. NFP avoids fertility, and it actually does make that division that you say can’t happen. By having sex when an egg can’t be present, and will not be present while the sperm are still alive, are you being true to the procreative aspect of sex?

I understand your argument. You’re saying that a person who uses barrier methods basically pushes fertility aside, paying little to no reverence of it’s existence. If this is your argument, I wholeheartedly disagree. Barrier methods of contraception pay a greater respect to fertility, as it does not separate fertility from the act. Fertility is not being avoided, like it is in NFP. The barrier method being employed and fertility may coexist – and it does. Maury Povich wouldn’t be as popular as he is if this weren’t true.

Yet that’s what condoms are designed to do! A strip of latex is not intrinsically evil. But in this case the way it is used drives a wedge into the personhood of the wife.

How do you figure?

If any of those elements are missing by chance, it is not wrong. (Example: if one spouse isn’t finding this particular time fun, he/she can still go through with it.)

Not by chance, but by choice. I can see where you’re going with this, and NFP does not exploit a “chance”. The couple knows that this element is missing.

However, if the couple intentionally isolates and eliminates any of those elements, they are saying that “we want to engage in sex, but must take this element out and put in on the shelf for tonight.”

The NFP couple does not say that. They say: “we don’t want this element (pregnancy) tonight so we’ll avoid sex.” They have the same goal as the condom couple, but they refuse to isolate one element.

Wait, what?

What you’re saying is that because they choose abstinence at one point, then the sex is moral? The response of the first couple and the second couple are essentially the same. What you’re saying is that the second couple isn’t doing anything wrong because they’ve chosen to wait to exploit circumstances where the undesirable “element” is absent.

A couple using condoms do not take the element of pregnancy out of the picture. It does not depend on exploiting a woman’s fertility, and allows for conception to occur. The mechanics of a condom can, and do fail. They break, even when you’re doing everything right.

You know how NFP works, right? I haven’t seen you comment on how it’s used to achieve it’s ends. Only brief comments about periodic abstinence. I wonder if the only reason we’re disagreeing is because you may not know the mechanics behind NFP.

 

[Questionful]

Since it is not a sin to abstain from sex, NFP can not be a sin right? The argument is, as I understand it, since none of the individual actions are sinful (abstaining from sex) the process itself can not possibly sinful. True?

Whether or not NFP is a sin does not rely on the periodic abstinence it employs. Supporters of NFP defend that it is devoid of sin because it allegedly does not frustrate the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act.

Natural Family Planning exploits the cycles of infertility in a woman’s menstrual cycle. The couple practicing NFP chooses to abstain during the periods where pregnancy is likely, and will only have sex when they’ve deduced that the woman’s infertile (through signs her body readily provides). In essence, you’re trying to have sex after the ovum (egg) has dissolved in the fallopian tubes, and the woman’s body is gearing towards menstruation.

You’re having sex when there’s no egg present to be fertilized, within a timeframe where all sperm produced by the sex will not live to see the next egg released by the ovaries.

As to how this does not frustrate the procreative aspect, when the Church asserts that a barrier method does, is beyond me. You’re taking direct actions to keep the egg from the sperm in both methods.

 

[Seatuck]

Whether or not NFP is a sin does not rely on the periodic abstinence it employs. Supporters of NFP defend that it is devoid of sin because it allegedly does not frustrate the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act.

Natural Family Planning exploits the cycles of infertility in a woman’s menstrual cycle. The couple practicing NFP chooses to abstain during the periods where pregnancy is likely, and will only have sex when they’ve deduced that the woman’s infertile (through signs her body readily provides). In essence, you’re trying to have sex after the ovum (egg) has dissolved in the fallopian tubes, and the woman’s body is gearing towards menstruation.

You’re having sex when there’s no egg present to be fertilized, within a timeframe where all sperm produced by the sex will not live to see the next egg released by the ovaries.

As to how this does not frustrate the procreative aspect, when the Church asserts that a barrier method does, is beyond me. You’re taking direct actions to keep the egg from the sperm in both methods.

NFP itself is not intrinsically evil and artificial contraception is. There is nothing immoral about a couple participating in the marital act on a day that the woman is infertile. Yes, you can use it with a “contraceptive” mentality if you are not following the complete teaching regarding when it is ok to abstain from creating a child.There needs to be just reasons for married couples to prevent the fruitfulness and generosity aspects of the sacrament of marriage. This is to be carefully considered and prayed about.However, you cannot frustrate the procreative aspect of the marital act if it does not take place. Contraception involves actually doing something that adds to and takes away from the marital act as it unfolds.

Try these.

lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html

ccli.org/nfp/contraception/NFPvsContraception.php

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/nfpweek/nfpcontraception.shtml

 

[Seatuck]

NFP, when used as contraception, is contraception. It seeks to eliminate the egg from the equation: Sperm + Egg = Blastocyst ?

Every Pope that has supported NFP supported it as a contraceptive alternative to celibacy. They’ve called on Science to make it perfect.

For the record, the definition for contraception, according to Merriam-Webster is:

Basically, it’s contra-conception. NFP is a sexual practice used to deliberately prevent conception by determining a woman’s place in her cycle of fertility. NFP tries to p(name removed by moderator)oint the times when sexual activity may occur in the absence of an egg. By every definition, NFP is contraception.

What NFP is not, however, is a prophylactic. A prophylactic is a barrier method.

I find that your definition of the “unitive” aspect of procreation to be a degradation of the idea. You’re insisting on the biological, more than the spiritual, symbolic unity of the act. Unity between man and woman is not found when a man’s penis touches the woman’s vagina. That would make the sexual act between a rapist and their victim unitive. The unitive nature is the mutual consent of each partner, and their self-giving pleasure in the act.

As for the interpretation of “one flesh” in Genesis, that depends entirely on the interpretation of your source to fit their argument.

Also, keep in mind that not all barrier methods holistically separate penis from vagina.

If you reject one of the foremost theologians we have then I can’t help you, I don’t think. I’ll keep looking for better articles that explain the unitive aspect if I can. You should look into Theology of the Body if you haven’t. You can get a cheap audio study on it here-

00e2b44.netsolstores.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=3

The marital act is a reflection of other spiritual things. Eucharist is one. We recieve Christ in total when we receive communion. The marital act needs to be a reflection of that. We need to receive our spouses in total. The marriage is a reflection of the love within the Trinity. Complete, total self donation. This is to be reflected in all aspects of marriage to the best of our ability, including the marital act. The Father and Son give totally of themselves in love which creates a third person - The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son , perpetually for all eternity. Spouses need to reflect this is their self donation and gift during the marital act.

Here’s a whole search on Marriage and the Eucharist- take your pick

google.com/search?q=marriage+and+the+eucharist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

I didn’t see John Martignoni’s on there. I remember that one being pretty good -

biblechristiansociety.com/download

Here’s another that I found simple and easy to understand-

nd.edu/~ndethics/archives/documents/Reimers.pdf

 

[surritter]

I’m highly reluctant to allow myself to become involved in a debate on this subject once again, but here are the fruits of insomnia.

At this point in time, we are in agreement on the following things-

1. It is not a sin to skip a meal (although skipping meals is a highly ineffective way to lose weight)
2. It is not a sin to abstain from sex (although I’m not convinced Paul was of this opinion)

Since it is not a sin to abstain from sex, NFP can not be a sin right? The argument is, as I understand it, since none of the individual actions are sinful (abstaining from sex) the process itself can not possibly sinful. True?

“NFP can not be a sin right?”

NO, that is not quite right. While the actions of NFP are not intrinsically evil, Catholic moral theology would say that NFP can become sinful if the mentality behind its use is one that is never open to life.

The tricky part is this: We can discuss one act of condom intercourse and say that it is sinful. But we can’t discuss one act of NFP intercourse and say that it is sinful because it involves a broader picture.

The main focus of this discussion is on the intrinsic part.

 

[mark_a]

NFP itself is not intrinsically evil and artificial contraception is. There is nothing immoral about a couple participating in the marital act on a day that the woman is infertile. Yes, you can use it with a “contraceptive” mentality if you are not following the complete teaching regarding when it is ok to abstain from creating a child.There needs to be just reasons for married couples to prevent the fruitfulness and generosity aspects of the sacrament of marriage. This is to be carefully considered and prayed about.However, you cannot frustrate the procreative aspect of the marital act if it does not take place. Contraception involves actually doing something that adds to and takes away from the marital act as it unfolds.

Well put. Thanks.

 

[surritter]

Barrier methods do not mess with the purposes of sex, and it does not lead to the degradation of our spouses.

My whole point is that barrier methods DO mess with the purposes of sex. Think this one through: Biology and the physical qualities of latex tell us that barrier methods by definition mess with one of the purposes of sex.

I’d also argue that because most American Catholics have practiced a form of artificial contraception in the past, that most Catholics probably don’t believe that barrier methods/condoms are degrading to the individual.

And what does this have to do with the discussion of an intrinsic evil? The truths of Catholicism are not given to us by popular vote! They are handed down to us through the Scriptures and Tradition as taught by the successors of the Apostles.

With condoms, sex can probably be more open to life.

Oh, please. Although I see what you’re trying to say – I guess this is a skewed way of acknowledging that NFP has a higher success rate in achieving the no-pregnancy goal.

I know that your intentions are pure, but I think that in the process of arguing your point, the people involved have been dehumanized to a theoretical notion of what a person is, and what they experience.

Sorry, I can’t fathom how you think that respecting a woman’s capability to love, give mutual pleasure, nurture, and bring new life into the world is “dehumanizing.” Instead, to think of a woman as only a babymaker is dehumanizing (that’s in vitro fertilization) or only as a lovemaker is dehumanizing (that’s condom sex).

Back to the matter at hand, it’s my opinion that NFP shuns the fertility.

To desire or shun fertility is NOT the matter at hand. The topic is whether we’re going to shun ONLY fertility while taking advantage of the other sexual qualities the spouse can offer, or whether we’re going to simply keep the spouse’s sexual qualities together and simply abstain for a while. (FYI-- I am familiar with the mechanics of several NFP methods, but that is irrelevant right now.)

Barrier methods of contraception pay a greater respect to fertility, as it does not separate fertility from the act.

:banghead:
I don’t think any defender of artificial contraception would agree with you here! Condoms BY DEFINITION seek to “separate fertility from the act.”

By your logic, you would have a problem with this statement: I build a roof over my head in order to protect my family from the rain.

Doesn’t a roof by design separate our living quarters from the elements? Or is a having a roof being “more open to rain”?

In an earlier post you mentioned that my position seems to be a desperate defense “out of loyalty to authority.” No, I used to be pro-contraceptive, and then I sought the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching and found it to be quite logical. Frankly, it could be said that your position is merely trying to defend something because it’s popular to the masses. But your arguments don’t hold water from a logical, philosophical, or biological point of view.

How do you figure?

This is regarding my assertion that a condom drives a wedge into the personhood of a wife. As I explained above, sexuality is part of “personhood.” And sexuality is a package that is composed of love, pleasure, and baby-making ability.
Condoms are DESIGNED to try to eliminate baby-making ability.
Do you agree with this previous sentence? If not, I can’t see any point in further discussion. If you do agree, then you see why condoms act as a wedge.

What you’re saying is that because they choose abstinence at one point, then the sex is moral? The response of the first couple and the second couple are essentially the same. What you’re saying is that the second couple isn’t doing anything wrong because they’ve chosen to wait to exploit circumstances where the undesirable “element” is absent.

The responses of the two couples are not the same; that’s a simplistic statement. Suppose I want to give my dog a bone. I can either go out and find one in the garbage can, or I can kill our pet chicken and dissect it, wash the leg bone, and then present it to Fido. Hey, you say, the responses are the same! No, in the former case I wait until nature takes its course and presents the bone to me.
This is a rather silly analogy, but you keep saying that the NFP couple is doing the same thing as the condom couple. They are not. The goal might be the same, but HOW you achieve that goal is essential.

Bottom line:
Condom use means that the couple is engaging in sex, but thwarting the fertility.
NFP use means that the couple is abstaining from sex, but thwarting the fertility.
However, as explained above, an integral element of sexuality is fertility. Fertility by definition is a quality that is not always present in the natural cycle of things.
Thus, the condom couple seeks a package deal but with a non-natural barrier to an element of that package which might naturally be present.
An NFP couple seeks a package that has all elements which might naturally be present. If they have knowledge that one element might naturally be active on that day, they avoid opening that package.

Again: the intentions may be the same, but the intrinsic evil is in the opening of the package while actually doing something that manufactures it into a non-complete package.

 

[Questionful]

NFP itself is not intrinsically evil and artificial contraception is. There is nothing immoral about a couple participating in the marital act on a day that the woman is infertile. Yes, you can use it with a “contraceptive” mentality if you are not following the complete teaching regarding when it is ok to abstain from creating a child.There needs to be just reasons for married couples to prevent the fruitfulness and generosity aspects of the sacrament of marriage. This is to be carefully considered and prayed about.However, you cannot frustrate the procreative aspect of the marital act if it does not take place. Contraception involves actually doing something that adds to and takes away from the marital act as it unfolds.

Try these.

lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html

ccli.org/nfp/contraception/NFPvsContraception.php

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/nfpweek/nfpcontraception.shtml

Yes, but what I’m trying to say here is that structuring your sex life around infertility is frustrating the marital act. It’s not the “natural” method of shoot and pray. You’re frustrating the act by putting a natural barrier that you’ve timed and exploited.

I’m asking that if this is morally acceptable, then why aren’t barrier methods? Simply because we’ve put a man-made barrier in place of the one that was already there?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, but what I’m trying to say here is that structuring your sex life around infertility is frustrating the marital act. It’s not the “natural” method of shoot and pray. You’re frustrating the act by putting a natural barrier that you’ve timed and exploited.

I’m asking that if this is morally acceptable, then why aren’t barrier methods? Simply because we’ve put a man-made barrier in place of the one that was already there?

Periodic abstinence is not frustrating the marital act. The couple might feel frustrated in having to abstain.

No one thinks it’s odd to show temperence in regards to eating. We can’t eat all day long, or eat unhealthy foods all day long. Yet abstaining from sexual contact is considered too “frustrating”

God designed women to be fertile just a few days a month. Those are the only days a woman can conceive. God designed woman to have signs regarding their fertility. God also designed men to be constantly fertile. A man who uses NFP* never *seperates the unitive from thhe procreative. If the wife is not fertile at a specific point, that is up to God.

No one did anything to alter the act.

 

[tjm190]

“NFP can not be a sin right?”

NO, that is not quite right. While the actions of NFP are not intrinsically evil, Catholic moral theology would say that NFP can become sinful if the mentality behind its use is one that is never open to life.

The tricky part is this: We can discuss one act of condom intercourse and say that it is sinful. But we can’t discuss one act of NFP intercourse and say that it is sinful because it involves a broader picture.

The main focus of this discussion is on the intrinsic part.

So NFP is a sin if and only if the mind set is “I will continue using NFP indefinitely because I do not want children”?

 

[surritter]

So NFP is a sin if and only if the mind set is “I will continue using NFP indefinitely because I do not want children”?

NFP is not an intrinsic sin. So here’s a better way to say it – NFP is a vehicle to facilitate the sin of “we deem that our marriage will never be open to having children.”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So NFP is a sin if and only if the mind set is “I will continue using NFP indefinitely because I do not want children”?

A couple of weeks ago an episode of Father Corapi gave a good explanation of reasons for NFP.

I personally think it’s really difficult to abuse NFP. It could happen, but I think most people who practice NFP do it for religious reasons, because we love God and want to trust him. God let’s us know, in subtle ways if we are not being open enough for children.

I guess some people might abuse it, but I think just by virtue of practicing NFP, a couple is trying to do the right thing, trying to be Catholic in all ways.

 

[tjm190]

NFP is not an intrinsic sin. So here’s a better way to say it – NFP is a vehicle to facilitate the sin of “we deem that our marriage will never be open to having children.”

Alright, so let’s take a couple that uses NFP for a month- were they open to life that month?

 

[Questionful]

All right. My argument has extended past the 6,000 character’s line. So instead of dissecting your argument, I’ll ask you this question.

Do you believe that NFP is holier than a barrier method solely because it derives from an observance of what occurs naturally?

 

[RobNY]

Can you defend the idea a couple who practices NFP is still open to life? Yes. A couple can willingly practice contraception while still being open to life, whether they practice the barrier method or not.

Questionful,

I think that there’s a lot of confusion regarding these topics. The problem is that the philosophy which undergirds these distinctions has been thoroughly eviscerated in the contemporary scene. We tend to be reflexive consequentialists, and so we find it very difficult to understand how two acts which may look identical, and have identical results can nevertheless be two different acts with two different moral qualities.

Part of the answer is that we need to enlarge the discussion in the debate and investigate a more classical moral theory which is rooted in Aristotelian conceptions of action.

If you read Church documents you’ll see that they insist on evaluating acts by means of their “objects.” This terminology is quite opaque for most of us.

What it ends up coming down to-- regardless of the similarity of outcome-- is that the contraceptive act and the conjugal act have different objects which distinguishes their morality. The contraceptive act is intrinsically evil because the object of the contraceptive act is necessary opposed to the human good.

That’s an extremely summarized explanation-- and I’m just starting to study this deeply myself. I highly recommend that you start studying this as well before you take the well-intentioned reasonings and explanations here as finally definitive, when they may perhaps converge on the ultimate reasons, they nevertheless lack the philosophical uumph to really explain it to you.

The book I’m reading is a dense little book called “The Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act” by Stephen A. Long. It presupposes a lot of knowledge in philosophy, but if you want really ultimate and foundational answers, you’re going to have to start studying the traditional distinctions about objects, intentions and ends.

God bless,
Rob

 

[surritter]

All right. My argument has extended past the 6,000 character’s line. So instead of dissecting your argument, I’ll ask you this question.

Do you believe that NFP is holier than a barrier method solely because it derives from an observance of what occurs naturally?

No, the Church doesn’t believe that that is the reason.

And rather than “holier” I think we should say “moral” or “immoral” or degrees thereof. (No big deal, but “holier” often seems to be connected with personal piety, yet we’re discussing objective morality.)

 

[surritter]

Questionful,

I think that there’s a lot of confusion regarding these topics. The problem is that the philosophy which undergirds these distinctions has been thoroughly eviscerated in the contemporary scene. We tend to be reflexive consequentialists, and so we find it very difficult to understand how two acts which may look identical, and have identical results can nevertheless be two different acts with two different moral qualities.

Part of the answer is that we need to enlarge the discussion in the debate and investigate a more classical moral theory which is rooted in Aristotelian conceptions of action.

If you read Church documents you’ll see that they insist on evaluating acts by means of their “objects.” This terminology is quite opaque for most of us.

What it ends up coming down to-- regardless of the similarity of outcome-- is that the contraceptive act and the conjugal act have different objects which distinguishes their morality. The contraceptive act is intrinsically evil because the object of the contraceptive act is necessary opposed to the human good.

That’s an extremely summarized explanation-- and I’m just starting to study this deeply myself. I highly recommend that you start studying this as well before you take the well-intentioned reasonings and explanations here as finally definitive, when they may perhaps converge on the ultimate reasons, they nevertheless lack the philosophical uumph to really explain it to you.

The book I’m reading is a dense little book called “The Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act” by Stephen A. Long. It presupposes a lot of knowledge in philosophy, but if you want really ultimate and foundational answers, you’re going to have to start studying the traditional distinctions about objects, intentions and ends.

God bless,
Rob

Excellent, Rob. Thank you. I need to bone up on classical philosophy myself, and hopefully your comments can be helpful to all of us.