Can this be true??

[fix]

LeahInancsi:

In my example, contraception is not the INTENT.

But, intent is not the only consideration when speaking of moral actions.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means…

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances…

Try another example. A woman has a malignant unterine tumor. A hysterectomy will render her sterile, but it will save her live. The INTENT is to save her life, NOT to prevent pregnancy.

In that case the intention is good and the means are licit.

Contraception is intrinsically wrong. It may never be done as the Church teaches this.

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

Makes me ponder the question: if all you had to carry water in for a long desert trip was intrinsically evil, ie, ABC, ie, a condom, could you use it and still be forgiven by God?

OK, seriously, this is something that priests have to consider when counseling couples pastorally and personally. In that function they are called to be more like Jesus than Paul…

(more like our Beloved Forgiver and Redeemer than a rule book if that wasn’t clear).

1. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.

1. When it is the penitent who asks questions or seeks clarification on specific points, even if only implicitly, the confessor will have to respond adequately, but always with prudence and discretion,39 without approving erroneous opinions.
2. The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a *progressive path *towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands.43
3. On the other hand, to presume to make one’s own weakness the criterion of moral truth is unacceptable. From the very first proclamation of the word of Jesus, Christians realize that there is a “disproportion” between the moral law, natural and evangelical, and the human capacity. They equally understand that the recognition of their own weakness is the necessary and secure road by which the doors to God’s mercy will be opened.44

***VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS ***

 

[vluvski]

magdelaine:

OK, seriously, this is something that priests have to consider when counseling couples pastorally and personally. In that function they are called to be more like Jesus than Paul…

(more like our Beloved Forgiver and Redeemer than a rule book if that wasn’t clear).

The condom or the pill itself are not intrinsically evil, just a butcher knife and a gun are not intrinsically. It is the means employed by the contraceptive act that is evil.
It is not evil to cut off the tip of a condom in order to reduce sensitivity and control premature ejaculation. It is not evil to undergo a necessary surgery or therapy with contraceptive side effects, and while the couple may feel inclined to abstain during fertile times to limit the possibility of an abortion, they are not required to do so.

 

[setter]

Setter…If you recall, I’m still in RCIA. You’re going to have to speak in more simple terms. One of us is not understanding the other.

In my example, contraception is not the INTENT

. Try another example. A woman has a malignant unterine tumor. A hysterectomy will render her sterile, but it will save her live. The INTENT is to save her life, NOT to prevent pregnancy.

Are you saying we should let her die when there is no other innocent life involved?
I apologize if I read too much into the example you originally provided, but I provided correct Church teaching based on your cited example of:

Situations similar to this were discussed in my RCIA class last Thursday night. In applying the information I learned then, it may not be construed as contraception for a man to use a condom to protect his wife from an STD that he may have. The intent is not to prevent pregnancy, but protect the wife from disease

.
Although the couple’s intent may be honorable and good, the means being precribed are morally illicit (evil), and are NOT truly necessary to cure the disease, only to prevent the disease, which can be prevented using morall licit (non-evil) means (abstinence).

“**Legitimate intentions **

on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399)
In the case of the woman with the malignant unterine tumor, removal or her ovaries is *medically necessary * to save her life with sterilization as the unintended consequence is morally permissible. See this CA AAA forum answer regarding the difference between direct and indirect sterilization:

Question: Would hysterectomy be justified for contraceptive reasons if and only if pregnancy is 100% guaranteed to be fatal for both mother and child?

---

Answer: A hysterectomy could be done if there were a medical problem with the uterus itself that endangered the life of the mother (e.g., cancer, unstable or ruptured uterus). In such a case sterilization would be an unintended side effect and therefore the procedure would be morally licit. But a hysterectomy cannot be performed if the intention itself is sterilization, which appears to be the case in the hypothetical situation posed. A woman facing such a situation should contact the organizations listed below for help in determining licit courses of action that would do what is possible to protect her life.

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

[Can a hysterectomy be done for sterilization purposes?](Can a hysterectomy be done for sterilization purposes? )

BTW, I have every confidence in my RCIA instruction. The instructor has a masters degree in theology from Franciscan University in Stubenville. Also, one of the priests was in the room at the time this was being discuss and didn’t object.

 

[setter]

Leah, you go girl!

I hope that you are not taking this discussion as a competition as to who can prove the other wrong. Your cheering should be for the quest to prove and elucidate the truth of the Church’s teaching in relevent life situations.

OK, seriously, this is something that priests have to consider when counseling couples pastorally and personally. In that function they are called to be more like Jesus than Paul…

(more like our Beloved Forgiver and Redeemer than a rule book if that wasn’t clear).

“Pastoral solutions” that contradict clear and authoritative Church teaching (of course offered in secret chambers and strict confidence) only result in pain and suffering for all those involved.

Condom to prevent HIV
Question

from on 03-01-2002:
Is it permissible to use a condom during marital relations to prevent infection if one’s spouse is HIV positive?

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 03-01-2002:
There are some who argue that the use of a condom, either by married or unmarried people, for protection against disease (AIDS, for example) is the “lesser evil” than the contraction of AIDS. In the case of married people, even if the use of a condom were without contraceptive intent, or even if one partner were sterile and thus there would be no contraceptive effect, it is important to note that the intrinsic disorder (moral malice) of condomistic intercourse in marriage derives not only from a contraceptive intention but likewise from the fact that condomistic intercourse is simply not marital intercourse. The act itself is gravely disordered and merely a sinful simulation of a marital act. As such, even without any contraceptive intention, it is seriously and intrinsically wrong, and thus can not be justified for any purpose, however good or in any circumstances, however mitigating they might seem to be. The same would apply, of course, to any other prophylactic use of a condom; for example, to prevent the contagion of a venereal infection even within marriage.

condom to prevent STD

 

[magdelaine]

setter:

Your cheering should be for the quest to prove and elucidate the truth of the Church’s teaching in relevent life situations.

My cheering will be for who and what I want it to be; in this case for this RCIA elect’s ability to engage and debate a subject, especially when dumped with an armload of quotes that shows in your view why she is wrong, so very wrong.

As far as relavent life situations; this issue, for all the Magisterium has written about it, is far from settled. Although we are called to perfection, we do not live in a perfect world. I look to gentlemen such as Bishop Kevin Dowling and Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi who minister to those who are infected and dying with HIV to indicate me what REAL evil is; using a condom or infecting someone with a deadly disease? And don’t even speak of abstinence when in these countries women may have the moral, but not the legal right to refuse a husband sex.

 

[setter]

magdelaine:

My cheering will be for who and what I want it to be; in this case for this RCIA elect’s ability to engage and debate a subject, especially when dumped with an armload of quotes that shows in your view why she is wrong, so very wrong.

As far as relavent life situations; this issue, for all the Magisterium has written about it, is far from settled. Although we are called to perfection, we do not live in a perfect world. I look to gentlemen such as Bishop Kevin Dowling and Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi who minister to those who are infected and dying with HIV to indicate me what REAL evil is; using a condom or infecting someone with a deadly disease? And don’t even speak of abstinence when in these countries women may have the moral, but not the legal right to refuse a husband sex.

The issue is settled, this Pope has spoken. Your’s comes across as misplaced compassion that seriously neglects the dignity of the person by prescribing to inflict yet another indignity upon these our poor and suffering fellow children of God. :tsktsk:

Pope rejects condoms for Africa

The spread of HIV and Aids in Africa should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence and not by condoms, Pope Benedict XVI has said.

Some Catholic clergymen have argued that the use of condoms to stem the spread of the disease would be a “lesser of two evils”.

The Pope warned that contraception was one of a host of trends contributing to a “breakdown in sexual morality”, and church teachings should not be ignored.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

As far as relavent life situations; this issue, for all the Magisterium has written about it, is far from settled. Although we are called to perfection, we do not live in a perfect world. I look to gentlemen such as Bishop Kevin Dowling and Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi who minister to those who are infected and dying with HIV to indicate me what REAL evil is

Actually it is settled as the Church has said the ends never justify the means. That does not mean individuals, including bishops, may get it wrong at times. Whom should I follow?

 

[Brendan]

magdelaine:

And don’t even speak of abstinence when in these countries women may have the moral, but not the legal right to refuse a husband sex.

What about countries where the husband has the legal right to beat their wives? Should the Church preach abstience from that as well, or should it just recognize that the husbands would do it anyway and just support the distribution of boxing gloves.

Should the Church really be in a postition of condoning violence? Should it be saying to the men in those countries

“Ya know, you really should hit her, but we understand that it’s your culture and sometimes you really can’t resist the urge, so just strap on the Everlasts and it will help protect her. You still might end up injuring her, but at least it would really reduce the chances”

I’m sure we would all be appalled if the Church took that stance. We would expect the Church to uphold the moral highground and support abstinence from violence.

So what would we be any less appalled if the Church condoned the violence of AIDS infected sex? Condoms might certainly reduce the chance that the woman would be injured (infected), they don’t eliminate it. So that really isn’t any different from the boxing gloves, now is it?

The Church stands for morality at ALL TIMES. It can’t and should not, do any less.

 

[fix]

lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_11condom.html

** Condom Controversy**

 

[Palamite]

setter,

Can you please provide source citation for these cited “Many Fathers” and “Other Fathers” on which you base your contentions that contradict consistent Church teaching?

If I could demonstrate to you that many of the Fathers thought the earth was a flat disc, would that make it so? Of course not.

It is a very large task to undo the misrepresentations of Patristic thought endemic to much of so called “Catholic Apologetics” on any number of topics, including this one. What is a little easier (since it deals in “bite sized portions”) is to demonstrate, as I have been doing in the various threads on this topic, that the Fathers do not address this topic in the way the RC position ala Humanae Vitae envisions it.

The closest to a “historic” position on this topic that one will find, are concerns over “wasting the seed” (male ejaculate). This was a concern in times past because it was commonly believed (to put it simply) that the “male seed” was the only formative contributor to conception - IOW. it represented an especially early stage of the “fetus” to put things in modern terms. This was a common opinion in the Hellenic-Roman world, largely on the basis of naturalist-physicians like Aristotle who taught that the woman’s role in reproductive was nutritive/material (her contribution was to provide a place for the male seed to develop and grow and be “ensouled”.) There was no knowledge that the woman had an “egg” that was involved in this process, or that the sperm only contained partial genetic information.

Hence, the primary concern of the Fathers was killing-abortion.

It is precisely the rise of modern science which made this issue one in need of re-appraisal - it is precisely what created the pressure for Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae to come about in the first place. Unfortunately, it’s arguments against non-abortifacient contraceptions ultimatly appeal to an out-dated “natural law” argument which is untenable precisely because the observations such an argument relied upon in times past is now known to be incorrect.

Rome felt the need to consider the matter anew - and sadly, came to an incorrect conclusion. Others who did this, came to different conclusions. While I don’t pretend to look to the Anglicans as a spiritual authority and don’t especially know much about their reasoning in this matter (other than that some RC’s like to throw “Lambeth 1930” around a lot as if this proves something one way or another - a contention which can only be had if one does not understand the issues at hand), I do know that the Orthodox Church does realize that there is a distinct difference between contraception and abortion, and has formed it’s pastoral position on this topic accordingly.

I’d hate to have to repeat much of what I’ve already written, or what others have said on both sides of this debate. You’d probably be better served skimming through the various threads on the Catholic Answers Forum dealing with family planning issues.

 

[magdelaine]

Brendan:

What about countries where the husband has the legal right to beat their wives? Should the Church preach abstience from that as well, or should it just recognize that the husbands would do it anyway and just support the distribution of boxing gloves.

Should the Church really be in a postition of condoning violence? Should it be saying to the men in those countries

“Ya know, you really should hit her, but we understand that it’s your culture and sometimes you really can’t resist the urge, so just strap on the Everlasts and it will help protect her. You still might end up injuring her, but at least it would really reduce the chances”

I’m sure we would all be appalled if the Church took that stance. We would expect the Church to uphold the moral highground and support abstinence from violence.

So what would we be any less appalled if the Church condoned the violence of AIDS infected sex? Condoms might certainly reduce the chance that the woman would be injured (infected), they don’t eliminate it. So that really isn’t any different from the boxing gloves, now is it?

The Church stands for morality at ALL TIMES. It can’t and should not, do any less.

What? Are using Everlasts now a sin???

If we were talking about killing another human being;ie, abortion, I would be so with you on this. But we are talking about a piece of latex. I know so many of you are heavily invested in these arguments, as you may have made many sacrifices to abide by them. That does not make them any more logical or humane.

 

[setter]

fix:
A very clear, concise and well cited article. Thanks for the link.

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

What? Are using Everlasts now a sin???

If we were talking about killing another human being;ie, abortion, I would be so with you on this. But we are talking about a piece of latex. I know so many of you are heavily invested in these arguments, as you may have made many sacrifices to abide by them. That does not make them any more logical or humane.

Those that accept the teaching accept it because it is true.

 

[setter]

Palamite:

setter,
If I could demonstrate to you that many of the Fathers thought the earth was a flat disc, would that make it so? Of course not.

I’d hate to have to repeat much of what I’ve already written, or what others have said on both sides of this debate. You’d probably be better served skimming through the various threads on the Catholic Answers Forum dealing with family planning issues.

I am especially enjoying the exchange between yourself and itsjustdave1988 on the thread Birth Control and Infallibility.

 

[setter]

What? Are using Everlasts now a sin???

If we were talking about killing another human being;ie, abortion, I would be so with you on this. But we are talking about a piece of latex

.
This is nothing but silly …thickness/size has anything to do with the morality of an act?

I know so many of you are heavily invested in these arguments,

As a feature of seeking to know and live the truth of the Church’s teaching in matters of faith and morality.

as you may have made many sacrifices to abide by them.

Which is called taking up one’s cross and denying one’s self in order to follow Jesus faithfully.

That does not make them any more logical or humane.

It has the effect of making Jesus more real and personal.

 

[Brendan]

magdelaine:

What? Are using Everlasts now a sin???

If we were talking about killing another human being;ie, abortion, I would be so with you on this. But we are talking about a piece of latex. I know so many of you are heavily invested in these arguments, as you may have made many sacrifices to abide by them. That does not make them any more logical or humane.

I think you missed the point of the post.

Would using boxing gloves make wife beating any more moral?

Should the Church address wife beating by the promotion of the use of boxing gloves during a wife beating, which serve to reduce the chance of physical damage, but do nothing to address the violence of the act; or should it preach abstinence of wife beating alone, regardless of cultural norms.

Now, should the Church addess the spread of AIDS by promoting the use of condoms, which do nothing but reduce the chance of physical damage, or should it preach abstinece regardless of cultural norms?