I’m not familiar with that church. I’m a Catholic, myself.Roman Catholic Church
As I have said before, God is not an elected official. We can’t vote Him out of office if we don’t like the way He runs His universe.The Church may teach as it wishes, that is the Church’s business. Keep in mind that only 17% of the world’s population is catholic. Well, 17% of the world’s population was baptized Catholic, but the number that is truly Catholic is significantly smaller (my opinion, I have no data, nor does the Church).
Which has nothing to do with this thread, and we both know it.I’m quite sure it isn’t public health.
I understand it and that is why I reject it. Simply redefining an act does not change what the act is.You haven’t understood what I’m saying at all fix.
Preventing HIV is not an issue of contraception.
Yes, I understand that but I’m trying to emphasise that people who want to see condoms allowed to prevent HIV transmission are not trying to subvert the Church’s teachings on contraception as such. It is a dual effect, the same as when diamorphine is used to treat pain in palliative care.I understand this point of view, but because condoms (which can prevent HIV transmission) prevent conception the Church sees the two issues overlapping each other.
At last some evidence of clarity!!!Now, you and others claim it is not an evil means because the intention is not to contracept. The Church has not agreed with that understanding.
Here is some more clarity I hope:At last some evidence of clarity!!!
Yes that is the crux of the argument.
It is not the same. Using pain medication is not an intrinsically evil act. Frustrating the marital act is intrinsically wrong.Yes, I understand that but I’m trying to emphasise that people who want to see condoms allowed to prevent HIV transmission are not trying to subvert the Church’s teachings on contraception as such. It is a dual effect, the same as when diamorphine is used to treat pain in palliative care.
So laws against murder, rape, robbery and so on are wrong?The fact that someone has a moral obligation to do something, does not grant someone else the right to force them to do it.
Public officials, of course.When you say those “with an obligation to protect the public” who are you referring to?
Really? You don’t require children to be vaccinated before attending school? You don’t require vaccinations for people travelling to certain countries?Don’t you think it’s Orwellian to intervene in what is done to their person? No one in law has the right to force someone (who is a competent adult) to have treatment for a physical condition, in the UK anyway.
Interesting you brought that up. Do you know the one country that does not have an AIDS problem? And do you know how they did it?In some circumstances eg open TB their freedom can be restricted, but they still cannot be forced to accept treatment IIRC (having treated someone in those circumstances several years ago).
I can’t see how that’s remotely analogous to the situation at all.So laws against murder, rape, robbery and so on are wrong?
If I deliberately do not check to see if my gun is loaded, and I point it at you and pull the trigger, does that absolve me of any responsibility for your death?
Does the law have to ignore what I have done?
well yes obviously but which public officials???Public officials
No, not in the UK. In any case, there is a big difference between a vaccination being a condition for entering a public school or a country - the person has the option not to go to a public school or enter that countryReally? You don’t require children to be vaccinated before attending school? You don’t require vaccinations for people travelling to certain countries?
Nearly every country has an AIDS problem. Please enlighten me…Interesting you brought that up. Do you know the one country that does not have an AIDS problem? And do you know how they did it?
No one ever died from abstinence. To say that encouraging the use of condoms is “saving life” is simply hypocritical.The dual effect is killing pain and killing the person. Killing the person is clearly wrong.
The dual effect with condoms is contraception and saving a life. Saving a life is clearly right.
No one has ever died from lack of morphine - and???No one ever died from abstinence. To say that encouraging the use of condoms is “saving life” is simply hypocritical.
That is not what the Principle of double effect says. It says:The dual effect is killing pain and killing the person. Killing the person is clearly wrong.
The dual effect with condoms is contraception and saving a life. Saving a life is clearly right.
Condomistic intercourse violates the very first principle. By its very nature it always wrong regardless of intent. Giving pain medication is not always wrong.We may perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one evil, if it meets four criteria: 1. The act itself, independent of its consequences, must be good or at least morally neutral.
2. The good effect must not result from the evil effect. The evil effect must be an incidental by-product of the good effect.
3. The evil effect must not be intended but only permitted.
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason to permit the evil effect.
All four criteria must be met. If even one is not met, the act is evil.
secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/doubleeffect.htm
Explain to me why intercourse with a condom is in essence evil.Condomistic intercourse violates the very first principle. By its very nature it always wrong regardless of intent. Giving pain medication is not always wrong.
Because it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace. This can be known via the natural law that is clarified by the magisterium.Explain to me why intercourse with a condom is in essence evil.
If you intend to hasten the person’s death that would be evil.Then explain to me how hastening someone’s death with morphine is not evil.
So why isn’t it evil if you don’t intend to? The end result is still the same?If you intend to hasten the person’s death that would be evil.
It goes back to the 4 principles I posted:So why isn’t it evil if you don’t intend to? The end result is still the same?
What of the rare case when providing pain relief or sedation does risk hastening death? Is this really the same thing as deliberately killing a patient?
Centuries of Catholic moral tradition say it is not. Sometimes it is impossible to achieve some good effect without causing a bad effect as well. When an act has both a good and a bad effect, we should ask ourselves whether it meets four criteria.
First, the act itself must be good or at least morally indifferent; giving medication to relieve pain certainly meets this test. Second, the good effect must not be attained by means of the bad effect—we cannot claim, like Jack Kevorkian, that we may deliberately kill suffering people because once they are dead they can’t suffer. Third, the bad effect must not be intended; we cannot give pain medication in order to end pain and cause death. Fourth, there must be a serious reason for pursuing the good effect; it would be irresponsible to risk hastening death to relieve an ordinary headache…
A different topic that would be a good thread:well giving palliative care doses of opiates predictably shortens life, so by those criteria then proper pain relief is not allowed by the Catholic Church then?
it seems considerable mental gymnastics (as signalled perhaps by the phrase moral tradition) are required to differentiate the two situations
In reality, a very large dose of morphine may well cause death—if given to a healthy person who is not in pain and has not received morphine before. But when administered for pain, such drugs are taken up first by the patient’s pain receptors. In fact, patients regularly receiving morphine for pain quickly build up a resistance to side-effects such as respiratory suppression, so they can easily tolerate doses that would cause death in other people. Fortunately they build up a tolerance to the side-effects far more quickly than to the drugs’ analgesic effects—so doctors need not hesitate to increase dosages when needed to relieve pain. The question, “What is the maximum dose of morphine for a cancer patient in pain?”, has one answer: “The dose that will relieve the pain.” As long as a patient is awake and in pain, the risk of hastening death by increasing the dose of narcotics is virtually zero. Unrelieved pain is itself a stimulant, which overwhelms any depressive effects of narcotics. Patients whose unrelieved pain is distorting the very fabric of their lives need adequate pain control the way a diabetic needs insulin to function properly.
Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already.
In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control.
usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlpdoe.shtml
Not really. The principles are clear.it seems considerable mental gymnastics (as signalled perhaps by the phrase moral tradition) are required to differentiate the two situations
Are you saying taking morphine for pleasure is morally right?No one has ever died from lack of morphine - and???