Condoms and the Principal of Double Effect

[smichhertz]

This is the easy one. The condom does nothing to actually treat the medical issue. It is just a way to avoid spreading the infection to another person. The infected person is still infected and the condom did nothing to change that. With the “pill” the hormone is an actual treatment. (It’s debatable if it’s a good treatment, in many cases but that’s another issue). The hormones have an actual positive effect on the problem (irregular periods or heavy bleeding).

I think you’re misunderstanding my point.

What I’m getting at is: The pill in and of itself is NOT immoral. This must be true because the Church allows its use in certain cases (such as in health). Therefore it is it’s USE that determines whether or not it is immoral.

If that’s the case, why would it not also be the case with condoms? Condoms in and of themselves are not immoral, it’s their use that determines their morality. And if that IS the case then couldn’t we say it passes the first condition of the Principle of Double Effect?

I’m not necessarily trying to say that the use of the condom is being used for healing a disease.

Hopefully that helps clarify. Constructive criticism welcome!

 

[Corki]

I think you’re misunderstanding my point.

What I’m getting at is: The pill in and of itself is NOT immoral. This must be true because the Church allows its use in certain cases (such as in health). Therefore it is it’s USE that determines whether or not it is immoral.

If that’s the case, why would it not also be the case with condoms? Condoms in and of themselves are not immoral, it’s their use that determines their morality. And if that IS the case then couldn’t we say it passes the first condition of the Principle of Double Effect?

I’m not necessarily trying to say that the use of the condom is being used for healing a disease.

Hopefully that helps clarify. Constructive criticism welcome!

I understand what you mean. I went through the same mental process.

Condoms are not in and of themselves immoral - right. Condoms can be used to cover medical instruments, for example, or as water balloons.

Wearing a condom during sex with your wife is the act for condition #1. Condition #1 is about an act, not an object. Wearing a condom during sex with your wife fails Condition #1 since that act is neither morally good nor indifferent.

With birth control pills, they are only “birth control pills” because of their effect. The hormones are neutral. There is nothing immoral about taking a pill. But the intent of supressing ovulation to avoid conception is immoral. Birth control pills pass condition #1 but fail condition #3 when used as birth control and not to treat a medical condition or illness.

 

[smichhertz]

Condoms are not in and of themselves immoral - right. Condoms can be used to cover medical instruments, for example, or as water balloons.

Wearing a condom during sex with your wife is the act for condition #1. Condition #1 is about an act, not an object. Wearing a condom during sex with your wife fails Condition #1 since that act is neither morally good nor indifferent.

Hmmm. I see what you are getting at, but I thought acts in and of themselves carried no moral weight and it was objects that could be morally assessed. Am I wrong there?

In another words, when condition 1 said “act” I assume they meant object (most times the two words are used interchangeably, but you are correct to note the difference).

I’ll try and do a little research on that and see if I can dig anything up.

 

[Corki]

I think you are confused on that. A woman taking the pill for health reasons is not committing ANY sin, venial or mortal.

The Double Effect Principle doesn’t change something from mortal to venial, it simply declares an act morally permissible or immoral. Other factors come into play to determine the gravity of the act (like whether mortal or venial).

I think what samiam was getting it is can you chose to take the pill for health reasons and for contraception without it being sinful.

Birth control pills have lots of side effects and are not medially neutral. If you have a choice between a treatment for whatever your condition was that was equally as effective but did not affect your fertility AND you chose to take the pill anyway because you wanted the side effect of birth control, you may be sinning. “May” being the operative word here.

 

[Corki]

Hmmm. I see what you are getting at, but I thought acts in and of themselves carried no moral weight and it was objects that could be morally assessed. Am I wrong there?

I another words, when condition 1 said “act” I assume they meant object (most times the two words are used interchangeably, but you are correct to note the difference).

I’ll try and do a little research on that and see if I can dig anything up.

Acts do carry moral weight. That’s why condition #1 says the act must be good or at least neutral. Making love to your spouse is an act that is morally good.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

But what about women who take ABC for medicinal purposes to regulate their period? That’s considered morally permissible. So similarly, why can’t wear a condom for medicinal purposes?

For the record, I don’t disagree with you that it still fails double effect, I just think it fails the fourth condition and not the first.

Taking hormones for a medical purpose is morally good or at the very least morally neutral. If a medical treatment makes a woman infertile then that is unfortunate but it doesn’t change the kind of act being performed.

Doing something to destroy the unitive bond between husband and wife is morally wrong. The secondary aim might be good, but the kind of act that is being performed to achieve the end goal is still wrong.

 

[smichhertz]

Taking hormones for a medical purpose is morally good or at the very least morally neutral. If a medical treatment makes a woman infertile then that is unfortunate but it doesn’t change the kind of act being performed.

Doing something to destroy the unitive bond between husband and wife is morally wrong. The secondary aim might be good, but the kind of act that is being performed to achieve the end goal is still wrong.

So to summarize, you are saying that the condom destroys both the unitive and procreative whereas ABC just (in normal use) destroys the procreative, but not the unitive.

Therefore, my point with the condom and the contraception as an effect is pretty much irrelevant, as the condom still ruptures the unitive bond rendering the act immoral.

Do I have that right?

I think what samiam was getting it is can you chose to take the pill for health reasons and for contraception without it being sinful.

Wait, stop here. I was under the impression ABC for health reasons was morally permissible assuming that the contraception was an undesired effect, rather than a desired end. Otherwise, what’s to stop the use of ABC solely for contraception?

Birth control pills have lots of side effects and are not medially neutral. If you have a choice between a treatment for whatever your condition was that was equally as effective but did not affect your fertility AND you chose to take the pill anyway because you wanted the side effect of birth control, you may be sinning. “May” being the operative word here.

Yes that I understand. It’s important to view the choice in light of the alternatives to properly discern the object.

Corki, I’m not ignoring your other post. I’m going to handle that it a separate post.

 

[smichhertz]

Acts do carry moral weight. That’s why condition #1 says the act must be good or at least neutral. Making love to your spouse is an act that is morally good.

Okay I mixed up my terms on that previous post, my apologies. You nailed it when you noted that it’s about an act not an object, I went right past that and mixed up act and object. Let me readdress your post below.

Condoms are not in and of themselves immoral - right. Condoms can be used to cover medical instruments, for example, or as water balloons.

Okay, so we’re agreed that condoms are not in and of themselves immoral, but their use is where the immorality lies.

Wearing a condom during sex with your wife is the act for condition #1. Condition #1 is about an act, not an object. Wearing a condom during sex with your wife fails Condition #1 since that act is neither morally good nor indifferent.

But if condoms are not in and of themselves immoral isn’t more information needed to conclude that wearing a condom during sex is always immoral? Don’t we need to also identify what the condom is being used for?

 

[Bookcat]

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, it’s tricky, but here’s why I think it might fly: (feel free to correct me. I’m not at all 100% on this, and would love constructive criticism)

Remember, the Church allows women to use ABC pills for the purpose of regulating periods. Why? Because the pill in and of itself is just a pill, nothing good or bad in it. What makes it bad is when you use it to deny life. So if you’re just taking it for medicinal purposes, that’s not contraception.

So same thing with a condom: It’s just a piece of rubber. It’s when it is USED for contraceptive purposes that it becomes immoral. Using it to prevent disease with the undesired side effect of contraception is immoral.

So when you view it as a piece of rubber with two effects - contraception and prevention of disease, then it is possible to see it satisfying #2.

Comments welcome and appreciated!

Regarding the pill for medical reasons…remember there is also the abortive effects to consider there (I recall unknown at the time of HV) I would urge contacting the Paul VI insititute to find better means …(healthwise too for the woman)

as to the PDE…the condom would be the means to (partly) prevent disease…so it violates the part about the means cannot evil itself.

 

[Bookcat]

Good summary:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215

 

[smichhertz]

as to the PDE…the condom would be the means to (partly) prevent disease…so it violates the part about the means cannot evil itself.

The question arises though, can we treat the contraception as an effect to the wearing of the condom? Since we can treat the contraception of the pill as an effect to the pill to justify taking the pill for medical reasons. See where I’m going with this?

 

[Bookcat]

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56

 

[Bookcat]

The question arises though, can we treat the contraception as an effect to the wearing of the condom? Since we can treat the contraception of the pill as an effect to the pill to justify taking the pill for medical reasons. See where I’m going with this?

The good effect (changes of disease reduced) cannot be brought about by an evil means (contraceptive condom which destroys the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage and make in fact not even a an act of marital intercourse…)

 

[smichhertz]

The good effect (changes of disease reduced) cannot be brought about by an evil means (contraceptive condom which destroys the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage and make in fact not even a an act of marital intercourse…)

But can’t I say the exact same thing about ABC? The good effect (regulating period for medical purposes) cannot be brought about by an evil means (contraceptive ABC which destroys the procreative aspect of marriage)

I thought the reason ABC for medical reasons was acceptable was A) the medical reasons are the proximate intention which significantly changes the object of the act so that it is not contraception and B) done for medical reasons can be morally permissible as the intention is not evil.

AND it passes the Double Effect Principle as the contraception becomes an effect of the act which is not intended, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[Corki]

I think what samiam was getting it is can you chose to take the pill for health reasons and for contraception without it being sinful?

Birth control pills have lots of side effects and are not medially neutral. If you have a choice between a treatment for whatever your condition was that was equally as effective but did not affect your fertility AND you chose to take the pill anyway because you wanted the side effect of birth control, you may be sinning. “May” being the operative word here.

Wait, stop here. I was under the impression ABC for health reasons was morally permissible assuming that the contraception was an undesired effect, rather than a desired end. Otherwise, what’s to stop the use of ABC solely for contraception?

You are right. I was stating samiam’s question “can you” not saying “you can”. I added a question mark above and although not gramatically correct, it makes more sense online (I hope)

Okay I mixed up my terms on that previous post, my apologies. You nailed it when you noted that it’s about an act not an object, I went right past that and mixed up act and object. Let me readdress your post below.

Okay, so we’re agreed that condoms are not in and of themselves immoral, but their use is where the immorality lies.

But if condoms are not in and of themselves immoral isn’t more information needed to conclude that wearing a condom during sex is always immoral? Don’t we need to also identify what the condom is being used for?

At the risk of getting into an area of high semanitics — It’s not the intent, otherwise wearing a condom after the woman reached menopause would be moral but it isn’t. It is more that ‘condomized sex’ is an act different from sex au naturale. Codomized sex is the act that fails condition #1.

 

[Bookcat]

But can’t I say the exact same thing about ABC? The good effect (regulating period for medical purposes) cannot be brought about by an evil means (contraceptive ABC which destroys the procreative aspect of marriage)

I thought the reason ABC for medical reasons was acceptable was A) the medical reasons are the proximate intention which significantly changes the object of the act so that it is not contraception and B) done for medical reasons can be morally permissible as the intention is not evil.

AND it passes the Double Effect Principle as the contraception becomes an effect of the act which is not intended, etc.

Thoughts?

Contraception.

Ditch the ABC …artificial has nothing to do with it.

The treatment of the disease is not by means of a contraceptive…it is by means of a chemical that also is contraceptive.

(but as noted above…I would not use such and be sexualy active…but rather contact the Paul VI intstitute for better ways)

 

[samiam1611]

Contraception.

Ditch the ABC …artificial has nothing to do with it.

The treatment of the disease is not by means of a contraceptive…it is by means of a chemical that also is contraceptive.

(but as noted above…I would not use such and be sexualy active…but rather contact the Paul VI intstitute for better ways)

Hysterectomy is also treatment for some diseases that the pill also treats. So would you personally prefer a hysterectomy because you don’t want to take the pill? (or your wife, if you are a man) Or would you abstain, even if you did not have a serious reason to prevent/delay pregnancy for the time being?

 

[Bookcat]

Hysterectomy is also treatment for some diseases that the pill also treats. So would you personally prefer a hysterectomy because you don’t want to take the pill? (or your wife, if you are a man)

Ya like cancer of the uterus (otherwise one should not be removing organs for small reasons…)

Your post has not baring here.

I refer readers to the Paul VI institute for much better solutions than the pill …(everyone…not just married folk…)

 

[Corki]

Hysterectomy is also treatment for some diseases that the pill also treats. So would you personally prefer a hysterectomy because you don’t want to take the pill? (or your wife, if you are a man) Or would you abstain, even if you did not have a serious reason to prevent/delay pregnancy for the time being?

That’s a medical decision - hysterectomy or drug therapy for any given condition. Most doctors aren’t going to offer them as comprable options. It would depend on the severity of the condition, risk factors for surgery and a host of other issues.

Abstaining doesn’t treat disease so I don’t understand the second half of your question.

Neither the pill nor hysterectomies are the topic of this thread anyway. We are discussing condoms and the principal of double effect.

 

[smichhertz]

Contraception.

Ditch the ABC …artificial has nothing to do with it.

I understand that artificial has nothing to do with it, but contraception includes everything - condoms, barried, pull out method, ABC, etc. I’m trying to demonstrate a parallel between condoms and ABC.

I can simply refer to it as the pill going forward.

The treatment of the disease is not by means of a contraceptive…it is by means of a chemical that also is contraceptive.

But I can say the same thing with the situation the OP described. “The prevention of the disease is not by means of a contraceptive…it is by means of a piece of latex that is also contraceptive.”