Condoms and the Principal of Double Effect

[Corki]

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.”

True and that’s why I think we end up with a double effect flaw on the first premise rather than the third with regard to condoms. Condomized sex is not morally good or neutral. With oral contracteptives (OCs from now on), the sex act is not changed and the ingestion of a drug is morally neurtral. OCs are immoral when the third condition is not met

1. The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.

Of course, if a person takes OCs solely for the contraceptive effect and not for a medical condition, condition #2 is not met either.

 

[smichhertz]

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)

Ah okay, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, I’ll go back and read samian’s post and address.

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.

Well I said “use” not intent. I’m more tying to say that the proximate intention of the object is what makes the difference. Certainly intent alone cannot make an act good or bad, the object must be considered to.

By way of an example, killing someone in self defense and killing someone who is innocent are two separate objects where the “use” of “killing” determines its morality.

I kind of agree with the general sentiment that use of a condom in this case is immoral, I’m just not sure that we’re using the right logic to get there.

 

[Bookcat]

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.”

No the latex is part and parcel to the means here…

One is not actually having “martial relations” because of the presence of the latex.

Just like I am not actually eating if I put a bag over my head and try to put food in my mouth.

 

[Corki]

By way of an example, killing someone in self defense and killing someone who is innocent are two separate objects where the “use” of “killing” determines its morality.

To me it’s more related to the morality of the “how” rather than the “why”. Waging a war might be moral using conventional weapons by applying the principal of double effect (and the just war theory). Waging a war is always immoral using weapons of mass destruction. Same intent, same outcome, very different types of war.

I kind of agree with the general sentiment that use of a condom in this case is immoral, I’m just not sure that we’re using the right logic to get there

And that’s why I started this thread - to talk this out. I know it’s wrong but I want to make sure I understand the reasons why correctly.

Here’s another approach. (going off into PG13 territory)

Marital sex requires that Part A goes into Part B and that ejaculation (if there is one) happens while joined.

Condomized sex prevents two steps of that from happening. First Part A doesn’t go into Part B really at all. Part A goes into the condom, which goes into Part B. Ejaculation occurs in the condom, not in the united couple. So mechanically, it is a different act.

 

[smichhertz]

No the latex is part and parcel to the means here…

One is not actually having “martial relations” because of the presence of the latex.

Just like I am not actually eating if I put a bag over my head and try to put food in my mouth.

Okay so in the case of the pill, it’s an immoral act when the intention is to contracept. With the condom, is an immoral act because the object itself is immoral as it significantly ruptures the procreative and unitive aspects of sex. Whereas contraception only ruptures the procreative, and only when the intention is to contracept.

Does that sound right?

 

[Corki]

Okay so in the case of the pill, it’s an immoral act when the intention is to contracept. With the condom, is an immoral act because the object itself is immoral as it significantly ruptures the procreative and unitive aspects of sex. Whereas contraception only ruptures the procreative, and only when the intention is to contracept.

Does that sound right?

Have you ever heard Dr. Janet Smith’s talk “Contraception, why not?” She makes the point that all contraceptives, even oral ones, fail on both unitive and procreative grounds. I am paraphrasing her but basically, the unitive aspect is giving of each spouse fully to the other. Two become one. Contraception withholds. It is not giving fully, it is giving oneself only partially to the other.

OCs used for contraceptive purpose and intent won’t even be applicable to the principal of double effect. It is only when the purpose and intent is to treat a medical condition that the premises of double effect might be applied.

 

[Debora123]

Personally, I think the Pope used the homosexual example because when used by a homosexual prostitute, a condom has no contraceptive function. But that’s just a guess on my part.

But it has a contraceptive function for a heterosexual user, and even then he said using one would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Corki]

But it has a contraceptive function for a heterosexual user, and even then he said using one would be a step in the right direction.

The Pope’s comment was limited to the intention to avoid spreading infection. The Vatican’s clarification was that it would apply to a heterosexual prostitute as well. Using a condom for its contraceptive function can never be “a step in the right direction”.

The pricipal of double effect that we are discussing here can’t be applied to using a condom during homosexual or prostitutional sex.

 

[smichhertz]

Have you ever heard Dr. Janet Smith’s talk “Contraception, why not?” She makes the point that all contraceptives, even oral ones, fail on both unitive and procreative grounds. I am paraphrasing her but basically, the unitive aspect is giving of each spouse fully to the other. Two become one. Contraception withholds. It is not giving fully, it is giving oneself only partially to the other.

That makes perfect sense to me there. If one of the aspects fail, they both fail. Unitive and procreative are two sides of the same coin.

OCs used for contraceptive purpose and intent won’t even be applicable to the principal of double effect. It is only when the purpose and intent is to treat a medical condition that the premises of double effect might be applied.

Yeah I wasn’t applying double effect in that instance, I was just more looking at the act itself and trying to understand the fundamental difference of why OC for contraceptive purposes is immoral while for medical purposes is morally licit.

 

[Bookcat]

Okay so in the case of the pill, it’s an immoral act when the intention is to contracept. With the condom, is an immoral act because the object itself is immoral as it significantly ruptures the procreative and unitive aspects of sex. Whereas contraception only ruptures the procreative, and only when the intention is to contracept.

Does that sound right?

The use of the Pill (again there are other problems there…abortive…health etc…but we will put them aside and pretend it is fine and no problems for argument here) for medical reasons is just that. The unintended side effect is the fact that the cycle is thrown off and conceptions (again setting aside what can really happen) do not take place. The act of taking the pill without a contraceptive intent is not a contraceptive act.

The ordinary condom by its very nature is contraceptive in sexual relations. The very act of using it to prevent (in part) disease…is also the contraceptive per se. The very means is contraceptive and thus evil. The means to the end here is evil. It destroys the nature of the marital act.

Hope that helps

 

[smichhertz]

The use of the Pill (again there are other problems there…abortive…health etc…but we will put them aside and pretend it is fine and no problems for argument here) for medical reasons is just that. The unintended side effect is the fact that the cycle is thrown off and conceptions (again setting aside what can really happen) do not take place. The act of taking the pill without a contraceptive intent is not a contraceptive act.

The ordinary condom by its very nature is contraceptive in sexual relations. The very act of using it to prevent (in part) disease…is also the contraceptive per se. The very means is contraceptive and thus evil. The means to the end here is evil. It destroys the nature of the marital act.

Hope that helps

I think so. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think I have a better understanding of it now.

 

[samiam1611]

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.

My bad for getting off topic…my question(s)/general confusion regard double effect but not condoms. I had hoped it would fit in okay but guess not.

The second half of my question was more directed to bookcat since s?he said

I would not use such and be sexualy active

I am assuming that one of the reasons for that is because the pill is possibly abortifacient; if she got a hysterectomy, she could definitely rule out the possibility of unintentionally “aborting.” So would she use the pill, and abstain, even if she didn’t have a good reason to avoid pregnancy? Purely hypothetical of course…and also thoroughly off topic so you can just ignore it. Carry on

 

[joclucsylv]

But it has a contraceptive function for a heterosexual user, and even then he said using one would be a step in the right direction.

I bet it’s the first step Deb!! He has to break people in slowly or there would be mass hysteria!!

 

[Bookcat]

Again…the media mistook the Popes words.

Here… this is the official statement from the Vatican… from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

 

[Debora123]

I bet it’s the first step Deb!! He has to break people in slowly or there would be mass hysteria!!

Actually, that is EXACTLY what I thought when I first heard about the whole thing.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, that is EXACTLY what I thought when I first heard about the whole thing.

Well you thought very very wrong…as has been made completely and fully clear.

 

[Seatuck]

That’s a really good reason not to do something but what I am trying to get to is the “why”.

Condomistic sex is not procreative or unitive. It’s really very simple.

When spouses choose to use condoms they change the act they perform from one of true marital union (the marriage act) into a different kind of act. The ‘language of the body’ [to use Pope John Paul II’s way of speaking] is changed. In the marital act their bodies speak the language of a mutual giving and receiving, the language of an unreserved and oblative gift. Condomistic intercourse does not speak this language; it mutilates the language of the body, and the act chosen is more similar to masturbation than it is to the true marital act.”

prolife.sg/condoms/articles/USING%20CONDOMS%20TO%20PREVENT%20HIV.htm

 

[smichhertz]

So would it be correct to say that “condomized sex” (as that seems to be the term we are using) is an intrinsic evil?

 

[Corki]

Condomistic sex is not procreative or unitive. It’s really very simple.

prolife.sg/condoms/articles/USING%20CONDOMS%20TO%20PREVENT%20HIV.htm

Exactly what I was trying to say in post #44. Thanks.

And “condomistic” is a better word that what I was using - “condomized”.

 

[Corki]

So would it be correct to say that “condomized sex” (as that seems to be the term we are using) is an intrinsic evil?

I would say more that it is inherently disordered sex, especially when used within a marriage. Even homosexual acts aren’t called intrinsically evil, but are referred to as gravely disordered. And they are more removed from true sex than condomistic sex is.