Condoms and the Principal of Double Effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Corki said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay so that leads to another question: what’s the difference between intrinsic evil and disordered act?

Doesn’t both just mean they are acts that are always evil regardless of intention or circumstances?
 
samiam1611 said:
The second half of my question was more directed to bookcat since s?he said 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 🙂
Click to expand...
I am not sure which of bookcat’s posts you are referring to. Do you mean when someone is taking the pill for medical reasons?

This is an area of debate. Many married people who take the pill for medical reasons, abstain during the periods when there might be break through ovulation. If ovulation occurred while one was on the pill, there is a high possibility that the baby would be spontaneously aborted either because it couldn’t’ implant or because the hormones in the pill are simply not good for growing pre-born infants. (not always true, of course, as evidenced by the number of ‘pill babies’ in the recent thread on unexpected pregnancies) Morally, that’s not sinful since the sin of abortion is for direct abortion. Spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is not sinful. Nevertheless, the very idea that a woman might be contributing to the unintended death of her pre-born child is disturbing to a lot of women.

It is, however, highly unlikely that a woman who has that type of concern would be ok with the idea of a hysterectomy instead. If the pill can treat the condition, it is pretty certain that the condition is not a diseased uterous but rather hormonal. Removing an undiseased uterous is not a moral choice either.
 
smichhertz said:
Okay so that leads to another question: what’s the difference between intrinsic evil and disordered act?

Doesn’t both just mean they are acts that are always evil regardless of intention or circumstances?
Click to expand...
That’s a good question. All of the teaching on contraception is in the context of marriage. Contraception, whether it’s a condom or something else, disorders the marital act.

I don’t want to steer this discussing into abortion but that’s the only sexuality topic, as far as I know, that is termed intrinsically evil. There is no way a direct abortion can be anything but evil. When a prostitue uses a condom to avoid spreading an infection, on the other hand, as the Pope said recently, it might be a sign of a good intent. That doesn’t make it good or unsinful and that perception would only apply outside of the context of marriage. But that doesn’t seem to be the same thing as an intrinsic evil.
 
joclucsylv said:
I bet it’s the first step Deb!! He has to break people in slowly or there would be mass hysteria!!
Click to expand...
The Pope’s comments created enough hysteria as it was, don’t you think? 😃

The tolerated use of contraceptives outside of marriage is not a new topic. The whole of the teaching about contraceptives is in the context of marriage. Comments such as the Pope made recently reinforce the teaching about sex within marriage.

Many people think that there should be some lee way in the teaching about contraception as long as the couple are married. But the reverse is really true. It is only if the sex is already sinful such as the prostitute in the Pope’s example, or pre-marital sex, that condoms or other contraceptives can be anything but evil.

In other words, forgoing a condom isn’t going to make prostitution or pre-marital sex any less sinful than it already is. But forgoing contraception in a marriage will turn a sinful act into a holy one.
 
Corki said:
That’s a good question. All of the teaching on contraception is in the context of marriage. Contraception, whether it’s a condom or something else, disorders the marital act.
Click to expand...
Ah I see, so outside the marital act is a different story, and for that reason contraception is a disorder of a marital act, but not necessarily intrinsically evil.

Whereas abortion is because there are not cases of abortion where it can be permitted.

I got it now, thanks for the help!
 
From the statement from the CDF

“In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute “the real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS and also that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality” in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus”
 
smichhertz said:
but not necessarily intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
I would not phrase it that way…for it is (and this yes this does address marriage specifically…but the Church is not in the business of addressing necessarily the internal acts of an already gravely sinful action…that is of sex outside of marriage…ie fornication)

In the Vademecum for Confessors issued by the Vatican it states:

“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. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” -Vademecum for Confessors 2:4…emp added.
 
Bookcat said:
I would not phrase it that way…for it is (and this yes this does address marriage specifically…but the Church is not in the business of addressing necessarily the internal acts of an already gravely sinful action…that is of sex outside of marriage…ie fornication)

In the Vademecum for Confessors issued by the Vatican it states:

“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. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” -Vademecum for Confessors 2:4…emp added.
Click to expand...
ah…well that settles it. So back to my original question - is there such a thing as an act which is disordered but not intrinsically evil?
 
smichhertz said:
But that’s not disordered is it? Or intrinsically evil for that matter.

Granted, its still wrong.
Click to expand...
yes it is.

The point is that it is not intrinsically evil to give alms…but the intention here brings the disorder…

An act must be good in the object, intention and the circumstance.

When we speak of intrinsically evil acts…we are referring to intrinsically evil “moral objects”

Read the links 🙂
 
smichhertz said:
ah…well that settles it. So back to my original question - is there such a thing as an act which is disordered but not intrinsically evil?
Click to expand...
Yes, premarital sex would be one of those. It is disordered because it is not being used as it is supposed to be. It lacks the qualiites that make it ordered and good - Sacramental, unitive, procreative. But the intrinsics, the “what” factors are all there. It is gravely sinful but not intrinsically evil.
 
Bookcat said:
Read the links 🙂
Click to expand...
Haha, good call. So evil and disorderd can be sort of used interchangeably. When its intrinsically disordered it’s intrinsically evil, and when it’s just disordered, it’s evil.
 
Corki said:
Yes, premarital sex would be one of those. It is disordered because it is not being used as it is supposed to be. It lacks the qualiites that make it ordered and good - Sacramental, unitive, procreative. But the intrinsics, the “what” factors are all there. It is gravely sinful but not intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
a…fornication is intrinsically evil.

It is always and everywhere evil.
 
Bookcat said:
by reason of its moral object.

And no intention…no circumstance can make it good…
Click to expand...
Of course it’s not good. But gravely sinful does not always mean intrinsically evil.

Here’s what the CCC says about fornication
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
Click to expand...
disordered - yes
grave matter - yes
sin against dignity and sexuality - yes

But no mention of evil.
 
Corki said:
Of course it’s not good. But gravely sinful does not always mean intrinsically evil.

Here’s what the CCC says about fornication

disordered - yes
grave matter - yes
sin against dignity and sexuality - yes

But no mention of evil.
Click to expand...
The Catechism is not a dictionary…it does not go through every intrinsically moral evil and label it so 🙂

But actually the fact that it is grave matter in the moral object itself…makes it intrinsically evil.

An act can be gravely sinful due to just intention…yes of course does not make it “intrinsic evil”…but a gravely sinful moral object as the matter…does.

Fornication is* intrinsically evil*.

It can never be good.
 
Corki said:
Stop saying that. :mad: I NEVER said it could be good. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
I am saying that because that is part of the definition of “intrinsically evil”…

Not that I think you say it is good 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top