Condoms and Zika

[Rau]

Ecuse me
Thou shall not kill, the 5th Commandment, has no moral content?

However killing can be justified under particular circumstances.

Blue - you are ignoring what has been explained already.

Further, as the Church teaches, the negative moral precepts know no exceptions - they cannot be justified by Intention or Circumstances. But don’t just take my word for it:

“67…the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.”
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Thus, you should review your understanding of the commandment.

Just like killing in self defence

Killing (as an act) omits moral content. “I killed the man”. Surely this is enough to condemn me under the commandment - a negative precept which, properly understood, has no exceptions as Church teaches. But no, it is not enough to condemn me because the statement lacks moral content. Just as the “made up” moral object you proposed for the contraceptive act in post #192 *omitted the moral content *(which I pointed out in post #198).

I cannot imagine what more can be said on this thread to explain to you why the act you describe in post #192 is morally evil. See Post #198 and subsequent from me which demonstrate the presence of the moral evil of contraception in your act, and which demonstrate no moral evil in the act of lethal self-defence.

Your case would be easier if you did not try to simultaneously accept and reject Church teaching. It would be simpler if you instead argued that “directly thwarting the procreative aspect of conjugal relations” is not intrinsically evil. “Just like killing”.

I won’t post on this thread further.

FYI - if you pop over to this thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1002863you will see another attempt to assert that contraception becomes OK when the motivation for it is a good one. In this case, its the health of the mother for whom a pregnancy presents a grave risk to life. The person arguing that contraception then becomes fine is StGerardMajella. She is rather more direct in her assertions but ultimately lands in a similar place to you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The use of contraceptives with the knowledge they will contracept is acceptable in some cases?

Do you disagree?

Waiting for your response?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue - you are ignoring what has been explained already.

Further, as the Church teaches, the negative moral precepts know no exceptions - they cannot be justified by Intention or Circumstances. But don’t just take my word for it:

“67…the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.”
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Thus, you should review your understanding of the commandment.

Killing (as an act) omits moral content. “I killed the man”. Surely this is enough to condemn me under the commandment - a negative precept which, properly understood, has no exceptions as Church teaches. But no, it is not enough to condemn me because the statement lacks moral content. Just as the “made up” moral object you proposed for the contraceptive act in post #192 *omitted the moral content *(which I pointed out in post #198).

I cannot imagine what more can be said on this thread to explain to you why the act you describe in post #192 is morally evil. See Post #198 and subsequent from me which demonstrate the presence of the moral evil of contraception in your act, and which demonstrate no moral evil in the act of lethal self-defence.

Your case would be easier if you did not try to simultaneously accept and reject Church teaching. It would be simpler if you instead argued that “directly thwarting the procreative aspect of conjugal relations” is not intrinsically evil. “Just like killing”.

I won’t post on this thread further.

FYI - if you pop over to this thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1002863you will see another attempt to assert that contraception becomes OK when the motivation for it is a good one. In this case, its the health of the mother for whom a pregnancy presents a grave risk to life. The person arguing that contraception then becomes fine is StGerardMajella. She is rather more direct in her assertions but ultimately lands in a similar place to you.

Rau not ignoring your explanation, I simply disagree with it. It isn’t clear Church teaching.
Something can have moral content without being intrinsically evil and is therefore not finally coercive without further analysis.

Such is killing and, I hypothesize, contracepting.
Perfect analogs still from what I can see.

I think you need to analyse more deeply the nature of the object font and what intrinsically evil actually refers to.

Few readers here would agree with you that killing has no moral import .