R
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
This is because you presume that it is all about not “contracepting” ("avoiding pregnancy by illicit means). But as I have explained in recent posts, the Church is in fact more prescriptive than that. Were it fine to use a condom (when wife pregnant) then it would also be fine to engage in other forms of mutual masturbation in these circumstances (unless you see a moral distinction between the 2 acts). Of course, I appreciate (based on your posting history) that you see no wrong in mutual masturbation at any time.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Rau;13688537:
For myself I was pleasantly surprised to discover Rhonheimer (2006) has similar reservations as myself wrt your conservative interpretation of acts “per se apt”.
In which case there are situations in which use of a condom does not render the marital act simply mutual masturbation.
communio-icr.com/articles/view/conjugal-love-condoms-and-hiv-aids
I am not saying he is correct but it does mean the point is validly debated.
And Pope Francis, FR Lombardi and the Phillipines Bishops Conference, at a purely pastoral level, appear to agree.
As you wish.
For myself I was pleasantly surprised to discover Rhonheimer (2006) has similar reservations as myself wrt your conservative interpretation of acts “per se apt”.
In which case there are situations in which use of a condom does not render the marital act simply mutual masturbation.
communio-icr.com/articles/view/conjugal-love-condoms-and-hiv-aids
I am not saying he is correct but it does mean the point is validly debated.
And Pope Francis, FR Lombardi and the Phillipines Bishops Conference, at a purely pastoral level, appear to agree.
R
Rau
Guest
Have you read that article - I mean the full article, which can be accessed via the .pdf icon at the link? In that article, Fr. Rhonheimer argued that condomised sex - for purposes of disease control - was not contraception, and therefore is OK. The article you linked points out - as I explained earlier - that the matter does not turn on whether the act is contraception. The article you linked makes exactly the case I have been making. I am quite familiar with that article.
I have no idea what your last para refers to, but if you can link to something definitive, I’m happy to read it.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
"Rhonheimer argues in response that the use of a condom for this purpose is only a “modification” of a normal sexual act and that this modification therefore does not invalidate the act as properly conjugal. "Have you read that article - I mean the full article, which can be accessed via the .pdf icon at the link? In that article, Fr. Rhonheimer argued that condomised sex - for purposes of disease control - was not contraception, and therefore is OK. The article you linked points out - as I explained earlier - that the matter does not turn on whether the act is contraception. The article you linked makes exactly the case I have been making. I am quite familiar with that article.
I have no idea what your last para refers to, but if you can link to something definitive, I’m happy to read it.
i.e condomised sex can be per se apt and you agree?
R
Rau
Guest
No. It is obviously, and objectively, not (in itself) apt for procreation by virtue of the barrier the parties place around the penis. The barrier makes it precisely inapt, because semen cannot travel as appropriate for procreation. Sodomy is also inapt (no explanation needed). Other kinds of mutual masturbation are also inapt.
I recommend you read the full article (.pdf) you quoted.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
For myself I was pleasantly surprised to discover Rhonheimer (2006) has similar reservations as myself wrt your conservative interpretation of acts “per se apt”.
In which case there are situations in which use of a condom does not render the marital act simply mutual masturbation.
communio-icr.com/articles…s-and-hiv-aids
I am not saying he is correct but it does mean the point is validly debated.
And Pope Francis, FR Lombardi and the Phillipines Bishops Conference, at a purely pastoral level, appear to agree.
R
Rau
Guest
Blue, did you forget that you already wrote that post? Just a few posts above… I already responded as follows:
Have you read that article - I mean the full article, which can be accessed via the .pdf icon at the link? In that article, Fr. Rhonheimer argued that condomised sex - for purposes of disease control - was not contraception, and therefore is OK. The article you linked points out - as I explained earlier - that the matter does not turn on whether the act is contraception. The article you linked makes exactly the case I have been making. I am quite familiar with that article.
I have no idea what your last para refers to, but if you can link to something definitive, I’m happy to read it.
S
surritter
Guest
Here’s the difference, though. Sexual intercourse is not “ordered” toward transmitting a virus; that’s an unfortunate by-product of human contact sometimes. Saying that something is part of the biological order is totally different from our use of the word order.
“Ordered” simply means that some biological things are designed for certain purposes intrinsically (meaning in and of themselves). I’m curious what you thought of my bulimia analogy…
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You’ve lost me.Blue, did you forget that you already wrote that post? Just a few posts above… I already responded as follows:
Have you read that article - I mean the full article, which can be accessed via the .pdf icon at the link? In that article, Fr. Rhonheimer argued that condomised sex - for purposes of disease control - was not contraception, and therefore is OK. The article you linked points out - as I explained earlier - that the matter does not turn on whether the act is contraception. The article you linked makes exactly the case I have been making. I am quite familiar with that article.
I have no idea what your last para refers to, but if you can link to something definitive, I’m happy to read it.
You opine that condomised sex even by the pregnant is not a valid marital act, immoral (mutual masturbation as you put it) and cut and dried.
Rhonheimer, a well respected Thomistic theologian, strongly disagrees with this interpretation of “acts per se apt”. He has even more strongly worded articles on this topic if you are unable to discern his position from the article linked. I am sure you are smart enough to discover them for yourself.
So my small point is that there is a respectable debate on the somewhat dogmatic position you hold.
The contrary position is not only held by Rhonheimer on theological grounds but now appears also held on pastoral grounds by Pope Francis, the CDF Spokesman and the Phillipine Bishops.
I have already showed agreement with you that I am no longer analysing pregnant sex as primarily from a contraceptive angle.
All very clear.
If you still don’t get it there is nothing more I can say to make this more lucid for you.
R
Rau
Guest
Please contain your superior tone and stick to rational arguments. Rhonheimer opined 10 years ago, and you yourself point to the rebuttal - making a point that Rhonheimer entirely overlooked. Rhonheimer has nowhere to go…he lost that one.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Well it’s certainly not an “unfortunate by-product of human contact” from the perspective of the virus or bacteria which is trying to propagate itself. And many viruses like this are primarily spread through the sexual intercourse of their host organisms. That’s why they’re called “Sexually Transmitted Diseases.” So they are a natural part of the biological “order”, just one that we don’t really like very much and try to thwart.
S
surritter
Guest
So you’re saying that sexual intercourse was created for the intrinsic purpose of transmitting viruses. Uh, no.Well it’s certainly not an “unfortunate by-product of human contact” from the perspective of the virus or bacteria which is trying to propagate itself. And many viruses like this are primarily spread through the sexual intercourse of their host organisms. That’s why they’re called “Sexually Transmitted Diseases.” So they are a natural part of the biological “order”, just one that we don’t really like very much and try to thwart.
But sexual intercourse was indeed created for the purpose of transmitting seed for the potential creation of new life.
See the meaning of “ordered” now?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The National Catholic Bioethics Center has weighed in on this question:
ncbcenter.org/resources/the-ncbc-responds-to-the-zika-virus
“This provides the foundation to answer a question increasingly being asked-whether it is ethical to use contraceptive methods, such as condoms, to reduce the likelihood of transmission of the Zika virus. Apart from the scientific questions about the actual effectiveness of condoms in disease prevention, using condoms to reduce the likelihood of Zika transmission amounts to directly intending contraceptive acts of intercourse as a means to a good end. It “deliberately frustrate . . . the natural power and purpose” of marital intercourse (see CC, n. 54). In the case of a woman who is already pregnant, condom use could not have the effect of preventing pregnancy, but it would prevent a true marital act from taking place, which always involves a complete giving and receiving on the part of the husband and wife.”
Rhonheimer’s views are not orthodox.
Most Catholics don’t really understand the moral object, so when they attempt to analyze whether an act is intrinsically evil, especially in some of the more complex and difficult moral questions, they err.
The NCBC has the correct discernment in the case of a woman who cannot conceive due to an existing pregnancy (or due to old age or illness). The knowingly chosen act of sex with a condom is not open to life; the concrete act is inherently ordered toward a deprivation of the procreative meaning. It is not the attainment of the evil moral object that makes the act intrinsically evil, but rather the intentional knowing choice of a disordered act.
A good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed.
Rau, I still disagree with your description and application of the font called object. We can discuss this by PM or e-mail, if you would like.
ncbcenter.org/resources/the-ncbc-responds-to-the-zika-virus
“This provides the foundation to answer a question increasingly being asked-whether it is ethical to use contraceptive methods, such as condoms, to reduce the likelihood of transmission of the Zika virus. Apart from the scientific questions about the actual effectiveness of condoms in disease prevention, using condoms to reduce the likelihood of Zika transmission amounts to directly intending contraceptive acts of intercourse as a means to a good end. It “deliberately frustrate
Rhonheimer’s views are not orthodox.
Most Catholics don’t really understand the moral object, so when they attempt to analyze whether an act is intrinsically evil, especially in some of the more complex and difficult moral questions, they err.
The NCBC has the correct discernment in the case of a woman who cannot conceive due to an existing pregnancy (or due to old age or illness). The knowingly chosen act of sex with a condom is not open to life; the concrete act is inherently ordered toward a deprivation of the procreative meaning. It is not the attainment of the evil moral object that makes the act intrinsically evil, but rather the intentional knowing choice of a disordered act.
A good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed.
Rau, I still disagree with your description and application of the font called object. We can discuss this by PM or e-mail, if you would like.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Ron I think it is at least clear that Pope Francis believes in the Zika case the object is such that it is able to support an indirect contraceptive intent. Use of contraception in the marital act is always a physical evil (just as is killing a man) … but it can be tolerated for proportionate reasons. In a sense NFP is also a form of contraception (avoiding pregnancy in the marital act) … but this evil too can be justified on proportionate grounds as it is able to support a merely indirect contraceptive intent as the act is in fact open to life.
Saying Rhonheimer’s is not orthodox does not appear helpful. Pope Francis too is unorthodox is he not? Attack their arguments not their credibility. Debate is clearly acceptable on these points and intimations of heresy unCatholic at this point in time.
R
Rau
Guest
Contraception is a moral evil, not a physical evil. Knocking down a door to rescue someone is a physical evil. The former is intrinsically evil, the latter is not.
To clarify your post, you are buying into the idea (or you believe the Pope is) that contraception may be used in a wide range of medical situations which would include:
- prevent AIDS transmission;
- prevent Sika baby;
- prevent conceiving child with likelihood of serious medical condition;
- prevent pregnancy where serious risk to mother
B
Bradski
Guest
I think that for most people (including, I might suggest, a majority of Catholics) the suggestion that using a condom whilst making love to your pregnant wife to prevent possible harm to the baby as being ‘evil’ would be met with stunned silence.
R
Rau
Guest
Popular opinion (or the popular choice) is not the point in discussion. Nevertheless, your hypothesis may be correct.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
If you want to quote me please be precise Rau.
I didn’t say “contraception” which is ambiguous as even Janet Smith advises us.
I said the Pope seems to be saying “**Use of **contraception in the marital act is always a physical evil”.
And this is true, it always is. Just as the deed of killing (regardless of intent) is always a physical evil.
The difficulty is whether this deed is ALSO always and everywhere a moral evil when freely chosen. The Pope does not seem to accept this.
- Status