B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
One would think so.
Yet some of our pure logicians here also believe a stopped clock is better than a slow clock because it is correct twice a day while the slow one never
.
- Status
Yet some of our pure logicians here also believe a stopped clock is better than a slow clock because it is correct twice a day while the slow one never
.
R
Rau
Guest
Use of contraception in the marital act…to prevent pregnancy…is the definition of “contraception”. Did the pope have another intent in mind? Don’t know. The pope will need to issue rather more coherent sentences before we know what he thinks. And if he thinks as you speculate, he will need to confront the rather large collection of doctrine expressing a diametrically opposite position.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I didn’t say this, and again you’ve been a little loose so lets tighten up your terminology into something less confusing than the Pope’s interview.
If you are saying:
“Use of a contraceptive in the marital act with the **direct **intention of preventing pregnancy is an immoral contraceptive act.”
Yes I agree with that and so would the Pope I believe.
If you are saying:
“Use of a contraceptive in the marital act with the indirect intention of preventing pregnancy is an immoral contraceptive act.”
Well, I believe Pope Francis would disagree with you.
The question of course is this - is there any way of using a contraceptive that does not imply always and everywhere a direct intention to contracept.
According to Pope Francis and others there is. Protection of the potential child from the Zika virus. And yes, stopping semen and ovum contacting is unfortunately chosen as the lesser evil. This is avoiding pregnancy, it is the use of a contraceptive, but it is not an act of contracepting.
OR, we may need to confront the growing collection of cases (Congo case, Benedict and HIV Prostitute) that the doctrine is not what we thought it was and unusual cases bring to light deeper principles. What we thought was a universal “doctrine” may have been at heart a disciplinary bann instead to avoid the unresolved debates even weighty and respected theologians of the 1960s were not agreed on.
R
Rau
Guest
You are searching for a double effect solution. But it isn’t there, because the good end of “protection from Zika” is a consequence, or flows from, the bad act of “contracepting” the marital act. That rules out a double-effect case. A condom to prevent transmitting a virus has a better chance of a double-effect claim, but fails anyway, though I know you may take a different view.]
Your last para seems to rest on a different understanding of those events than mine, since I see none of those events contradicting any doctrine. But I won’t open that can here.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Rau one cannot expect the “dummied down” intermediary “stock phrases” and succinct formulations of the Magisterium’s Encyclicals to always work well in highly untypical situations.
One needs to go back to the more fundamental principles of Aquinas on which they are largely based.
So, in line with Aquinas, the over-riding issue for me is whether the use of contraceptives must always mean the “anchored” intention is necessarily directly contraceptive.
I don’t even know if we need to talk of TPODEffect. Is CTLOTEvils always a use of TPODEffect?
Anyways, I see this case as little different from killing a man in self-defence. Using your argument above one would have to say it is never legitimate to kill in self defence because that good is a consequence of and flows through the evil of killing of the attacker.
(BTW I think it is hard to prove the Encyclicals confine contraceptive acts only to marriage - which just goes to show how “loose” our understanding of contraceptive theology from Encyclicals alone still is.It all depends what was meant by “the marital act?” Was it a pious euphemism for generic coitus or was it specifically meant to refer to only the acts of married couples. This too is debated by serious theologians - though you no doubt think everybody agrees on this
S
surritter
Guest
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Rau is correct.
There are “direct” actions and “indirect” effects. To use contraception for the effect of preventing the spread of a virus is only the result of directly thwarting the marital act. Thus, it’s immoral. (It doesn’t matter what the pope may or may not think; this is settled stuff.)
To rephrase it for Blue Horizon’s thinking, we’d have to say that a couple is directly preventing the spread of a virus and the indirect effect is that the marital act is thwarted. But it doesn’t work that way. Sex is ordered toward procreation resulting from the love-giving act between a husband and wife. (It need not result in pregnancy, but that avenue must be preserved or the whole action is a sham.)
All this stuff about preventing viruses is of course important, but in the moral order it cannot displace the integral purpose of sex.
The analogy of self-defense doesn’t work here because it is not absolutely integral to life that life must always be preserved.
There are “direct” actions and “indirect” effects. To use contraception for the effect of preventing the spread of a virus is only the result of directly thwarting the marital act. Thus, it’s immoral. (It doesn’t matter what the pope may or may not think; this is settled stuff.)
To rephrase it for Blue Horizon’s thinking, we’d have to say that a couple is directly preventing the spread of a virus and the indirect effect is that the marital act is thwarted. But it doesn’t work that way. Sex is ordered toward procreation resulting from the love-giving act between a husband and wife. (It need not result in pregnancy, but that avenue must be preserved or the whole action is a sham.)
All this stuff about preventing viruses is of course important, but in the moral order it cannot displace the integral purpose of sex.
The analogy of self-defense doesn’t work here because it is not absolutely integral to life that life must always be preserved.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
When life is no longer preserved, it’s not life, it’s death. I find it hard to believe that death could ever be preferable to using a condom.
R
Rau
Guest
But that is because you find use of a condom to be an entirely neutral act. You acknowledge nil moral wrong in its use.
R
Rau
Guest
Well, in other circumstances, it may well be the case that contraception would never enter the minds of the couple. They are happy for a baby to be conceived…just not one with the effects of Zika. Their good Intention is plain - avoid the affliction on a child that Zika can wrought. So what action do they choose? Hmmm (the couple think)…“we could abstain or NFP…but, hang on, we still want to have sex…so…let’s make sure we don’t get pregnant for now! Let’s contracept our marital acts (object = contraception) so that we can fulfil our intentions of: continuing sex and avoiding a Zika afflictions”. As I pointed out, there isn’t a double effect here because the good effects are delivered not in parallel with the bad effect (separation of meanings), but as a consequence of it.
That’s how I analyse it Blue. I believe it’s “orthodox” catholic moral analysis. If it is missing a nuance - let someone correct me.
Were that the case Blue, theologians would have made that point at least from the time of HV, if not earlier. If you render the act of “preventing pregnancy be separating the meanings of the conjugal act” as a physical rather than a moral evil, just because the Intention is a good one (avoid Zika affliction) as opposed to say a bad one such as (avoid a child so we have more $$ to lavish on a new mink coat) - you would overturn the fundamentals of Catholic Moral Theology. We can’t really get past the point that Contraception IS being chosen as the means to deliver on other Intentions. And the other available means are put aside.
I examined the 2 key “recent” encyclicals because Ron Conte asserted that those encyclicals addressed contraception in a context wider than marriage. This is a fairly objective claim, which can be tested objectively. If you want to do similar (quicker than a full re-read), search each for “conjugal” and then for “sexual” and examine the context and the use of these words. I found that none of the discussion addressed a context outside marriage. I am not saying contraception is only possible in marriage - just that those encyclicals confined themselves to that context.
R
Rose71
Guest
Well, I am hoping our Parish Priest can provide a full and accurate account this Sunday of:
- What the Pope actually said
- How this sits with the Church’s teaching
S
surritter
Guest
Hold on – you’re conflating two different things. I never said that death was “preferable to using a condom.” I was referring to death in the context of Blue Horizon’s story of self-defense (such as fending off a robber/murderer). When fighting off a murderer, you can certainly protect yourself, even if an unintended result is his/her death.
If you are fighting off a deadly virus, and an unintended result is that the transmission of the male seed is thwarted, then it can be tolerated morally. But the zika virus doesn’t just attack randomly; it’s mode of transmission is the sexual act itself!
I keep referring you back to the bulimia analogy. If you would take a few moments to ponder that, I could help draw the parallels to the present discussion.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Pope Saint John Paul II: “Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified. To think, or to say, anything to the contrary is tantamount to saying that in human life there can be situations where it is legitimate not to recognize God as God. Users of contraception attribute to themselves a power that belongs only to God, the power to decide in the final instance the coming into existence of a human being.” (Address on Responsible Procreation)
Some human acts are intrinsically disordered. Such acts can never be licitly chosen because the choice of the concrete act implies the choice of its morally-disordered nature. Contraception, abortifacient contraception, and abortion are among such acts.
Intrinsically evil acts are ordered toward an evil moral object, which is the end, in terms of morality, toward which the knowingly chosen concrete act is inherently directed. The object is independent of the intended end or purpose of the act and independent of the circumstances and consequences (effects) of the act.
Intrinsically evil acts are said by the Magisterium to be “intended” or “deliberate” or “voluntary” solely because the disordered act is intentionally (deliberately, voluntarily) chosen – not because of the intended end or the consequences of the act.
Acts of contraception are ordered toward the deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual acts. Even if a couple is infertile, each sexual act must be ordered toward the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings in the object of the act in order to be moral.
Condoms cannot morally be used to prevent the transmission of disease, regardless of marital state and even in infertile couples, because contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely disordered. The intended end, to protect a life from harm, and the consequence that birth defects are averted, cannot justify the intentional choice (for any reason) of an inherently disordered act.
Some human acts are intrinsically disordered. Such acts can never be licitly chosen because the choice of the concrete act implies the choice of its morally-disordered nature. Contraception, abortifacient contraception, and abortion are among such acts.
Intrinsically evil acts are ordered toward an evil moral object, which is the end, in terms of morality, toward which the knowingly chosen concrete act is inherently directed. The object is independent of the intended end or purpose of the act and independent of the circumstances and consequences (effects) of the act.
Intrinsically evil acts are said by the Magisterium to be “intended” or “deliberate” or “voluntary” solely because the disordered act is intentionally (deliberately, voluntarily) chosen – not because of the intended end or the consequences of the act.
Acts of contraception are ordered toward the deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual acts. Even if a couple is infertile, each sexual act must be ordered toward the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings in the object of the act in order to be moral.
Condoms cannot morally be used to prevent the transmission of disease, regardless of marital state and even in infertile couples, because contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely disordered. The intended end, to protect a life from harm, and the consequence that birth defects are averted, cannot justify the intentional choice (for any reason) of an inherently disordered act.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Wait a minute. It Pope JPII saying that a woman may not even use a spermicide after rape? He says it is so profoundly disordered that it may never be used, but I thought that the intrinsic evil only applied to freely chosen relations, not a violent attack that introduces the man’s seed against her will.
S
surritter
Guest
I would say that what you’re talking about isn’t within the definition of “contraception.” That word is only within the scope that you give, which is freely chosen relations.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
So the Church only uses “contraception” to apply to an action taken against conception within freely chosen sexual relations, but not to apply to using spermicide to try to prevent conception following a rape?
Why does the Church differentiate in their terminology from the accepted and commonly understood medical terminology? That makes it confusing for people like me.
R
Rau
Guest
The act JP Speaks of is not the one you speak of.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
I am not trying to be obtuse. I hope you know that. So can you please explain to me what the Church means when she says, through a saintly pope, that contraception may never be approved, while at the same time, not applying to situations of violence where conception is prevented? Or if this is too far off topic, maybe I should start a new thread.
R
Rau
Guest
The Church is addressing “moral acts” which are more multi-faceted than simple physical acts.So the Church only uses “contraception” to apply to an action taken against conception within freely chosen sexual relations, but not to apply to using spermicide to try to prevent conception following a rape?
Why does the Church differentiate in their terminology from the accepted and commonly understood medical terminology? That makes it confusing for people like me.
R
Rau
Guest
You are equating “contraception” with specific drugs (say) having a specific effect, or with particular physical effects themselves. That is not right. I have posted multiple posts recently explaining why the Congo nuns could take drugs with contraceptive effect but not commit the moral I’ll of contraception. (I’ve no idea whether that story is fact or legend.). Perhaps you could search those post and query them if appropriate.
S
surritter
Guest
Not quite sure… maybe others can find a Vatican document that gets into that idea.So the Church only uses “contraception” to apply to an action taken against conception within freely chosen sexual relations, but not to apply to using spermicide to try to prevent conception following a rape?
Why does the Church differentiate in their terminology from the accepted and commonly understood medical terminology? That makes it confusing for people like me.
Maybe it’s along the same lines of in vitro fertilization not being a “procreative” act. Obviously it is procreative in one sense because the scientist can make a baby in the petri dish, but it’s not procreative in the sense that a love-giving act gives rise to a new life, which is how we are “ordered.”
What you mentioned about post-rape would be contraception in a scientific sense of the word, but it was not a love-giving act that gave rise to the potential new life, and that love-giving act is how we are “ordered.”
- Status