Condoms and Zika

[jmjZelie]

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.

I hadn’t realized you had responded to my question here after I said I might start a new thread. Sorry!

Okay, so why is it wrong for me to use the terms that way. Spermicide is a contraceptive substance, according to the scientific meaning of the word “contraception”. Why does the Church change the meaning of the word “contraception” to exclude the use of a contraceptive substance post-assault (or the use of it before, I suppose)?

I am trying really hard to get this. But I don’t understand how it is okay to change the meaning of something. Isn’t the Church opposed to the redefinition of marriage? Why does She redefine contraception then? And where can I find the explanation that states why the Church changed the meaning and that the Church acknowledges that Her meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning?

 

[Rau]

I hadn’t realized you had responded to my question here after I said I might start a new thread. Sorry!

Okay, so why is it wrong for me to use the terms that way. Spermicide is a contraceptive substance, according to the scientific meaning of the word “contraception”. Why does the Church change the meaning of the word “contraception” to exclude the use of a contraceptive substance post-assault (or the use of it before, I suppose)?

I am trying really hard to get this. But I don’t understand how it is okay to change the meaning of something. Isn’t the Church opposed to the redefinition of marriage? Why does She redefine contraception then? And where can I find the explanation that states why the Church changed the meaning and that the Church acknowledges that Her meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning?

The Church is not changing the meaning of anything. She is addressing something a little more nuanced than physical form. She is addressing moral acts, not physical ones. Her teaching is more expanded than: “taking contraceptives is wrong” or “any act to prevent conception in any circumstance is wrong”.

I think this matter has been explained sufficiently in a number of threads, and I think the answer is readily understandable. Rape is not the kind of act to which the exhortations of the Church to “protect and respect” that act are directed.

See also:
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html

 

[jmjZelie]

The Church is not changing the meaning of anything. She is addressing something a little more nuanced than physical form. She is addressing moral acts, not physical ones. Her teaching is more expanded than: “taking contraceptives is wrong” or “any act to prevent conception in any circumstance is wrong”.

I think this matter has been explained sufficiently in a number of threads, and I think the answer is readily understandable. Rape is not the kind of act to which the exhortations of the Church to “protect and respect” that act are directed.

See also:
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html

Even in that letter, which I have read before, refers to the substances as contraceptives. It simply says that the use of the contraceptives in such a circumstance do not violate the prohibition on contraception.

I don’t think I am going to be able to find any better answer here. The language of the Church is confusing. I personally understand the principles involved, but there is no way that I would ever be able to explain to anyone why the Church says that on the one hand contraception may never be approved under any circumstance, and yet on the other hand says that contraceptives may be used after rape without violating the Church teaching that says they may never be approved. I agree with the spirit of the al the teachings I have read, but there seems to be no simple way to explain this to someone who holds that since the Church says under no circumstances may contraception be approved that they may not be approved for post-rape.

I know what I would do, and that is follow the guidelines in the ethical directive. But I don’t know how to explain this to those who oppose the directive on the grounds that I have explained.

 

[Rau]

…there is no way that I would ever be able to explain to anyone why the Church says that on the one hand contraception may never be approved under any circumstance, and yet on the other hand says that contraceptives may be used after rape without violating the Church teaching that says they may never be approved. I agree with the spirit of the al the teachings I have read, but there seems to be no simple way to explain this to someone who holds that since the Church says under no circumstances may contraception be approved that they may not be approved for post-rape.

The Church does not say you can’t take a contraceptive drug. It does not say you can’t have an operation that makes you sterile. It addresses moral wrongs. A hysterectomy is wrong when it is an act of contraception. It is not wrong when it is an act of medical treatment. If you are not confident, it may be better simply to suggest that someone reads the available material (such as HV and the other link I gave you).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not so fast .
There are two exceptions in actual practise that make this seemingly clear cut principle much more ambiguous.

It is not the visible use of contraceptives we are talking about.
It is the directly intended use thereof…which is discerned by reason not by bodily eyes.

So are there cases where, even if a contraceptive intention is even present, it is only an indirect intention?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Rau if your understanding of TPODE here was accurate then killing in self defence is immoral too.
And as I noted, not every philosopher sees the LOTEVILS as being the same thing.

 

[Rau]

Rau if your understanding of TPODE here was accurate then killing in self defence is immoral too.
And as I noted, not every philosopher sees the LOTEVILS as being the same thing.

Another post with no substance blue.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Well done. You are miles ahead of most Catholics to appreciate this quickly.
It is confusing.

But then who said the laity were equipped to understand the ancient Aristotelian philosophic system underpinning the Churchs theology, including moral theology? In many ways Encyclicals are not meant for your average “uneducated” lay Catholic.

Every profession has not only its own jargon but also it’s own forms of accepted logic and systemic understanding of the world.

The medical profession and modern science since the 1500s uses words and understands things differently from how society used to think before that time. You and I are children more of science than of pre Enlightenment times. The Church official may have dropped Latin…but it still thinks pretty Enlightenment/Classical. That is where your disconnect ultimately stems from.

Me, I did a 6 year Theology/Philosophy degree many years ago when I made the same realisation you have just made!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Another post with no substance blue.

Pretty clear, show how the saving of my life does not flow thru my attackers death?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Even in that letter, which I have read before, refers to the substances as contraceptives. It simply says that the use of the contraceptives in such a circumstance do not violate the prohibition on contraception.

I don’t think I am going to be able to find any better answer here. The language of the Church is confusing. I personally understand the principles involved, but there is no way that I would ever be able to explain to anyone why the Church says that on the one hand contraception may never be approved under any circumstance, and yet on the other hand says that contraceptives may be used after rape without violating the Church teaching that says they may never be approved. I agree with the spirit of the al the teachings I have read, but there seems to be no simple way to explain this to someone who holds that since the Church says under no circumstances may contraception be approved that they may not be approved for post-rape.

I know what I would do, and that is follow the guidelines in the ethical directive. But I don’t know how to explain this to those who oppose the directive on the grounds that I have explained.

JZ the Church is not interested in physical contraception or physical contraceptives.
Whenever the Church speaks of contraceptive you must always think “contraceptive intent” or “contraceptive human acts.” We are talking ethics not biology.

Any physical contraception that is without contraceptive intent is not “contraception” in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Thorolfr]

Another post with no substance blue.

Sometimes your replies sound rather condescending.

 

[surritter]

Pretty clear, show how the saving of my life does not flow thru my attackers death?

I can only conclude that you’re either:
a) not taking the time to read all the posts, or
b) looking to keep the debate between you and Rau

because I answered (at least partially) your challenge about self-defense. See posts #65 and 70.

If you are beset by an unjust aggressor and you attempt to fight off that aggressor, that is a moral action. And if the aggressor’s death is a result, then it can be allowed, morally speaking.

But that doesn’t translate to the zika virus. The problem is that the zika virus doesn’t just attack someone, at least in the mode of transmission we’re discussing. The person is already engaging in the sexual act, which is ordered toward a biological end. You can’t intentionally thwart that biological “ordering” from the outset of the sexual act just because it could prevent becoming infected by a virus.

That would be akin to directly killing a person (even a seemingly threatening person) just because he/she could be out to kill you. That’s not self-defense; it’s flipping the order of things.

 

[Rau]

…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.

I don’t think the two cases are the same or comparable, for the following reasons.

In self-defence, the act chosen is the good act of rendering (with proportionate/necessary force) the unjust aggressor unable to cause harm, though potentially (including by choice) entailing the physical evil of death. Despite this means, acting licitly, we are in fact not desirous of the aggressor’s death, and we don’t need it either. We need to ‘stop’ the aggressor. The benefit from our actions flow from the ‘stopping’ of the aggressor, NOT from his death.

Contrast this with the Zika scenario and the taking of the pill (for example):

When a couple decides to use the Pill with a view to ensuring their conjugal acts do not lead to conception, the outcome they desire and pursue is unequivocally sex free of pregnancy risk. This is what they pursue, and it is what they need, for their ultimate Intention (avoiding the affliction of Zika) to be achieved. I cannot see any reasoning by which their act can entail a good act with at worst physical evil (as in the case above), because:

• they chose acts which make their sex infertile;
• they intend that their sex be rendered infertile - they intend there be no conception;
• their goal (first font) relies on their being no pregnancy - it does not flow from anything other (good) thing;

In the Zika case, the contraceptive act presents as moral evil. And only from that is the intended goal achieved.

If any reader believes they see this issue more clearly than I, and have some knowledge or moral theology, I would be very grateful to see an outline in detail similar to that above, of any moral reasoning that finds “intentional rendering of sexual acts infertile in order to avoid Zika afflicted baby” as morally licit.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I can only conclude that you’re either:
a) not taking the time to read all the posts, or
b) looking to keep the debate between you and Rau

because I answered (at least partially) your challenge about self-defense. See posts #65 and 70.

If you are beset by an unjust aggressor and you attempt to fight off that aggressor, that is a moral action. And if the aggressor’s death is a result, then it can be allowed, morally speaking.

But that doesn’t translate to the zika virus. The problem is that the zika virus doesn’t just attack someone, at least in the mode of transmission we’re discussing. The person is already engaging in the sexual act, which is ordered toward a biological end. You can’t intentionally thwart that biological “ordering” from the outset of the sexual act just because it could prevent becoming infected by a virus.

That would be akin to directly killing a person (even a seemingly threatening person) just because he/she could be out to kill you. That’s not self-defense; it’s flipping the order of things.

SR I have not previously read any of your posts because you have never posted in the usual fashion - namely by doing a reply on the persons post you wish to address. CA threads often have multiple parallel and independent discussions going on at the same time and I don’t have time to track all of them.

Having looked at your posts you seem to have missed the philosophic point I am raising with Rau. I am not saying Zika is an attack. I am trying to understand Rau’s understanding of TPODE by looking at how his understanding works in the case of self-defence.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think the two cases are the same or comparable, for the following reasons.

In self-defence, the act chosen is the good act of rendering (with proportionate/necessary force) the unjust aggressor unable to cause harm, though potentially (including by choice) entailing the physical evil of death. Despite this means, acting licitly, we are in fact not desirous of the aggressor’s death, and we don’t need it either. We need to ‘stop’ the aggressor. The benefit from our actions flow from the ‘stopping’ of the aggressor, NOT from his death.

You seem to be back-tracking on your below assertion Rau.

If we realise the only way to stop is to kill then the benefit flows through the killing sorry Rau.
A policeman who shoots his attacker in the line of duty knows he is choosing to kill - they always shoot for the heart in my country. One doesn’t have to kill by accident for such killing to be justified. One only needs to reasonably fear that self protection cannot be achieved in any other way. One still may not delect in the killing as that suggests direct intent to kill.

So I think your “the good result must not flow through the physical evil” is still a bit of a nonsense when you define TPODE in this manner.
It does happen in self-defence and so I have no problem with someone indirectly choosing physical contraception in trying to avoid a Zika baby.

The saving grace in both examples still seems to be that this “choosing” is indirect in both cases and the good pursued outweighs the physical means indirectly “chosen”.

Just as Pope Francis stated, avoiding pregnancy (with a condom) is not an absolute evil.

 

[Rau]

You seem to be back-tracking on your below assertion Rau.

If we realise the only way to stop is to kill then the benefit flows through the killing sorry Rau.

Objectively false! The benefit also flows without death. I choose to kill, to take a head shot. The death is not objectively necessary to stop the assailant, but I chose that course due to lack of confidence to shoot to wound. I’m going to be happy with any result that stops the assailant “cold”, because that is the good (proximate) end pursued. I don’t need, and always knew I did not need, his death, and that is not contradicted by my prudent choice to choose to kill. The Zika scenario with the Pill is objectively different - I must have no conception.

Blue - can we stop this flirting aeound the edge of the real issue. You see the Zika analysis in my previous post. Can you address it directly, say which part of the Zika analysis errs, and without quoting Francis as though he’s made a de facto valid assessment, since that it to assume the very matter I debate, supply the “correct” analysis.

BTW - why do you focus on condom? I’m not aware the Pope did.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Concerning the principle of double effect, a bad consequence (physical evil) may be intended as a means to a good end.

Jesus allowed His own death, intending His death to be a means to the good end of our salvation. He could have prevented His own death, by calling on His Father and His Angels (Mt 26:53). Jesus did not cause His own death, for suicide is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Nor did He intend His own death as an end, which would be immoral. But He did permit His own death, with the intention of accomplishing the good end of our salvation. Thus a bad (but moral) means * may be intended for the sake of a greater good end.

A judge gives a sentence of death to a criminal convicted of a very serious crime. The judge intends the death of a human person, which is a type of serious harm. But, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, it is moral for him to intend this harm as a means to protect the common good. [Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 64, A. 7.] For he is acting similarly to a physician who amputates a limb to save a life. The loss of the life of even a criminal is a bad consequence in the third font. But since this person is guilty of serious crimes, this loss is bad in the sense of harm, but it is not intrinsically evil. The proper use of the death penalty is not immoral because the person killed is guilty, not innocent. A bad means may be intended in order to achieve a greater good end, but only if the bad means is bad in the sense of harm, and not bad in the sense of immoral.

The principle of double effect is merely the application of the three fonts to a particular class of acts. It is not a special exception to the three fonts. As long as all three fonts are good, the act is moral.*

 

[Rau]

Concerning the principle of double effect, a bad consequence (physical evil) may be intended as a means to a good end.

Jesus allowed His own death, intending His death to be a means to the good end of our salvation. He could have prevented His own death, by calling on His Father and His Angels (Mt 26:53). Jesus did not cause His own death, for suicide is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Nor did He intend His own death as an end, which would be immoral. But He did permit His own death, with the intention of accomplishing the good end of our salvation. Thus a bad (but moral) means * may be intended for the sake of a greater good end.

A judge gives a sentence of death to a criminal convicted of a very serious crime. The judge intends the death of a human person, which is a type of serious harm. But, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, it is moral for him to intend this harm as a means to protect the common good. [Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 64, A. 7.] For he is acting similarly to a physician who amputates a limb to save a life. The loss of the life of even a criminal is a bad consequence in the third font. But since this person is guilty of serious crimes, this loss is bad in the sense of harm, but it is not intrinsically evil. The proper use of the death penalty is not immoral because the person killed is guilty, not innocent. A bad means may be intended in order to achieve a greater good end, but only if the bad means is bad in the sense of harm, and not bad in the sense of immoral.

The principle of double effect is merely the application of the three fonts to a particular class of acts. It is not a special exception to the three fonts. As long as all three fonts are good, the act is moral.*

What say you on the suggestion seemingly made by the pope that condoms or the pill might have a role is responding to Zika? Can their application be mere physical evil as Blue suggests?

 

[Ron_Conte]

What say you on the suggestion seemingly made by the pope that condoms or the pill might have a role is responding to Zika? Can their application be mere physical evil as Blue suggests?

The Pope was not specific enough in his off-hand comments to the press. He was not exercising the Magisterium, and he was not even publishing a considered personal theological opinion. Why is everyone ignoring the teachings of the Magisterium on the three fonts and on intrinsic evil, and instead basing their moral judgments on their own exaggerated interpretation of these extemporaneous remarks?

The pill is an abortifacient, so it is not justified even in cases of rape.

The use of condoms deprives sexual acts of their procreative meaning, so the act has an evil moral object. Even if the prevention of disease transmission were in the object of the act (though I argue it is not), an act with one evil moral object and one or more good moral objects is still intrinsically evil.

The moral object is based on the deliberate (intentional) knowing choice of a concrete act. The ordering of that act toward its object constitutes its moral nature. The object is the proximate end, in terms of morality, toward which the act is ordered. Physical acts have an inherent moral meaning. So a physical act ordered toward a contraceptive or abortive end can NEVER be justified.

Couples in danger of grave harm from the zika virus or any disease transmission, can obtain the good end by refraining from sexual relations.

 

[Thorolfr]

Couples in danger of grave harm from the zika virus or any disease transmission, can obtain the good end by refraining from sexual relations.

So if a man has been to a Zika infested area and nevertheless despite the risk of infecting his pregnant wife has unprotected sex with her (i.e. without a condom), does that constitute a selfish and evil moral act?