Condoms and Zika

[Ron_Conte]

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?

See this CDC page on the virus
cdc.gov/zika/transmission/index.html

An infected person can possibly transmit the virus by sex only a few days before getting symptoms, and they typically recover within a week.

Moral judgments in medical cases are affected by facts such as this. So a husband who has been to an area where Zika is prevalent can refrain from sex with his pregnant wife for a relatively limited period of time, a week or two based on what the CDC says.

It would be a sin for him to have sex with his pregnant wife, if he may be infected, since there is possible grave harm to the unborn child. Condoms are not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy (80% effective as an actual use statistic), so they cannot be considered to offer sufficient protection from disease transmission to morally justify their use – even if that use were not intrinsically evil (and I am saying it is).

Sex is not a god to be worshiped above all else. Sometimes a husband and wife must morally refrain from all sexual activity.

 

[surritter]

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.

Well then, I missed what TPODE even means. But back up to a more general level for a moment … Do you agree with me that the premise of self-defense and the double effect don’t apply to contraception?

 

[Rau]

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?

Not everyone is ignoring existing teaching. I agree with you.

 

[Rau]

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?

Engaging in sexual relations whilst acknowledging a high risk of transmitting the disease would seem selfish and also irrational.

 

[Thorolfr]

Engaging in sexual relations whilst acknowledging a high risk of transmitting the disease would seem selfish and also irrational.

I didn’t say a “high risk”. What if there is only a little risk or a moderate risk? After all, many people in this forum claim that because condoms are not 100% effective at preventing the spread of disease, they are therefore useless. So apparently any risk is unacceptable.

 

[Rau]

I didn’t say a “high risk”. What if there is only a little risk or a moderate risk? After all, many people in this forum claim that because condoms are not 100% effective at preventing the spread of disease, they are therefore useless. So apparently any risk is unacceptable.

It is not morally required, nor possible, to bring risks to zero - prudent consideration is required of the level of risk and other options.

It is morally required to avoid contraception.

The claims regarding the less than 100% effectiveness of condoms is I think accepted, evidence based fact. It is not so much that they are useless, but rather they reduce the risk of harm at the price of the introduction of moral evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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**

I don’t think so.
(i) Often practically to be certain of protection death is “chosen”. The intended good flows through the indirectly intended lethal blow. There is often no God at the time or later in court to tell as what the "truly objective " situation actually was. We judge the “objectivity” on the reasonably perceived balance of risks and often things are so free-flowing and fast there is nobody to prove we were wrong to do so.
(ii) I am sure you are smart enough to imagine valid scenarios where it is clear the aggressor must be killed.

Blue - can we stop this flirting aeound the edge of the real issue.

This is not flirting. You have ennunciated a peculiar understanding of the PODE I believe is seriously flawed.

BTW - why do you focus on condom?

Have you forgotten I was originally speaking of condom use against zika while pregnant?
Do you suggest oral contraceptives would be better .

 

[Rau]

Have you forgotten I was originally speaking of condom use against zika while pregnant?
Do you suggest oral contraceptives would be better .

Ahhh, progress. Please clarify - the physical evil argument then can be invoked for condom use, but not for use of the Pill? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well then, I missed what TPODE even means. But back up to a more general level for a moment … Do you agree with me that the premise of self-defense and the double effect don’t apply to contraception?

I don’t understand what you are saying here S as its a bit loose.
I am simply observing that if TPODE can potentially apply then the very presence of “a direct contraceptive act” (as opposed to use of contraceptives) may not be on the table at all.

If TPODE is potentially applicable it is then a matter of deciding prudentially whether the
harm allowed is less than the good attained by means of that harm.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ahhh, progress. Please clarify - the physical evil argument then can be invoked for condom use, but not for use of the Pill? Is that what you are saying?

I have no investment in this side issue at the moment. Lets first kep focus on the points we are currently debating and the latest questions I have put to you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Engaging in sexual relations whilst acknowledging a high risk of transmitting the disease would seem selfish and also irrational.

Rau significant numbers of poor Sth American wives would seem to have little freedom in their “marriage acts”. Their husbands may be selfish but they are not. So prob best for us to refrain from the somewhat abstract, judgemental and less than pastoral understanding of the situation.

 

[Rau]

I have no investment in this side issue at the moment.

OMG. The subject of the thread is now a side-issue… And I though the rest was the side issue.

 

[Rau]

Rau significant numbers of poor Sth American wives would seem to have little freedom in their “marriage acts”. Their husbands may be selfish but they are not. So prob best for us to refrain from the somewhat abstract, judgemental and less than pastoral understanding of the situation.

See Thor’s post initiating that point. He was referring to the behaviour of the MAN seeking sex… Recall, Thor wrote:*
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?*I though it is clear that my answer addressed the man’s behaviour (but if not, let me make that clear now), and was reasonable.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The object is the proximate end, in terms of morality, toward which the act is ordered. Physical acts have an inherent moral meaning.

Ron would you mind sourcing this paraphrase.
It is not the Dominican understanding of Aquinas’s objective font that I was taught.

You speak of this objective font as if it is a self-contained and complete (intermediate) and immediate moral act in its own right. I believe this is a mistaken understanding.

The “object” of a moral act “anchors” an intention (the form of the moral act as a whole) but in itself is only “the matter” of the complete moral act in question.

Yet you seem to say the object is somehow able to be a proximately “immoral” (due to a “means intention”?) even when separated from some over-arching “end intention.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

See Thor’s post initiating that point. He was referring to the behaviour of the MAN seeking sex… Recall, Thor wrote:*
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?I though it is clear that my answer addressed the man’s behaviour (but if not, let me make that clear now), and was reasonable.

Fair enough.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

OMG. The subject of the thread is now a side-issue… And I though the rest was the side issue.

And lets get back onto the tarseal…

Originally Posted by Rau View Post
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

I don’t think so.
(i) Often practically to be certain of protection death is “chosen”. The intended good flows through the indirectly intended lethal blow. There is often no God at the time or later in court to tell as what the "truly objective " situation actually was. We judge the “objectivity” on the reasonably perceived balance of risks and often things are so free-flowing and fast there is nobody to prove we were wrong to do so.
(ii) I am sure you are smart enough to imagine valid scenarios where it is clear the aggressor must be killed.

Quote:
Blue - can we stop this flirting aeound the edge of the real issue.

This is not flirting. You have ennunciated a peculiar understanding of the PODE I believe is seriously flawed.

 

[Rau]

You have ennunciated a peculiar understanding of the PODE I believe is seriously flawed.

I agree that the notion of good flowing from “evil” is too loosely stated. Good may not flow from moral evil - it may however flow from harm such as amputation.

I’m happy to receive a correct summary of PDOE from you. And then to ask we return to the subject of the thread, and the question I put to you, which is on-point, in post #108.

 

[graciew]

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

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

I still do not understand how the burden can heavily fall to persons who may live with mosquitoes nearly permanently,have little or no resources to be well equipped against mosquito bites…
There are persons who work outdoors,for example. There are homes without glass in the Windows,or mosquito nets and mosquitoes are quite a long season. I cannot even assure it isn’ t permanent. We might check that out.

And there is this other consequence mostly overlooked , and that is that the disease itself can be sexually transmitted this multiplying the chances other get infected by having mosquitoes bite them as well.

So this goes beyond pregnancy for me. It does imply it as well.

I may be wrong and my reasoning flawed,but if it were a very serious mortal disease transmitted by a mosquito and sexually as well,similar to Ebola for example,would the moral reasoning be the same. Here is where I get lost in your explanation which I try to follow closely.
Again,this is independent from what the Holy Father may or may not have said. Just trying to follow the reasoning.

 

[Rau]

I still do not understand how the burden can heavily fall to persons who may live with mosquitoes nearly permanently,have little or no resources to be well equipped against mosquito bites…

And there is this other consequence mostly overlooked , and that is that the disease itself can be sexually transmitted this multiplying the chances other get infected by having mosquitoes bite them as well.

So this goes beyond pregnancy for me.

I may be wrong and my reasoning flawed,but if it were a very serious mortal disease transmitted by a mosquito and sexually as well,similar to Ebola for example,would the moral reasoning be the same…

If I may volunteer my view…the answer to your last question is yes. If you accept that there is a moral wrong called “contraception”, and that that wrong is “intrinsically evil”, then it follows that we may not commit that moral wrong for any purpose. We may not commit it:

• to prevent Zika afflicting an unborn, or potential child;
• to prevent transferring the disease to another person (spouse);

There is a moral way to secure the same good Intentions - to abstain for a time for so long as the unacceptable risks remain.

There are many persons who do suffer great burdens - a seriously and permanently ill or incapacitated spouse for example. We pray for them, but do not encourage them to act contrary to the good moral order.

I note that some persons may propose that certain physical acts eg. taking the “Pill” or “wearing a condom” might in fact be a moral act when it is done solely to avoid the consequences of Zika. I believe that is wrong, and it is certainly not the established teaching of the Church.

 

[graciew]

If I may volunteer my view…the answer to your last question is yes. If you accept that there is a moral wrong called “contraception”, and that that wrong is “intrinsically evil”, then it follows that we may not commit that moral wrong for any purpose. We may not commit it:

• to prevent Zika afflicting an unborn, or potential child;
• to prevent transferring the disease to another person (spouse);

There is a moral way to secure the same good Intentions - to abstain for a time for so long as the unacceptable risks remain.

There are many persons who do suffer great burdens - a seriously and permanently ill or incapacitated spouse for example. We pray for them, but do not encourage them to act contrary to the good moral order.

I note that some persons may propose that certain physical acts eg. taking the “Pill” or “wearing a condom” might in fact be a moral act when it is done solely to avoid the consequences of Zika. I believe that is wrong, and it is certainly not the established teaching of the Church.

Yes,thank you,Rau.
The example of the person who is ill or incapacitated was a good example.
Maybe what I feel is that it sounds easy for me because I have many possibilities that other persons may not have,basic ones.
As long as we can hold these persons in mind,and understand we may be asking others to carry heavy burdens and really take it seriously and pray as well as you suggest,then,I guess it has become clearer to understand.
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut,Rau!