Condoms and Zika

[Blue_Horizon]

This really isn’t as hard as you’re making it to be.

This isn’t as easy as You are making it out to be - stalemate.

If you cannot seriously engage my responses, even if you disagree, then we have no common basis on which to proceed .

 

[surritter]

This isn’t as easy as You are making it out to be - stalemate.

If you cannot seriously engage my responses, even if you disagree, then we have no common basis on which to proceed .

I’m not sure why you think my post was not a “serious engagement” of your response (somewhat of a snooty reply on your part, if I may say so). You might notice that there was some thought put into my post. Perhaps you could seriously engage the distinct points I addressed unless of waving them away.

However… since we seem to be at different levels, I’m asking for a courteous reply to two simple questions:

Do you agree with these two premises?

1. Catholic morality teaches that one cannot do an objectively immoral act even if it is intended to bring about a good effect. (Y or N?)
2. Catholic morality teaches that it is automatically immoral to intentionally engage in sex while intentionally taking any action to divorce the unitive and procreative aspects. (Y or N?)

If you would kindly provide those two simple answers, then I’ll better understand our “common basis,” as you put it. From there I’d be glad to provide a deeper answer.

 

[Rau]

This isn’t as easy as You are making it out to be - stalemate.

I also take the view that it is not as complicated as some think. Thus I suggest “stalemate” is probably optimistic given the very lopsided weight of evidence - established Church teaching, vs. Informal response to a journalist mid-flight - attached to the competing views

By established Church teaching, I mean teaching such as:

*“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).*So far, no one that I’m aware of is able to reconcile the common interpretation of Francis’ remarks with Church teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I also take the view that it is not as complicated as some think. Thus I suggest “stalemate” is probably optimistic given the very lopsided weight of evidence - established Church teaching, vs. Informal response to a journalist mid-flight - attached to the competing views

By established Church teaching, I mean teaching such as:

“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).So far, no one that I’m aware of is able to reconcile the common interpretation of Francis’ remarks with Church teaching.

If even the Pope, with all his education, intelligence and position can be so easily mistaken (which you seem to hold) … it’s definitely Not an easy topic .

 

[Rau]

If even the Pope, with all his education, intelligence and position can be so easily mistaken…

I feel that argument applies in trumps when one considers the Popes that came before. I am not finding it difficult for that reason, and also for the reason that no rationale has been offered for how the act in question could differ from the moral evil of contraception.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I feel that argument applies in trumps when one considers the Popes that came before. I am not finding it difficult for that reason, and also for the reason that no rationale has been offered for how the act in question could differ from the moral evil of contraception.

Let’s face it the issue is either complicated (and so even sincere wise Catholics may disagree) or Pope Francis is a dumdum who somehow doesn’t have the wisdom that you and a number of others allegedly believe they possess re Tradition.

I think most respectful Catholics would go with the former.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not sure why you think my post was not a “serious engagement” of your response (somewhat of a snooty reply on your part, if I may say so). You might notice that there was some thought put into my post. Perhaps you could seriously engage the distinct points I addressed unless of waving them away.

However… since we seem to be at different levels, I’m asking for a courteous reply to two simple questions:

Do you agree with these two premises?

1. Catholic morality teaches that one cannot do an objectively immoral act even if it is intended to bring about a good effect. (Y or N?)
2. Catholic morality teaches that it is automatically immoral to intentionally engage in sex while intentionally taking any action to divorce the unitive and procreative aspects. (Y or N?)

If you would kindly provide those two simple answers, then I’ll better understand our “common basis,” as you put it. From there I’d be glad to provide a deeper answer.

When you are able to answer my straight forward questions (instead of asking more questions) and source you PODE definitions I am happy to take this further. If that is snooty my apologies but that seems reasonable to me.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

---

The acts we are talking about are acts to eliminate the procreactive meaning from conjugal relations as the chosen means to ensure there can not be a child afflicted with Zika resulting.

You seem to be too readily conflating the visible deed (use of contraceptives) with a “moral act” (ie the deed is also the primary direct intention of the agents when having marital sex).
That connection is exactly what needs to be reasonably demonstrated at the end of our analysis. But you seem to assume this conclusion is somehow the object font from get go.

The act chosen (involving a pill, say) would appear to be identically that defined by teaching as moral evil, though motivated by a good Intention.]

Be careful not to confuse “caused” with “directly intended”. You conflate the two by using the highly ambiguous word “chosen”. Causing contraception is not always a moral evil as Congo nuns and Confessional advice to partners of a contracepting spouse clearly demonstrate. Other circumstances can significantly change the nature of the object font. Just as killing is not always a moral evil even though the 5th Commandment would suggest it is… just like “though shalt not contracept.”

If one can legitimately choose to remove the procreative aspect from one’s conjugal relations, for a good intention, then when is that behaviour ever immoral?

Yes one can, as the Confessional advice to partners of contracepting spouses implies.
And one may also choose to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy in sexual intercourse under certain circumstances (eg forced sex).

Just because it’s complicated and you cannot comprehend a consistent moral theology to justify it does not mean by that reason alone it cannot be justified.

Even the PDE is not regarded as consistently applicable in justifying all pastorally acceptable cases. It seems to traditionally have only been unanimously used to explain current self defence practice (which practise was not accepted in Augustines time).

 

[Rau]

Let’s face it the issue is either complicated (and so even sincere wise Catholics may disagree) or Pope Francis is a dumdum who somehow doesn’t have the wisdom that you and a number of others allegedly believe they possess re Tradition.

Blue, let’s face it, the Zika scenario (as typical of a category of scenarios) is not new. It fits precisely what has been defined as moral evil. Given the great wisdom of all who came before Francis, is it not entirely reasonable to think that Francis errored, or has misspoken in some fashion? I don’t think any of Pius XI, Paul VI, John-Paul 2, Benedict XVI or Francis are dumdums, but 4 of them held to current Church teaching and 1 of them seems to have differed in an informal poorly expressed communication.

I think most respectful Catholics would go with the former.

There is no evidence at all - at this stage - that it is complicated. To hold to Church teaching and remain “blank-faced” as to what Francis was trying to say, seems respectful to me. And the whole Church is now deserving of respect too - the consternation caused by statements in an informal Q&A would seem to require some clarification.

 

[Rau]

Blue - I think your last post seeks largely to obfuscate rather than progress the subject.

But I will comment on the following:

Yes one can [choose to remove the procreative aspect from one’s conjugal relations], as the Confessional advice to partners of contracepting spouses implies.

No. A man may tolerate the wife using the pill. But he may not put on a condom. For then the separation of aspects is wrought by him. And vice versa - The woman may tolerate the condom, but may not take the pill. The first requirement placed on the “cooperating spouse” is that their action is not itself illicit.

And one may also choose to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy in sexual intercourse under certain circumstances (eg forced sex).

Irrelevant - an act of self-defence, not the moral ill of contraception. In the Zika case, the act is identically what is defined as moral ill in HV etc.

Just because it’s complicated and you cannot comprehend a consistent moral theology to justify it does not mean by that reason alone it cannot be justified.

Sure. But I note that seemingly not a single person (you included) can comprehend and express a moral theology sufficient to support the common interpretation of Francis’ remarks - because they are directly in contradiction with Church teaching.

“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).

 

[surritter]

When you are able to answer my straight forward questions (instead of asking more questions) and source you PODE definitions I am happy to take this further. If that is snooty my apologies but that seems reasonable to me.

You really need to read my posts again. Let’s go back a page or two…

In your post #123, you asked me about “separation of the ends of the marital act” due to the couple’s intent. I answered you in post #126.

In post #129, you asked no “straight forward question.”

In #138, you asked a couple of things: my usage of act vs. action; what “moral test” and “moral principles” I am working from; what Magisterial sources I could cite. Each of these was answered in my post #140.

Then I asked a few “straight forward” questions at the end of post #140 and even more directly in post #142. (How much more straight forward can it get than spelling out for you that I simply seek a yes or no to two simple questions?)

Yet you come along in post #147 and accuse me of ducking your questions! Well, please direct me to those questions again, and along the way you might want to contribute to the dialog by answer my two simple queries.

 

[SilverLight]

The ONLY permissible use of a condom is a perforated one to collect a semen specimen for analysis while staying open to life.

Condoms may not be used for any other purpose, not for contraception and not to prevent disease.
The way to prevent disease is abstaining.

To each their own you know.

 

[surritter]

To each their own you know.

I’d say: to each be God’s revealed truth. Whether they each listen to that truth is where your statement comes in, I suppose.

May we each be open to that truth as taught through the Church established by Christ Himself.

 

[Thorolfr]

I wonder if priests in areas where there is Zika are advising couples to refrain from sex during pregnancy to protect their unborn child?

 

[Rau]

I wonder if priests in areas where there is Zika are advising couples to refrain from sex during pregnancy to protect their unborn child?

That would not protect the woman from a mosquito bite herself.

 

[Thorolfr]

That would not protect the woman from a mosquito bite herself.

But it would protect her if her husband becomes infected. So you’re saying that doing anything to try and protect the unborn child is useless unless it provides 100% protection?

 

[Rau]

But it would protect her if her husband becomes infected. So you’re saying that doing anything to try and protect the unborn child is useless unless it provides 100% protection?

No, that thought is of your creation. I should think the first task for a pregnant woman would be avoid infection directly herself. And if sex presents a risk of infection, she may conclude she needs to avoid that too for a while.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is no evidence at all - at this stage - that it is complicated. .

Ahmm, let me take a rain check…did Pope Francis/Lomardi allegedly contradict Tradition? That is what you’ve been saying for some time isn’t it?

So if he did … he’s either right, and its a very complicated matter.
Or everything is simple and obvious as you say so the Pope is a dumdum for not knowing Tradition.

Let me think which way that I, a respectful Catholic who can admit he doesn’t know everything, will go on this … .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The woman may tolerate the condom

.
Which is exactly what I am speaking of.
The woman has chosen to engage in sex with her husband knowing it is a contracepted marital sexual act and that the unitive and procreative meanings have been separated.
It takes two to have sex (let a lone contracepted sex) last time I checked .

Irrelevant - an act of self-defence, not the moral ill of contraception. In the Zika case, the act is identically what is defined as moral ill in HV etc.

Of course the Congo case is not a moral ill, otherwise it wouldn’t have been allowed.
But the Nuns did choose to make sure any sex forced upon them was contracepted.
They intended the sex would be contracepted did they not?

Sure. But I note that seemingly not a single person (you included) can comprehend and express a moral theology sufficient to support the common interpretation of Francis’ remarks - because they are directly in contradiction with Church teaching.

I have been patiently doing that with you for a week Rau.
Unfortunately, if I am correct, you are starting to appear invincibly ignorant due to your unwillingness to concede even the possibility that Your understanding of Tradition and the moral theology behind it may be a tad too simplistic.

“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).

I agree with this statement Rau. Unfortunately you may not appreciate how the words “specifically intended” act as a conditioning phrase re the conclusion.

It is reasonable to read those words as meaning “direct intention”.

Hence my long discussion with you as to whether or not there are some cases where it may be reasonably posited that “prevention of procreation” is **not “**specifically intended.” Just as killing is not specifically intended in fatal self-defence.

The fact that you repeatedly keep throwing this quote at me and others as if it closes the door on all objections…is beginning to suggest you are so decided on this matter you are no longer able to discuss this point rationally and offer serious argument against this observation…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… Well, please direct me to those questions again…

…the objective action is one that has the ability to be moral in itself

“I cannot understand this- at least not from a Thomistic perspective.” (a polite invitation to unpack the statement eg in terms of the 3 fonts and Aquinas’s understanding of a moral act)

"I don’t really understand what part of the complete moral act you are trying to identify here by the word “action” (or “act”) or “principal act”?

If you could explicitate what Catholic PDE definition you are working from and where it may be sourced in Magisterial docs that would be helpful.

What "moral test exactly are you applying?