Condoms and Zika

[Rau]

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 … .

That the common (and reasonable ) interpretation given to these statements contradicts established Church teaching is not disputed by any knowledgeable person, to my knowledge.

It is not possible to contradict irreformable doctrine, and be right. So if it is contradiction, it is an error (and one made in a communication of minimal weight). [Or perhaps you argue existing doctrine is in error?].

Either way, it is not I speaking of dumdums. That alternative was proposed by you.

As a respectful Catholic, I will say I accept the established Church teaching (in recent times promulgated formally and articulately by Pius XI, Paul VI, JP 2 and Benedict XVI), and that I do not understand what Francis was trying to say.

 

[Rau]

…your unwillingness to concede even the possibility that Your understanding of Tradition and the moral theology behind it may be a tad too simplistic.

I - like much of the Catholic world that is familiar with Church teaching, am patiently waiting for any good soul to explain how contraception to avoid Zika is consistent with established Church teaching. Perhaps those with a less simplistic understanding will speak up and explain how we have misunderstood all the prior teachings?

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.”

It is evidently directly intended that there be no procreation because by that result, one avoid a Zika conception - not by any other means!

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.

In my opinion, it does specifically close the door. No-one has yet shown otherwise.

What is the moral object of an act by a couple who freely choose to wear a condom or take the pill as the means to avoid a pregnancy, for the good end of avoiding a Zika baby? Is it something good? If you conclude it is a good Moral Object - then is that not the end of intrinsically evil acts? That act is defined to be a moral evil. Unlike killing in self-defence.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That the common (and reasonable ) interpretation given to these statements contradicts established Church teaching is not disputed by any knowledgeable person, to my knowledge.

It is not possible to contradict irreformable doctrine, and be right. So if it is contradiction, it is an error (and one made in a communication of minimal weight). [Or perhaps you argue existing doctrine is in error?].

Either way, it is not I speaking of dumdums. That alternative was proposed by you.

As a respectful Catholic, I will say I accept the established Church teaching (in recent times promulgated formally and articulately by Pius XI, Paul VI, JP 2 and Benedict XVI), and that I do not understand what Francis was trying to say.

Rau if you, without the education, position and experience of a Pope, conclude that what the Pope said **must be **in contradiction to irreformable doctrine…then YOU ARE SAYING THE POPE IS A DUMDUM (or malicious). You a layman somehow know better than he.

But I say the whole thing about allegedly irreformable doctrine is deeper than you realise.
That unfortunately means you are intellectually over-reaching I suppose.

 

[Rau]

Rau if you, without the education, position and experience of a Pope, conclude that what the Pope said **must be **in contradiction to irreformable doctrine…then YOU ARE SAYING THE POPE IS A DUMDUM (or malicious). You a layman somehow know better than he.

But I say the whole thing about allegedly irreformable doctrine is deeper than you realise.
That unfortunately means you are intellectually over-reaching I suppose.

No. It means something different. It means you forget that my issue is not with what he said, but a particular interpretation of his words - the interpretation that perhaps the act suggested might be moral given the Zika threat. And I note on the other thread, after asking us all to consider that it might be so, you’ve now proposed an entirely different interpretation. Frankly, I don’t know if either of those interpretations are what he intended to say.

Again, Blue. It is only you speaking of dumdums.

 

[JimmyG88]

If there is (as has been pointed out here several times) a ‘high failure rate’ with condoms anyway doesn’t that mean de facto that using them still leaves an opportunity for conception. If that’s the case then I’m sure confirms are just fine

 

[surritter]

“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?

Well I’m not sure how to answer some of these. The simplest way to state my frame of reference is this:
An act (using that word generically for now) committed by a person may be moral or immoral, depending on several things. First, some things are outright immoral; what the Church would call intrinsically immoral. The classic example is direct abortion – it can’t be done for any reason, even if the intent is good.
(Did you get that last part? Even if the intent is good in itself.)

Next – some things that may be moral on the surface can become immoral (or perhaps amoral at best) for various reasons. One reason could be if the motive is immoral. Another may be if any foreseen downstream effects will be too adverse (this is the notion of proportions that was floated earlier).

The flip side of this is that some things that may seem immoral on the surface can occasionally become moral. The classic example here is a stop sign: If I sail through without stopping that is immoral. But, there may be a reason for me to willingly violate the stop sign and have it be a moral action. Suppose I have an emergency (serious wound) and I or my driver need to get to the hospital ASAP. And maybe it’s 4am and nobody is within miles. In that case any reasonable judge would dismiss a citation on the grounds that the normal rules can be suspended for good reason. Why? Because a stop sign is a man-made rule; it can be altered for good reason.

No to bring us back to the topic at hand: Directly separating the love-giving and life-giving aspects of sexual intercourse is intrinsically immoral, along the lines of abortion (much less evil on the sliding scale, of course). This is what it’s all about in the Zika condom scenario. Using a condom – even for a good, intended effect – is immoral in and of itself.
No need to bring Aquinas into this, which is why I stated that you’re making this harder than it needs to be.

So I’ll bring you back to the two simple questions (which I’m sure you’ll attempt to answer, now that I’ve attempted to answer yours)…

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?)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No. It means something different. It means you forget that my issue is not with what he said, but a particular interpretation of his words…

It is 90% clear that the Pope/Lombardi said he has no problem if Catholics, after discernment, choose to use abc in the short term if there’s a high Zika risk.

This interpretation for you is a problem because it, according to you , intrinsically contradicts Church Teaching?

Somehow you, an intelligent but relatively uneducated layman in moral theology, know and understand Church tradition better than a Pope and see a contradiction he does not see?

How does this not mean you regard Pope Francis as a dumdum on this matter or, worse, a malicious antichrist of some sort?

For me, I am confused as much as you are, but if my 6 year theology degree has taught me one thing its how difficult Moral Theology can be. I don’t pretend to have enough understanding of either Tradition or Moral Theology which would give me the b***s to categorically state this interpretation is intrinsically at odds with current Church contrac eptive moral theology.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That the common (and reasonable ) interpretation given to these statements contradicts established Church teaching is not disputed by any knowledgeable person, to my knowledge.

Rau this type of apriori “logic” in my experience is often the sign of invincible ignorance in an otherwise intelligent thinker. In short your view is non-falsifiable by new empirical evidence.

Should someone dispute the basis of your alleged contradiction you would simply feel they are “unknowledge-able” … even if that “knowledgeable person” was the Pope himself.

Oops - that is the very person you are in fact saying is “unknowledgable” .

And who is more “knowledgable” … surprise, surprise, you .

But as I observe, you come across as invincibly ignorant on this point.
It is impossible for any empirical proof to ever contest your non-falsifiable view.

It is not possible to contradict irreformable doctrine, and be right.

Oh boy.
It is possible if **your **understanding of the doctrine is even mildly in error.
Of course this is not possible, you know doctrine better than the Pope?

Either way, it is not I speaking of dumdums.

If you say so .

 

[Rau]

It is 90% clear that the Pope/Lombardi said he has no problem if Catholics, after discernment, choose to use abc in the short term if there’s a high Zika risk.

This interpretation for you is a problem because it, according to you , intrinsically contradicts Church Teaching?

I know no one able to provide an explanation consistent with Church teaching.

How fruitless is the study of moral theology when we can no longer claim to understand the meaning of Intrinsic Evil, and we become unable to recognise moral evil. What value is Church teaching when words can’t be trusted to mean what they say, no matter how many times they are said, and no matter how clearly?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Wouldn’t some of the discussion from the Rubella outbreak and the birth defects caused by Rubella be relevant here? It was a long time ago, but I’m sure there must be some well thought out Catholic conclusions and arguments that survived.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I - like much of the Catholic world that is familiar with Church teaching, am patiently waiting for any good soul to explain how contraception to avoid Zika is consistent with established Church teaching. Perhaps those with a less simplistic understanding will speak up and explain how we have misunderstood all the prior teachings?

Have I not been doing that with you for the last week by suggesting you more seriously distinguish indirect intention from direct intention when it comes to use of contraceptives?
Just as is the case with killing in self defence.
Killing is intrinsically evil in the same way that contraception is intrinsically evil is it not?

It is evidently directly intended that there be no procreation because by that result, one avoids a Zika conception - not by any other means!

If this were true then is it not also directly intended that there be a killing in self-defence because by that result alone one avoids injury to ones family in some cases?
Yet we know directly intended killing is always immoral - therefore self-defence, if it can be justified (Augustine says it cannot), can only be so by means of indirect intentionality (Aquinas).
So if killing can be justified in unusual cases (by principle of indirect intent) then why not contraception?

What is the moral object of an act …

I think you have completely misunderstood the phrase “the moral object of an act”.
Correct me if I am mistaken but the objective font I think you are referring to is actually “the object of a moral act”.

That is you cannot speak of any intrinsic “morality” (or immorality) in the isolated objective font. That is why it is called “material”, “matter” or “the object”!!!

The only “morality” to be found is in the **human act **as a whole with all three fonts considered together.

And even when we consider the “object font” in itself it is incomplete because it lacks an identifiable intention (which obviously comes from the subject, the agent). All objects of a complete moral act anchor an intention…just like a positive-ion in physics has a separated electron somewhere in the universe that belongs to it and which is missing.

If an object of a moral act truly existed with no need for a related intention then we would not be dealing with a human act at all - only a deed done by a sleep-walker.

So “Use of a contraceptive device in sexual intercourse” has no intrinsic stand-alone moral quality until we bind it to a corresponding intention. It is merely a physical evil - and not even an absolute one at that - just as Pope Francis seems to have stated.

 

[Rau]

In short your view [that contracepting conjugal relations to avoid a Zika baby is inconsistent with doctrine] is non-falsifiable by new empirical evidence.

Nonsense. It’s falsifiable the moment someone demonstrates in words how contracepting conjugal relations to avoid a Zika baby is consistent with doctrine. I have learnt a great deal in my time since taking up the study of moral theology, and I am not beyond learning more from those who see more deeply than I.

It is impossible for any empirical proof to ever contest your non-falsifiable view.

Nonsense - as above.

It is possible if **your **understanding of the doctrine is even mildly in error.

Given the Catholic world pretty much understands doctrine to say that one cannot contracept conjugal relations to avoid a Zika baby [or Downs Baby, or Tay Sachs baby, or threat to mother’s life…], it is my belief that, if the Pope were to believe that such is an inadequate understanding of doctrine, he will review the expression of doctrine such that we gain a fuller understanding. That would be a constructive development.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Wouldn’t some of the discussion from the Rubella outbreak and the birth defects caused by Rubella be relevant here? It was a long time ago, but I’m sure there must be some well thought out Catholic conclusions and arguments that survived.

That’s a good thought.

In doing a search I found something else…
A week or so before the Pope’s statement the following was reported:

"The spread of the virus has led to debates about contraception and abortion in several Latin American countries hit hardest.
…
Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, coordinator of Pope Francis’ group of nine cardinal advisors, denounced the idea of “therapeutic abortions,” telling the newspaper La Tribuna that “Therapeutic means curative, and an abortion doesn’t cure anything, it takes innocent lives away.”

So the Pope’s advisors were against therapeutic abortion, but were quiet on use of contraceptives .

 

[Rau]

Wouldn’t some of the discussion from the Rubella outbreak and the birth defects caused by Rubella be relevant here? It was a long time ago, but I’m sure there must be some well thought out Catholic conclusions and arguments that survived.

No doubt. But in many other medical scenarios too. The assessment that conjugal relations may not be “contracepted” for any reason is expressed in doctrine in a manner admitting no exception arising from grave circumstances or good intentions. Most usually, one hears arguments that the prohibition is unwarranted in its entirety, not that it is evil in some circumstances and not others.

 

[Rau]

Have I not been doing that with you for the last week by suggesting you more seriously distinguish indirect intention from direct intention when it comes to use of contraceptives?

You made the assertion, but never demonstrated how it can arise when the parents seek to avoid pregnancy in conjugal relations, and how established doctrine would judge the behaviour as moral.

Killing is intrinsically evil in the same way that contraception is intrinsically evil is it not?

I know of no scenario where contraception to avoid pregnancy in conjugal relations is “indirect” or moral according to doctrine. We know from doctrine that good intentions such as “avoid a Zika baby” does not take us outside the doctrinal definition of the moral evil.

If this were true then is it not also directly intended that there be a killing in self-defence because by that result alone one avoids injury to ones family in some cases?

Doctrine does not oppose killing an aggressor when necessary to save one’s life. Were it not necessary, it would oppose it. Doctrine opposes contracepting conjugal relations to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The assessment that conjugal relations may not be “contracepted” for any reason is expressed in doctrine in a manner admitting no exception arising from grave circumstances or good intentions.

You previously accepted that Tradition also teaches this for sexual relations outside of marriage also, did you not?

Also, the texts you quoted clearly mean “directly intended” contraceptive intentions and remain silent wrt the possibility of “indirect intentions”.

Just as is the case in the commandment “thou shall not kill” - which still allows exceptions on the basis on indirect intention.

Can you provide a Magisterial statement that explicitly states both direct and indirect use of contraceptives are immoral?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You made the assertion, but never demonstrated how it can arise when the parents seek to avoid pregnancy in conjugal relations, and how established doctrine would judge the behaviour as moral.

Here you go. Same as I have repeated numerous times previously but you seem unwilling to talk to it:

“Have I not been doing that with you for the last week by suggesting you more seriously distinguish indirect intention from direct intention when it comes to use of contraceptives Just as is the case with killing in self defence.
Killing is intrinsically evil in the same way that contraception is intrinsically evil is it not?”

Rau Quote:
*It is evidently directly intended that there be no procreation because by that result, one avoids a Zika conception - not by any other means! *

“If this were true then is it not also directly intended that there be a killing in self-defence because by that result alone one avoids injury to ones family in some cases? Yet we know directly intended killing is always immoral - therefore self-defence, if it can be justified (Augustine says it cannot), can only be so by means of indirect intentionality (Aquinas). So if killing can be justified in unusual cases (by principle of indirect intent) then why not contraception?”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BH: It is possible if **your **

Wow, is it really that hard for you to publicly admit even the possibility you could be mildly in error - rather than keep pointing to the Pope as the one positively likely in error? .

 

[Rau]

Also, the texts you quoted clearly mean “directly intended” contraceptive intentions and remain silent wrt the possibility of “indirect intentions”.

Can you provide a Magisterial statement that explicitly states both direct and indirect use of contraceptives are immoral?

I address conjugal relations simply because that is the context and it avoids anybody introducing red herrings about “what if the couple are not married”.

I don’t reject the existence of “indirect contraception”. Scenarios that might be called “indirect contraception” include post-rape treatment (self-defence), medical treatments (curing the body), etc. We know they are not the moral act of contraception forbidden by doctrine. Could you elaborate how contracepting conjugal relations so as not to fall pregnant would be “indirect contraception”, rather than direct, and fall outside the doctrinal prohibition; how would it be a different act? We have no difficulty explaining that for medical treatments, and for rape treatments.

 

[Rau]

Wow, is it really that hard for you to publicly admit even the possibility you could be mildly in error - rather than keep pointing to the Pope as the one positively likely in error? .

No Blue - it’s not hard at all. We can all be wrong. But I repeat, if the bulk of the Catholic world misunderstands the doctrine concerning Contraception, as your thesis suggests, I believe the Pope will move to clarify it so we may all have a fuller understanding.

I’ve not said the Pope is in error. I’ve said that the common interpretation of his Q&A - that in an emergency, one can use contraception to avoid pregnancy - contradicts doctrine - at least doctrine as widely understood and taught.