Condoms, STDs, and abstinence

[Ron_Conte]

Is taking drug X - which might also be prescribed for contraception - a contraceptive act as the Catechism defines contraception?

The Catechism states (shortened for relevance): “every action which, … in anticipation of the conjugal act… proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil".

Medication may render procreation impossible but is that what the action in question (taking of the drug) “proposes”? Or is that a side-effect?

An act “proposes” an end if the concrete act – independent of intention or circumstances – is ordered toward that end. The ordering of the act toward a good or evil end is what makes the intentional choice of that act good or evil, regardless of whether the end is attained. It does not matter if the object is an unintended end. By choosing the act intentionally, you are choosing the act, its ordering, and its object.

An act can have more than one moral object. Natural marital relations open to life has three good moral objects: the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.

Choosing to take an abortifacient contraceptive (which I think includes all chemical contraceptives) as a medical treatment is fine if you refrain from sexual relations. Choosing sexual relations while on that medication means that the sexual acts are non-procreative – due to intentionally chosen acts, regardless of intended end. It also means that the taking of the medication now has an additional moral object, an abortive end. The medication directly kills any prenatal who might be conceived. We cannot say that this death is indirect because it was entirely avoidable while still treating the medical disorder (by refraining from sex).

 

[Rau]

An act “proposes” an end if the concrete act – independent of intention or circumstances – is ordered toward that end. The ordering of the act toward a good or evil end is what makes the intentional choice of that act good or evil, regardless of whether the end is attained. It does not matter if the object is an unintended end. By choosing the act intentionally, you are choosing the act, its ordering, and its object.

An act can have more than one moral object. Natural marital relations open to life has three good moral objects: the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.

Choosing to take an abortifacient contraceptive (which I think includes all chemical contraceptives) as a medical treatment is fine if you refrain from sexual relations. Choosing sexual relations while on that medication means that the sexual acts are non-procreative – due to intentionally chosen acts, regardless of intended end. It also means that the taking of the medication now has an additional moral object, an abortive end. The medication directly kills any prenatal who might be conceived. We cannot say that this death is indirect because it was entirely avoidable while still treating the medical disorder (by refraining from sex).

Ron, this was about contraception and you have introduced into the debate now the potential to conceive children in circumstances which are threatening to their life!

Let’s put aside the abortifacient issue to concentrate on deciding whether contraception has occurred. Can we conclude you concede that the taking of the medicine, with the undesired effect of rendering one infertile, while retaining an expectation of sexual relations, is not contraception?

Sex while one is incapable of conception, eg. After menopause or after a hysterectomy or while on medication taken for a medical purpose, is ordered toward procreation (as well as to the unitive and marital goods). It is simply ineffective as a means to achieve procreation.

 

[Rau]

Consider a medication to treat cancer (chemotherapy) that would kill any developing prenatal. The patient can take the medication and refrain from sexual relations. So the act has only the treatment of the condition as its object.

But if the same patient decides to engage in sexual relations, introducing the possibility of pregnancy, that additional choice is a sin. The choice to have sexual relations while taking an abortifacient has an evil moral object, an abortifacient end. So it is not a case of a simple decision to use a medication or not. The couple is also deciding whether or not to have sexual relations. And doing so implies the possibility of conception and abortion.

Therefore, it is not true in the case of abortifacient contraception as a medical treatment that the act is merely the taking of a medication. There is also a decision whether or not to have marital relations.

The intended end is the font of intention (finis agentis). The anticipated effects are in the font of circumstances. Neither implies anything about the moral object (finis actus). So the common claim that an end is “unintended” does not imply that such an end cannot be the object.

The will is the source of all three fonts. In the first font, the will chooses an intended end, the purpose or reason for acting (finis agentis). In the second font, the will chooses an act, which is ordered toward its own end (finis actus). The intentional choice of any act includes – at least implicitly (like it or not) – the choice of the act, its ordering, and its object. So even if the end of the act is “unintended”, the intentional choice of an act with an evil end is sinful.

You cannot intentionally choose an act – sexual relations while taking an abortifacient – ordered toward an abortive end (finis actus), and then deny moral responsibility for the choice by saying that you do not intend (finis agentis) the death of the prenatal.

Does not the approved treatment for ectopic pregnancy fall foul of just this? The act (tube section removal) will lead to the death of the child though that is not the moral object of the act. The moral object is solely the medical salvation of the mother. Yet it is accepted that tube removal (which leads to the death of the child) is considered licit.

The moral object of the tube removal is not the death of the child, that is a consequence, and is to be weighed against the good of preserving the mother’s life, and those two are in balance. So, in a sense we accept responsibility for the consequences for the child, but balance them against the consequences for the mother.

Having sex while infertile due to any cause does not have evil in the 3rd font. It may be contraception (evil in 2nd font) if taking medication was to avoid becoming pregnant (the definition of “contraception”). If the medication (to treat a medical condition) were an abortifacient, then it may be that there is the potential for evil in the 3rd font.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron, this was about contraception and you have introduced into the debate now the potential to conceive children in circumstances which are threatening to their life!

Let’s put aside the abortifacient issue to concentrate on deciding whether contraception has occurred. Can we conclude you concede that the taking of the medicine, with the undesired effect of rendering one infertile, while retaining an expectation of sexual relations, is not contraception? [No, we cannot conclude that!]

Sex while one is incapable of conception, eg. After menopause or after a hysterectomy or while on medication taken for a medical purpose, is ordered toward procreation (as well as to the unitive and marital goods). It is simply ineffective as a means to achieve procreation.

Chemical contraceptives are abortifacient. The “medication” is an abortifacient, not merely a contraceptive. Over the course of many couples and many months, some actual deaths of prenatals result. These deaths are entirely avoidable by refraining from sexual relations while on the medication.

“medication take for a medical purpose”
The medication is an abortifacient contraceptive. Choosing to take that medication while sexually active is an act inherently ordered toward abortive and contraceptive ends. The purpose, medical or otherwise, is in the font of intention.

Of course sexual relations will be ineffective to attain the end of procreation while taking a chemical abortifacient contraceptive. The act of taking that pill is ordered toward depriving sexual acts of their procreative meaning. The deliberate choices to take an abortifacient contraceptive AND engage in sexual relations makes the couple culpable for their choices. But in the case of an older infertile couple, the act is ordered toward procreation as its end, even though that end cannot be attained.

If you would like to discuss a mere contraceptive used for a medical purpose, consider the case of a married couple who wish to prevent the wife from contracting HIV from the husband by the use of condoms.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’m not going to discuss ectopic pregnancy in this thread. It is too long and complex a topic.

Having sex while infertile due to any cause does not have evil in the 3rd font. It may be contraception (evil in 2nd font) if taking medication was to avoid becoming pregnant (the definition of “contraception”). If the medication (to treat a medical condition) were an abortifacient, then it may be that there is the potential for evil in the 3rd font.

On the second font: “if taking medication was to avoid becoming pregnant”. The moral object is NEVER determined by the intended end, which is the purpose or reason for choosing the act. In fact, HV and EV are very clear that contraception and abortion are immoral regardless of whether they are used as an end or a means.

Direct abortion is an end when this intrinsically evil act is used to attain the intended end of killing the prenatal. The couple do not want a child, so they kill it. The intended end and the object are the same: the death of the child.

Direct abortion is a means when this intrinsically evil act is used to save the life of the mother, as when the termination of pregnancy eases the strain on an already seriously ill woman’s health. Here the end is the intended end to save the mother’s life, but the means is the intrinsically evil act of abortion.

Contraception is the same way. When used as a means to an end, it is still immoral. The intrinsically evil act, defined by its object, is the means, and the end is the intended end (the purpose or reason for choosing the act).

Legitimate intentions do not justify contraception. EV 62 is very clear that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by purpose. By claiming that intent or purpose defines the object, you nullify that teaching.

Contraception is immoral even if the couple do not have a contraceptive intent. As long as they are intentionally choosing an act ordered by its nature or condition toward a contraceptive end, the act is defined as contraception.

 

[LongingSoul]

Contraception is immoral even if the couple do not have a contraceptive intent. As long as they are intentionally choosing an act ordered by its nature or condition toward a contraceptive end, the act is defined as contraception.

But if a couple do not have a contraceptive intent is their act still called ‘contraception’ or is it more accurately called ‘hormone treatment’. The drugs themselves are not exclusively ‘contraceptive’. Some human conditions or medical treatments can result in miscarriages but aren’t called contraception or abortion.

Murder like contraception is an intrinsic evil but if someone with no recourse to any other way of saving innocent people from a violent captor, takes up a weapon and kills that captor… that isn’t considered murder. At worst it is manslaughter and at best legitimate defense.

I believe you are being too limited in your terminology and that’s causing unnecessary rigour.

 

[Rau]

Chemical contraceptives are abortifacient. The “medication” is an abortifacient, not merely a contraceptive. Over the course of many couples and many months, some actual deaths of prenatals result. These deaths are entirely avoidable by refraining from sexual relations while on the medication.

I know all this, and have suggested it be put aside for the sake of this discussion because the abortifacient aspect is not central to contraception. I won’t address that element further.

The act of taking that pill is ordered toward depriving sexual acts of their procreative meaning.

How can you as a mere observer make that statement? Picture this: Man raises a loaded gun, aims at another man, and pulls the trigger. The act of shooting that loaded gun aimed at a person is ordered towards what? What is the moral object of that ‘act’? The answer is “It is not possible to say”. One has to stand in the shoes (indeed the mind) of the shooter to answer that question. As described, the “events” have not risen to the level or a “moral act”. Whether it be shooting a gun or taking a pill - more information is required before the act can rise to the level of a “moral act”.

If you would like to discuss a mere contraceptive used for a medical purpose, consider the case of a married couple who wish to prevent the wife from contracting HIV from the husband by the use of condoms.

That act is immoral because sex with a condom is not conjugal - it is not the kind of act apt for generation of life. See Post 136. Follow the link I included in that post, and at that link you’ll find a .pdf document (at the top of the article) with a detailed treatment of the “wearing a condom for medical purposes” scenario.

 

[Rau]

On the second font: “if taking medication was to avoid becoming pregnant”. The moral object is NEVER determined by the intended end, which is the purpose or reason for choosing the act. In fact, HV and EV are very clear that contraception and abortion are immoral regardless of whether they are used as an end or a means.

You can’t assume taking a pill = contraception. If we could assume that, we would have nothing to discuss. You must not assume the very thing in debate!

Contraception is the same way. When used as a means to an end, it is still immoral. The intrinsically evil act, defined by its object, is the means, and the end is the intended end (the purpose or reason for choosing the act).

Legitimate intentions do not justify contraception. EV 62 is very clear that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by purpose. By claiming that intent or purpose defines the object, you nullify that teaching.

Contraception is immoral even if the couple do not have a contraceptive intent. As long as they are intentionally choosing an act ordered by its nature or condition toward a contraceptive end, the act is defined as contraception.

I agree with you that contraception is not moral for any purpose. But you make the “leap” to assume that taking medication IS contraception because it plays out (in the real world - with the same real world effects) as would an explicit act of contraception. Again, you assume the very matter in debate.

Ron - of some interest to me is whether you have taken your thoughts on this matter to the US Catholic Bishops. The USCCB provides this Q&A

*Q: Is there ever a time “contraceptives” may be used for medical reasons?

Catholic teaching does not oppose the use of hormonal medications – such as those found in chemical contraceptives – for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent.

Source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…ex.cfm#medical*
Now, this is not a magisterial document, but it purports to be the considered position of the Catholic Church in the USA. I believe you would view this as theologically wrong, or at best misleading. If the understandings of Catholics is to be influenced, the USCCB would seem to be the place to address this matter. Have you raised this matter with the Bishops? With what result?

 

[Ron_Conte]

What you quote above is a website FAQ. The CCC is a magisterial document.

“Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” CCC 2399

All intrinsically evil acts are termed intentional or deliberate or voluntary because the human will knowingly chooses the concrete act. Contraception is intentional or deliberate whenever the person chooses an act inherently ordered by its nature to a contraceptive proximate end.

Rau, if your position were correct, then legitimate intentions, such as to treat a medical disorder, would “justify recourse to” contraception. The CCC and VS are clear that intention never justifies an intrinsically evil act. The claim that intention determines the moral object nullifies this magisterial teaching, so much so that a person could commit any intrinsically evil act, and claim that it is not intrinsically evil due to his or her intention.

I’m not going to continue this discussion because it is not fruitful.

 

[Rau]

What you quote above is a website FAQ. The CCC is a magisterial document.

“Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” CCC 2399

All intrinsically evil acts are termed intentional or deliberate or voluntary because the human will knowingly chooses the concrete act. Contraception is intentional or deliberate whenever the person chooses an act inherently ordered by its nature to a contraceptive proximate end.

Rau, if your position were correct, then legitimate intentions, such as to treat a medical disorder, would “justify recourse to” contraception. The CCC and VS are clear that intention never justifies an intrinsically evil act. The claim that intention determines the moral object nullifies this magisterial teaching, so much so that a person could commit any intrinsically evil act, and claim that it is not intrinsically evil due to his or her intention.

I’m not going to continue this discussion because it is not fruitful.

Ron, you’ve avoided answering direct points put to you and you seem to be intentionally not hearing the central point of this conversation. You keep repeating the mantra “contraception is wrong regardless of intentions” while others are posing the question “is this or is this not contraception”. You assume the very issue in debate! Your reasoning is thus invalid and can rightly be discarded.

I had hoped you would respond to post #165.

Your quote from the CCC above is valid and agreed, but misses the point in debate. The Bishops’ position represented on their website appears to oppose yours.

 

[LongingSoul]

All intrinsically evil acts are termed intentional or deliberate or voluntary because the human will knowingly chooses the concrete act. Contraception is intentional or deliberate whenever the person chooses an act inherently ordered by its nature to a contraceptive proximate end.

That would mean that morphine could not be administered to a terminally ill patient even as pain relief since morphine administration is inherently ordered by its nature to a fatal proximate end?

 

[LongingSoul]

Contraception is intentional or deliberate whenever the person chooses an act inherently ordered by its nature to a contraceptive proximate end.

Even the structure of your sentence here demonstrates where you are going wrong with the term ‘contraception’. Contraception is intrinsically evil like murder, stealing or perjury and we would never begin a statement with “Murder is intentional and deliberate whenever…” or “Stealing is intentional and deliberate whenever…”. Murder and stealing are always an intentional and deliberate desire to violate anothers dignity. If they weren’t intentional and deliberate they are manslaughter or something accidental.

 

[Rau]

Even the structure of your sentence here demonstrates where you are going wrong with the term ‘contraception’. Contraception is intrinsically evil like murder, stealing or perjury and we would never begin a statement with “Murder is intentional and deliberate whenever…” or “Stealing is intentional and deliberate whenever…”. Murder and stealing are always an intentional and deliberate desire to violate anothers dignity. If they weren’t intentional and deliberate they are manslaughter or something accidental.

That’s right. We would say “an act which was the proximate cause of the death of another is murder if we deliberately chose to take the life of an innocent.”

Analogously - “an act which was the proximate cause of rendering sex infertile is contraception if we deliberately chose to take steps to prevent pregnancy”.

The question is not about whether we chose to put the pill in our mouth, not even whether we knew the consequences of doing so, but did we choose to contracept. The issue is subtle however. Consider the woman who takes the pill to improve her skin / reduce acne and simultaneously triples her frequency of sexual relations with her husband in light of her infertile state? What can we say about that? At the very least, the decision to take the pill needs to be a prudent one. The principal of double effect would have us weighing up the consequences of infertile sex versus improved skin (or other medical outcome) - how is that to be done?

 

[underacloud]

Ron,

Rau and LongingSoul have continued to point out the mistakes you are making, but I’ll make one more (I think last) attempt at highlighting your mistakes in your reply to me:

Consider a medication to treat cancer (chemotherapy) that would kill any developing prenatal. The patient can take the medication and refrain from sexual relations. So the act has only the treatment of the condition as its object.

But if the same patient decides to engage in sexual relations, introducing the possibility of pregnancy, that additional choice is a sin. The choice to have sexual relations while taking an abortifacient has an evil moral object, an abortifacient end. So it is not a case of a simple decision to use a medication or not. The couple is also deciding whether or not to have sexual relations. And doing so implies the possibility of conception and abortion.

Therefore, it is not true in the case of abortifacient contraception as a medical treatment that the act is merely the taking of a medication. There is also a decision whether or not to have marital relations.

Here you are making the same mistake regarding abortion as you are regarding contraception; a matter of definition. Both abortion and contraception are not merely defined by what happens, but by what was intended.

Here Fr Serpa explains the difference with regard to this specific issue:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

And here Michelle Arnold gives an even more thorough explanation:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=30815

The intended end is the font of intention (finis agentis). The anticipated effects are in the font of circumstances. Neither implies anything about the moral object (finis actus). So the common claim that an end is “unintended” does not imply that such an end cannot be the object.

This final sentence is simply false. Unless you are using “” to indicate that the person is merely pretending that the bad effects are unintended, but that is not what is being discussed here - we are assuming the bad effects are unintended.

As you say, the anticipated effects are circumstances. They must be taken into account, but they do not themselves form the moral object.

The will is the source of all three fonts. In the first font, the will chooses an intended end, the purpose or reason for acting (finis agentis). In the second font, the will chooses an act, which is ordered toward its own end (finis actus). The intentional choice of any act includes – at least implicitly (like it or not) – the choice of the act, its ordering, and its object. So even if the end of the act is “unintended”, the intentional choice of an act with an evil end is sinful.

You cannot intentionally choose an act – sexual relations while taking an abortifacient – ordered toward an abortive end (finis actus), and then deny moral responsibility for the choice by saying that you do not intend (finis agentis) the death of the prenatal.

The bolded comment above leaves no room for the application of double effect in moral choices. You are saying any evil end makes an act immoral. Again you are confusing the object (the immediately intended end, which must be good) with the circumstances (any foreseeable ends, good or bad).

Enough has been said now. Anyone who doubts my responses to Ron can read through the links posted above.

 

[underacloud]

The Bishops’ position represented on their website appears to oppose yours.

I’m going to rely on the guidance of our Church’s bishops on this matter. As well as the apologists who write on this site (and other moral theologians who have written on this).

 

[Rau]

I’m going to rely on the guidance of our Church’s bishops on this matter. As well as the apologists who write on this site (and other moral theologians who have written on this).

Ron seems to be a bit of a loner. Not only do the Bishops hold a contrary position to his (a fact he declined to confront), but Ron has publically “called out” most of the Apologists on CAF for (in his opinion) teaching falsehoods. I recall him singling out Fr Serpa, Jimmy Akin and Michelle Arnold on his Blog site.

I don’t mind that he is a loner - that his opinions sometimes differ from others. I do object to him avoiding issues put to him, and preferring to repeat a mantra, regardless of whether it is on-point, or an element of it has been challenged.

Eg. I ask Ron how he can know the moral object of an act to swallow a pill, or the moral object of a man aiming and shooting a gun at another, without knowing what is in the mind of the actor. He does not answer. [The fact is, he cannot know.] I point out that his reasoning assumes the very fact in debate - he does not respond. You ask him how he can disregard the principal of double effect. He does not answer. By not responding to points such as this, I conclude that Ron does not want to entertain any challenge or interrogation of his reasoning or his understanding.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In my previous post, I said I would discontinue this discussion because it was not fruitful. Across the entire set of my posts in this thread, I’ve presented an explanation of Church teaching that is sufficient to reply to posters with the opposing point of view, including my comment on the USCCB webpage FAQ. The fact that I discontinue participating in a discussion, at some point, does not imply that I cannot or will not answer the opposing point of view. I’ve already replied to each salient point.

The claim that the use of abortifacient contraception, including actual deaths of prenatals, is justified by intention is plainly gravely contrary to the teaching of Veritatis Splendor and the CCC. The teaching of VS and the CCC take precedence over the teaching of apologists and a vague assertion on a webpage FAQ.

theologian Janet Smith on the topic of intention and intrinsic evil:

“The moral tradition of the Church has spoken of a finis operantis/agentis and a finis operis/actus; that is, it speaks of both the intention of the agent (finis operantis/agentis) which is also known as the end of the agent (and sometimes the motive) and the end of the act itself (finis operis/actus) which is the object of the act. The finis operis/actus is a telos/end, ordination, meaning, or character of an act that is inherent in an act and so intrinsic to it or “embedded” in it that one cannot choose that action without also choosing that end along with any other further ends the agent might have. A whole moral act, the particular act of a particular human being that is either a sin or an act of merit, includes both a finis operantis and the finis operis (sometimes they are the same, as when one gives alms to benefit the poor; sometimes they are different, as when one gives alms as a part of an act of seduction). Both must be ordered to right reason, and both must be ordered to each other. For instance, one cannot kill an innocent person (the object or finis operis) to gain an inheritance to feed the hungry (the end, the finis operantis); one’s object is immoral no matter how good one’s end.”

“If an act (‘some performative behavior’) is intrinsically evil, no matter what intention the agent has, the act remains evil.”

[Janet E. Smith, The Morality of Condom Use by HIV-Infected Spouses, The Thomist 70 (2006): 27-69]

 

[Ron_Conte]

The teaching of the Magisterium on intention and intrinsic evil:

“the opinion must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.” [VS 82]

circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act subjectively good or defensible as a choice. [VS 81]

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. [VS 81]

They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. [VS 81]

“As for acts which are themselves sins … who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives, they would no longer be sins…?” [VS 81]

There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit. [CCC 1756]

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit. [EV 62]

An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention. [CCC 1759]

There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose. [CCC 1761]

A good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed. [VS 78]

 

[Rau]

The teaching of the Magisterium on intention and intrinsic evil:

“the opinion must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.” [VS 82]

circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act subjectively good or defensible as a choice. [VS 81]

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. [VS 81]

They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. [VS 81]

“As for acts which are themselves sins … who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives, they would no longer be sins…?” [VS 81]

There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit. [CCC 1756]

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit. [EV 62]

An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention. [CCC 1759]

There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose. [CCC 1761]

A good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed. [VS 78]

Ron, if you have read the posts of your interlocutors as closely as you have read and reproduced the above teachings, you would know that all of the above is accepted.

In the above teachings, the “fact” of a particular act being an “intrinsically evil” act is not in question. If I say “a murder is always wrong regardless of why I committed it” - we are all in violent agreement because there is no doubt that murder is an intrinsic evil. If I say, “that couple decided to employ contraception because they felt it would be very inconvenient to have a child now due to the mother’s weak heart”, we would all be in violent agreement that they have done wrong because we know contraception is an intrinsic evil and not justified by any reason.

But Ron, whether there can be an adequate reason to “contracept” is NOT what is being discussed here. Rather - the focus of this discussion is whether the taking of a drug to address a medical condition, which has another side-effect (rendering the woman infertile) is then cause to require the woman to avoid sex. And further - if the woman does NOT avoid sex - is she (the couple) guilty of the intrinsic evil of contraception? That is the point here! You assume or assert yes - it is contraception (without detailed analysis), and expend all of your posts applying and explaining all of the teachings above in the context of that assumption to ‘prove’ that it (contraception) is a wrong act. Well…, if it is contraception, we already know it is wrong! **You completely overlook or avoid the essence of the debate! **

The Bishops on their website have NOT stated that contraception is OK in certain circumstances - they have stated that the act of taking a medication for medical purpose, despite its side-effects, is NOT (the intrinsic evil of) contraception. The same line being argued here.

Your interlocutors have challenged the reasoning you have used at many points. You have declined, and continue to decline, to address those points, preferring to quote teachings which are not in dispute. It seems to be a disrespectful way of engaging with people on this forum.

 

[Rau]

In my previous post, I said I would discontinue this discussion because it was not fruitful. Across the entire set of my posts in this thread, I’ve presented an explanation of Church teaching **that is sufficient to reply to posters **with the opposing point of view, including my comment on the USCCB webpage FAQ.

No, you have not. That seems to be a somewhat condescending approach. Why not meet your interlocutors in discussion, rather than preach, particularly when the preaching (albeit it valid) misses the point?

The fact that I discontinue participating in a discussion, at some point, does not imply that I cannot or will not answer the opposing point of view. I’ve already replied to each salient (!!!) point.

No, you have not. Or have you just ignored the points you considered not be salient?

The claim that the use of abortifacient contraception, including actual deaths of prenatals, is justified by intention is plainly gravely contrary to the teaching of Veritatis Splendor and the CCC. The teaching of VS and the CCC take precedence over the teaching of apologists and a **vague assertion ** (by the US Bishops) on a webpage FAQ.

As per my prior post, this is NOT what the discussion is about.   Further, abortifacient properties of the medicine were not part of the discussion Ron.  You alone introduced that!  But it would be a good issue to move to once we can get you focussed on the real issue of whether the events described are actually contraception.

theologian Janet Smith on the topic of intention and intrinsic evil:

“The moral tradition of the Church has spoken of a finis operantis/agentis and a finis operis/actus; that is, it speaks of both the intention of the agent (finis operantis/agentis) which is also known as the end of the agent (and sometimes the motive) and the end of the act itself (finis operis/actus) which is the object of the act. The finis operis/actus is a telos/end, ordination, meaning, or character of an act that is inherent in an act and so intrinsic to it or “embedded” in it that one cannot choose that action without also choosing that end along with any other further ends the agent might have. A whole moral act, the particular act of a particular human being that is either a sin or an act of merit, includes both a finis operantis and the finis operis (sometimes they are the same, as when one gives alms to benefit the poor; sometimes they are different, as when one gives alms as a part of an act of seduction). Both must be ordered to right reason, and both must be ordered to each other. For instance, one cannot kill an innocent person (the object or finis operis) to gain an inheritance to feed the hungry (the end, the finis operantis); one’s object is immoral no matter how good one’s end.”

“If an act (‘some performative behavior’) is intrinsically evil, no matter what intention the agent has, the act remains evil.”

[Janet E. Smith, The Morality of Condom Use by HIV-Infected Spouses, The Thomist 70 (2006): 27-69]

Agree with all that. It is just not addressing the matter in question.