There are two things going on here: 1) A man is intending to reduce the risk of infection. 2) The man is putting on a condom. In which of these things does the Pope say there may be a first step toward a more human way of living sexuality?
If you answered “in the putting on of a condom” then you can’t read.
lovingit.co.uk/2010/11/what-pope-benedict-said-about-condoms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lovingit+%28Catholic+and+Loving+it!%29
He gave an example of a prostitute, the intention of wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention, but the action of wearing a condom is still wrong.
No matter how you put it, the Pope’s comments (if accurate) are a departure from traditional Catholic moral theology, as it has been understood since the beginning of the Church. The “good” intention you speak of is not a good at all.
Traditional Catholic Philosophy/Theology sees an action (as in this case) as good (or evil/bad) only if the three determinates of morality are good. 1/The
end which the agent has in view, 2/ the
means he takes so secure his end, 3/ the
circumstances in which he acts. If ANY of these determinates are bad/evil, then the act will be bad/evil since in Catholic moral philosophy
“evil is predicted of any defect”.
You say that:
"wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention" - This is not as clear cut as you make out. Perhaps you are trying to simplfy your argument, however it would be false to assert that this intention is good - period. The first and most important determinant of morality is the end of the agent. The end is the final cause and is more willed than any other elements of the act, thus if the end is evil - the whole act is evil.
“wanting to reduce the risk of infection” may be one of the reasons for the act - there are many others, which are not moral at all. Also, even if this were the primary reason for the act mentioned, it does not follow that it is the only intention. The act of
“wanting to reduce the risk of infection” by this means presupposes the intention of a unquestionably intrinsically evil and immoral act - i.e. contraception or worse sodomy. Thus, the end cannot in any way (without repudiating traditional Catholic moral philosophy/theology) be considered “good”.
As for the Means taken: I do not need to explain this. the Church’s teachings is well know. This method, or any other method of contraception can never be morally “good”.
The Cirsumstances I likewise have no need to explain. It goes without saying that these circumstances do not permit the act to be morally “good” no matter even if the
end and the*** means*** both be good.
Thus on all of the three determinates of morallity, the act fails. Thus, even the intention cannot be considered “good”.
I am very disapointed with the Pope’s words, if indeed you and others (including the Vatican) are reporting them accurately. They have only succeeded in causing scandal, no matter how good his intention was. I cannot judge the Pope, nor do I claim to, but when a teaching or viewpoint (this wasnt an official teaching) contradicts the view of tradtional Catholic teaching on the matter, which has not changed, then it cannot and should not be accepted by Catholics.
I have briefly stated why the Pope is not inline with Church teaching in this regard and I know that Catholics are not bound to accept his view, however there are Catholics who do not know their faith and many more non-catholics who will and have misinterpreted this statement and it has been the cause of scandal. With that said, I think there is also scandal caused amoung those who DO understand what the Pope aparantly said, and know it is not inline with Church teaching. Those who say “well the Pope says it so it is infallable, or it cannot be against Church teaching” are simply uneducated in their own faith.
