Continution - of Intimacy Peak

[Wesrock]

I would think once they decide to “become intimate during the wife’s fertile faze” then "“honey we better stop now, we are entering into illicit territory” is trying to close the door after the horse has already bolted .

If you are really saying that “becoming intimate” is now and then the overwhelming difficulty then I think God understands if you go racing for the condom packet hidden in the bathroom.

Is it immoral to wisely anticipate weakness (having condoms on standby) when one is trying to abide by the natural methods the Church allows? I personally do not think so.

It is still objectively grave matter of course, but under these circumstances the breach is most likely venial only. Still confessional matter of course, all grave matter seems to be is whether fully culpable or not .

Loss of sanctifying grace, I wouldn’t think so given everything else in your Catholic life is in order.
God isn’t the Enforcer.

The planning ahead by keeping condoms in the room pretty much negates the force of the argument. I am not going to judge any individual act, but if you are, ahead of time, when the blood is cool, purchasing condoms for an unplanned future occurrence, that would strike me as full consent. And the danger of your posting such things as this is that people are going to misapply it as a crutch.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The planning ahead by keeping condoms in the room pretty much negates the force of the argument. I am not going to judge any individual act, but if you are, ahead of time, when the blood is cool, purchasing condoms for an unplanned future occurrence, that would strike me as full consent. And the danger of your posting such things as this is that people are going to misapply it as a crutch.

Ah, the dreaded thin edge of the wedge fear. Yet questions of possible outcomes are prudential judgements and both wise and sincere may therefore validly disagree.
And ultimately the final judgement is, for mature adults, theirs to judge.

Wisely planning to ensure the validly intended outcome put at risk by a likely lapse of human moral freedom does not in itself appear immoral.

If my attractive 16 yr old daughter with raging hormones was naiively attracting boys like bees to a honey pot and couldn’t be reigned in with curfews I would not rule out asking her to at least put these condoms in her handbag but please do not by any means believe your mother and I are anyway happy with what you are doing.

Not a perfect match for what I think I am saying above but a similar application of the principle. Is my contraceptive intent direct or indirect? Indirect I believe. I am trying to ensure that my unmarried daughter who doesn’t really know what she is about doesn’t suffer disproportionately as a consequence of likely foolish acts which for her are more “acts of a man” than “human acts”.

Such I believe is the principle at work in Pope Francis’s comments re Zika and irregulars retains sanctifying grace and Pope Benedict re prostitutes using condoms as a first step in ethical growth.

Let’s remember the “grave matter” involved in use of contraceptives is on a wholly different level than that of murder or abortion. Nor is the pill (like killing) intrinsically evil.

 

[Bookcat]

Please do *not *use this thread for discussing the offering or suggestion of condoms for any reason to anyone. Thank you.

And it is off topic anyhow…

Thread should be closed since it no longer serves its purpose.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Please do *not *use this thread for discussing the … suggestion of condoms for any reason to anyone. Thank you. .

If both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have done so whence the unreasonableness?
Why are some Catholics so fearful about other adults airing these sorts of difficult questions .

 

[Rau]

Ah, the dreaded thin edge of the wedge fear. Yet questions of possible outcomes are prudential judgements and both wise and sincere may therefore validly disagree.
And ultimately the final judgement is, for mature adults, theirs to judge.

Wisely planning to ensure the validly intended outcome put at risk by a likely lapse of human moral freedom does not in itself appear immoral.

If my attractive 16 yr old daughter with raging hormones was naiively attracting boys like bees to a honey pot and couldn’t be reigned in with curfews I would not rule out asking her to at least put these condoms in her handbag but please do not by any means believe your mother and I are anyway happy with what you are doing.

Not a perfect match for what I think I am saying above but a similar application of the principle. Is my contraceptive intent direct or indirect? Indirect I believe. I am trying to ensure that my unmarried daughter who doesn’t really know what she is about doesn’t suffer disproportionately as a consequence of likely foolish acts which for her are more “acts of a man” than “human acts”.

Such I believe is the principle at work in Pope Francis’s comments re Zika and irregulars retains sanctifying grace and Pope Benedict re prostitutes using condoms as a first step in ethical growth.

Let’s remember the “grave matter” involved in use of contraceptives is on a wholly different level than that of murder or abortion. Nor is the pill (like killing) intrinsically evil.

 

[Bookcat]

If both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have done so whence the unreasonableness?
Why are some Catholics so fearful about other adults airing these sorts of difficult questions .

Not going to get into this here…and it is off topic. Your misunderstanding what was said and drawing wrong conclusions.

And no Pope Benedict XVI was NOT saying it was ok to do so! Period.

Go read the book and the Vatican’s response and clarification.

I do not have the time or the desire to go round and round here.

Please discontinue this discussion- thanks.

 

[Rau]

…Such I believe is the principle at work in Pope Francis’s comments re Zika…

Contraception is a means to avoid conception of a child possibly impacted by Zika, or Down’s syndrome or any other condition. Nothing special about Zika here. If contraception is valid to avoid Zika then valid for all equivalent purposes, enabling an act (means) to be justified by the ends. So if the Pope meant what you suggest, it’s a large “walking back” of what has been taught. We went through this once before Blue - there was no way on earth to see the moral object of choosing marital sex with a condom as anything other than an evil.

The Pope’s Zika comments only make sense where a husband proposes to force his wife.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not going to get into this here…and it is off topic. Your misunderstanding what was said and drawing wrong conclusions.

And no Pope Benedict XVI was NOT saying it was ok to do so! Period.

Go read the book and the Vatican’s response and clarification.

I do not have the time or the desire to go round and round here.

Please discontinue this discussion- thanks.

You are free to unsubscribe my friend.

It may be interesting to unpack what your phrase “not OK” means wrt actual sin, grave matter and objective sin. Some of these are not like the other. And fairly clearly the Pope’s do see some occasions when at least one of these may not occur re use of contraceptives and in that sense is “OK”.

Unfortunately you do not have the time .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Contraception is a means to avoid conception of a child possibly impacted by Zika, or Down’s syndrome or any other condition. Nothing special about Zika here. If contraception is valid to avoid Zika then valid for all equivalent purposes, enabling an act (means) to be justified by the ends. So if the Pope meant what you suggest, it’s a large “walking back” of what has been taught. We went through this once before Blue - there was no way on earth to see the moral object of choosing marital sex with a condom as anything other than an evil.

The Pope’s Zika comments only make sense where a husband proposes to force his wife.

Hint: indirect intention.

 

[Rau]

Hint: indirect intention.

Response: it doesn’t work. You tried valiantly in a thread quite some time ago. It didn’t work - don’t you remember?

If fearing Zika, Downs, Spina bifida, …enumerate further medical condition/potential fatal abnormailities…], is it ok for husband to wear a condom during sexual intercourse? Labelling the contraceptive act “indirect” is simply wrong, for it is the directly chosen means of achieving the intention. Eliminating the procreative aspect is the means chosen.

 

[Rau]

…enumerate further medical condition/potential fatal abnormalities…],

“fetal”, not necessarily “fatal”…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Response: it doesn’t work. You tried valiantly in a thread quite some time ago. It didn’t work - don’t you remember?

By all means quote the alleged “silver bullet” I caved into…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Response: it doesn’t work. You tried valiantly in a thread quite some time ago. It didn’t work - don’t you remember?

If fearing Zika, Downs, Spina bifida, …enumerate further medical condition/potential fatal abnormailities…], is it ok for husband to wear a condom during sexual intercourse? Labelling the contraceptive act “indirect” is simply wrong, for it is the directly chosen means of achieving the intention. Eliminating the procreative aspect is the means chosen.

You may not like it but my line is validly debated at professional moral theology levels beyond my octane rating…
books.google.co.nz/books?id=qQbsIxQkPXMC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=%22indirect+intention%22+contraception&source=bl&ots=7RMpzdX-Np&sig=HQOtptVtcYmFZCeNdIlLzjLRmZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN2vmzpcnTAhWBHpQKHT1tCJMQ6AEINzAG#v=onepage&q=%22indirect%20intention%22%20contraception&f=false
p.162ff

To the best of my knowledge the jury is still out.

 

[Rau]

You may not like it but my line is validly debated at professional moral theology levels beyond my octane rating…
books.google.co.nz/books?id=qQbsIxQkPXMC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=%22indirect+intention%22+contraception&source=bl&ots=7RMpzdX-Np&sig=HQOtptVtcYmFZCeNdIlLzjLRmZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN2vmzpcnTAhWBHpQKHT1tCJMQ6AEINzAG#v=onepage&q=%22indirect%20intention%22%20contraception&f=false
p.162ff

To the best of my knowledge the jury is still out.

That an act may be “direct” (and immoral) or “indirect” (and moral) is not in debate. The act might be one that we know will abort a child, or one we know will sterilise marital relations, or similar. This is not the point in question.

The issue is whether in a particular case - viz: contraception so as not to have a Zika baby - the “contraception” is direct or indirect. I believe it is emphatically direct. The contraceptive effect is not a side-effect (in the consequences) it is the means - such an act, for achievement of its good intention, relies on eliminating the procreative meaning from a marital act.

Back in March 2016, you described the act in question as: “marital sex avoiding a seriously deformed baby” … and nominated its moral object as “paying the marital debt (unitive purpose) and wisely waiting for a better time to conceive a normal baby”.
[Post #192 in: https://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=998309&highlight=Condoms+Zika]

My response was to point out the fatal flaw in this as follows:

*The act you describe as "marital sex avoiding a seriously deformed baby” does not expose the means adopted to serve the good intention – it is silent on how one avoids a deformed baby. It is far from a “concrete act” (see Veritatis Splendor) – we have no idea what concrete act is proposed, how therefore is it to be judged? You have left out an essential element of the act, and folded in the Intention. There are a number of options which would make the act (which you describe) concrete and thus allow moral assessment, eg: NFP, abstinence, Contraception and hopefully in due course - take a medication/vaccine. By not exposing the means, we cannot properly identify the object. The act (you propose or have in mind, but have not written down) is in fact concrete because a means (“contraception”) has been chosen - and thus the act is properly described as “contracepted marital sex”. When such is knowingly chosen, the moral object is the deprivation of the procreative aspect, a moral evil.

Depriving marital relations of the procreative aspect (as end or means) is moral evil. In your act, this is in the means. It is only when the deprivation is solely in the Consequences that we can say the contraception is “indirect”. *

Another poster commented similarly at the time:

*The use of contraception in cases of rape is not intrinsically evil because the object of the act is the moral interruption of the rape. The deprivation of the procreative meaning is only in the consequences, not in the object. That is an example of what might be called indirect contraception (similar to indirect sterilization or indirect abortion).

However, what makes it indirect is not the intended end, but the moral species and moral object of the intentionally chosen act. *

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That an act may be “direct” (and immoral) or “indirect” (and moral) is not in debate. The act might be one that we know will abort a child, or one we know will sterilise marital relations, or similar. This is not the point in question.

The issue is whether in a particular case - viz: contraception so as not to have a Zika baby - the “contraception” is direct or indirect. I believe it is emphatically direct. The contraceptive effect is not a side-effect (in the consequences) it is the means - such an act, for achievement of its good intention, relies on eliminating the procreative meaning from a marital act.

Back in March 2016, you described the act in question as: “marital sex avoiding a seriously deformed baby” … and nominated its moral object as “paying the marital debt (unitive purpose) and wisely waiting for a better time to conceive a normal baby”.
[Post #192 in: https://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=998309&highlight=Condoms+Zika

]

My response was to point out the fatal flaw in this as follows:

*The act you describe as "marital sex avoiding a seriously deformed baby” does not expose the means adopted to serve the good intention – it is silent on how one avoids a deformed baby. It is far from a “concrete act” (see Veritatis Splendor) – we have no idea what concrete act is proposed, how therefore is it to be judged? You have left out an essential element of the act, and folded in the Intention. There are a number of options which would make the act (which you describe) concrete and thus allow moral assessment, eg: NFP, abstinence, Contraception and hopefully in due course - take a medication/vaccine. By not exposing the means, we cannot properly identify the object. The act (you propose or have in mind, but have not written down) is in fact concrete because a means (“contraception”) has been chosen - and thus the act is properly described as “contracepted marital sex”. When such is knowingly chosen, the moral object is the deprivation of the procreative aspect, a moral evil.

Depriving marital relations of the procreative aspect (as end or means) is moral evil. In your act, this is in the means. It is only when the deprivation is solely in the Consequences that we can say the contraception is “indirect”. *

Another poster commented similarly at the time:

*The use of contraception in cases of rape is not intrinsically evil because the object of the act is the moral interruption of the rape. The deprivation of the procreative meaning is only in the consequences, not in the object. That is an example of what might be called indirect contraception (similar to indirect sterilization or indirect abortion).

However, what makes it indirect is not the intended end, but the moral species and moral object of the intentionally chosen act. *
Ah, you mean the weeks long debate that never finished because you abandoned it?
I believe the last questions/summary I had posed to you were:

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
The use of contraceptives with the knowledge they will contracept is acceptable in some cases?

Do you disagree?

Waiting for your response?

And:

Something can have moral content without being intrinsically evil and is therefore not finally coercive without further analysis.

Such is killing and, I hypothesize, contracepting.
Perfect analogs still from what I can see.

Which is why I was surprised to observe you believed the case on this was closed:blush:.

BTW do you still believe Pope Francis appears to have broken with tradition re Zika and contraceptives - or have you found a satisfactory moral theology justification if you don’t accept mine - or that of the theology book I just referred you to.

 

[Rau]

…BTW do you still believe Pope Francis appears to have broken with tradition re Zika and contraceptives - or have you found a satisfactory moral theology justification if you don’t accept mine - or that of the theology book I just referred you to.

If and when the Pope chooses to make a clear statement on the subject - to express anew the teaching on contraception - I can answer that. For now, the only rational interpretation of what he is reported to have said that I can come up with is that a woman is justified in using / requiring contraception when being “required” (compelled) to have sex by an unreasonable husband in the midst of a Zika crisis.

Your interpretation is flawed as demonstrated earlier. The appeal to indirection fails.

Indirection can be valid, it is just not applicable in the case to which you tried to apply it.

 

[Bookcat]

You are free to unsubscribe my friend.
.

Again you have mistaken notions here. Not though going to get into it. See my post above.

---

*The rules ***are one must stay on topic.

Please cease posting such on the thread that I opened…

Thanks

It should now be closed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your interpretation is flawed as demonstrated earlier…

Indirection can be valid, it is just not applicable in the case to which you tried to apply it.

Unfortunately your view that you convincingly demonstrated that in the prior thread quoted is itself a somewhat self serving personal interpretation.

Readers can see for themselves you abandoned the debate and declined to answer the below questions I put to you … as is still the case .

As I say, contracepting and killing appear to be close analogs…directly intending either is intrinsically evil. Yet there are exceptions re killing based on indirection. Lethal self defence at times does inevitably involve choosing (but not directly intending) evil actions to deliver the good outcome. I accept that is hard to understand yet is accepted.

I see no convincing argument that the same cannot apply to some uses of contraception.

Did the Congo Nuns choose to contracept?

In any case the issue is not Zika but possible indirect contraceptive intent re a likely non human act which is significantly different moral issue.

I will stop this slightly tangential tangent here as Bookcat is getting somewhat overwrought…unless of course others keep this going, which often acceptably happens on CAF as OP’S don’t really seem to own the threads they initiate.

 

[Rau]

…Readers can see for themselves you abandoned the debate and declined to answer the below questions I put to you … as is still the case

Despite it being irrelevant to your Zika example, I just gave you an example of indirect contraception - post rape treatment, so yeah - it’s been answered. Contraception can be indirect, abortion can be indirect, etc etc. Each case has to be examined to decide direct vs indirect.

As I say, contracepting and killing appear to be close analogs…directly intending either is intrinsically evil. Yet there are exceptions re killing based on indirection. Lethal self defence at times does inevitably involve choosing (but not directly intending) evil actions to deliver the good outcome. I accept that is hard to understand yet is accepted… I see no convincing argument that the same cannot apply to some uses of contraception.

It can! I just gave you one. It just doesn’t apply as you tried to apply it! In your Zika scenario the contraception is direct. The couple avoid Zika by first choosing to prevent conception in order to have sex.

Killing in self defense is not moral evil. Intentionally depriving a (freely chosen) marital act of its procreative aspect is moral evil. It can’t be licitly done for good intentions such as avoiding Downs, Zika, etc. Your killing in SD analogy does not work. The Congo nuns analogy does not work.

I’ve no need to say more unless you wish to.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You continue to take this thread off topic which upsets Bookcat.

If he doesn’t apply fairness principles and razz you as much as he has razzed me for this then I will take that as tacit permission to respond to you.

And then it would seem his objection to this tangential topic is not really the tangent but that my view is counter to his and censor delenda est .

So lets wait 24 hrs or so…