Continution - of Intimacy Peak

[Rau]

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

I think what causes Bookcat to respond as he has is mostly the argument you put that contraception to prevent a zika pregnancy can be moral, combined with the fact that Bookcat is the OP. He may feel “his” platform (thread) is misused.

If you must reply, could you please stay on the topic of this tangent - by limiting yourself to arguing why (in the zika scenario) contraception is not directly chosen as the means to prevent pregnancy. [After all, Zika is ONLY avoid if one first avoid pregnancy.] And please - no more analogies to cases where the contraception is indeed indirect, or to killings where either the killing is indirect, or the killed is not innocent. These are false analogies.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you must reply, could you please stay on the topic of this tangent - by limiting yourself to arguing why (in the zika scenario) …

As I say that is not the topic of our tangent.
My practical topic is actually the morality of buying contraceptives to use at a later date to avoid the consequences of coitus that is not directly morally intended (because it is minimally a human act they actually wanted).

An interesting scenario I have never seen broached before.
It is somewhat like Congo Nuns though hardly rape.
And somewhat like your view of Zika (“forced” sex by husband, though Pope Francis never actually made that important distinction you assume).
And somewhat like irregulars who may be allowed to receive Communion when caught in a situation they have no freedom to extricate themselves from without greater actual sin.

Hint: The **object **of a moral act is not, according to a faithful understanding of Aquinas (Cajetan not Suarez, not the Carmelites, not the manualists), “the physical deed” in itself.

As VS rightly interpreted Aquinas on this point, the object must also consider the intent “from the perspective of the acting person”.

 

[Rau]

…As VS rightly interpreted Aquinas on this point, the object must also consider the intent “from the perspective of the acting person”.

I think the couple intend to have sex without conceiving Blue, [because to conceive (in the scenario in question) is to risk Zika]. Now, there are licit ways to approach that acceptable end of sex without conception. And then, there’s contraception.

 

[Rau]

As I say that is not the topic of our tangent.
My practical topic is actually the morality of buying contraceptives to use at a later date to avoid the consequences of coitus that is not directly morally intended (because it is minimally a human act they actually wanted).

An interesting scenario I have never seen broached before.
It is somewhat like Congo Nuns though hardly rape.

Not like Congo nuns at all. Nuns weren’t concerned about losing control and choosing to have sex. They were concerned about falling victim to rape!

And somewhat like your view of Zika (“forced” sex by husband, though Pope Francis never actually made that important distinction you assume).

As I said - it’s the only context/scenario I could come up with that could keep his comments - as reported - in harmony with Church teaching.

Hint: The **object **of a moral act is not … “the physical deed” in itself.

Spare me Blue - we all know this, eg. the post-rape treatment I’ve quoted already is such an example.

 

[Rau]

As I say that is not the topic of our tangent…

Well Blue, it was your good self who drew the connection to Zika in Post #21. If you didn’t want to talk about it…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well Blue, it was your good self who drew the connection to Zika in Post #21. If you didn’t want to talk about it…

No, the primary issue was always Augustine3’s post:

How about when a couple decides to postpone having more children for legitimate reasons; become intimate during the wife’s fertile faze. They will most likely end up in the situation “honey we better stop now, we are entering into illicit territory”. That would be so frustrating. Yes we can offer up the sacrifice but sometimes it becomes overwhelming.

And my elucidation following was:

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.

So Zika for me was only ever one of a further four imperfect examples re secondary free “immoral” acts possibly not being immoral in circumstances of a primary act reasonably judged not to be free and therefore not imputable .

Its really you who are hung up on zika here! (Understandably so as you still haven’t found a theological solution that satisfies you that Pope Francis isn’t materially “heretical” .)

But as I say I have been giving Bookcat a chance to fairly also censure you out for being off-topic…or forever hold his peace when we begin this debate here .

 

[Rau]

…Its really you who are hung up on zika here!

Only to the extent that I couldn’t leave thread readers thinking that maybe it is moral to use contraception as a means to avoid conceiving if Zika is a risk.

Understandably so as you still haven’t found a theological solution that satisfies you that Pope Francis isn’t materially “heretical”

Only you raised heresy. I gave the one scenario I could think of that makes sense of what the Pope is reported to have said. *. You are yet to come up with any theologically sound scenario!

But as I say I have been giving Bookcat a chance to fairly also censure you out for being off-topic…or forever hold his peace when we begin this debate here .

Bookcat is cool . And he knows his theology too! *

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Only to the extent that I couldn’t leave thread readers thinking that maybe it is moral to use contraception as a means to avoid conceiving if Zika is a risk.

Only you raised heresy. I gave the one scenario I could think of that makes sense of what the Pope is reported to have said. *. You are yet to come up with any theologically sound scenario!

Bookcat is cool . And he knows his theology too! *
It’s disturbing how easily you lost focus on all three points…though you were right re the heresy bit where I forgot your unlikely rationalisation of what Pope Francis didn’t say…that was more charitable than Ender.