Legitimate use of the barrier method?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johndigger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Johndigger

Guest
In my Ethics class today, my teacher (who is a Catholic Priest) said that it was permissible for a couple to use the barrier method of contraception if a pregnancy would put undue strain on a couple’s financial or health situation.

I was somewhat skeptical about this, so, I said to him I would agree with him for the moment, but as I’ve never heard this before in Catholic teaching, I’d have to check it.

If I am wrong, I will openly apologise to the good priest in front of the class, as it must have looked pretty bad me saying that I wasn’t sure about his advice on the Church’s position.

To put it in context:

We were learning about the principle of double effect in natural law.

He said.

The intention of the condom users isn’t to not have children, but to protect the family’s financial and health situation. Therefore, the principle of double effect applies.

JD
 
Johndigger said:
In my Ethics class today, my teacher (who is a Catholic Priest) said that it was permissible for a couple to use the barrier method of contraception if a pregnancy would put undue strain on a couple’s financial or health situation.

I was somewhat skeptical about this, so, I said to him I would agree with him for the moment, but as I’ve never heard this before in Catholic teaching, I’d have to check it.

If I am wrong, I will openly apologise to the good priest in front of the class, as it must have looked pretty bad me saying that I wasn’t sure about his advice on the Church’s position.

To put it in context:

We were learning about the principle of double effect in natural law.

He said.

The intention of the condom users isn’t to not have children, but to protect the family’s financial and health situation. Therefore, the principle of double effect applies.

JD
Click to expand...
It is sad in this day and age that we still have those priests that tend to let their own beliefs and views cloud their judgement of what is the truth. It is plain to see what Mother church teaches about this:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.* In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:**

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.*

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

The priest is 100% wrong, you are right. I hate to have to say that, but it is the truth. We, as Catholics, can avoid a pregnancy for financial reasons and do so through NFP (Natural Family Planning) and no barrier method is acceptable for any reason
 
Yes, morality wise it makes little difference which method of contraception is used; barrier, chemical, etc…contraception is contraception.

Morally, the only difference might be in using a method that results in early embryonic death vs. preventing contraception, but in the context of the OP, contraception is contraception is contraception.
 
Johndigger said:
In my Ethics class today, my teacher (who is a Catholic Priest) said that it was permissible for a couple to use the barrier method of contraception if a pregnancy would put undue strain on a couple’s financial or health situation.

I was somewhat skeptical about this, so, I said to him I would agree with him for the moment, but as I’ve never heard this before in Catholic teaching, I’d have to check it.

If I am wrong, I will openly apologise to the good priest in front of the class, as it must have looked pretty bad me saying that I wasn’t sure about his advice on the Church’s position.

To put it in context:

We were learning about the principle of double effect in natural law.

He said.

The intention of the condom users isn’t to not have children, but to protect the family’s financial and health situation. Therefore, the principle of double effect applies.

JD
Click to expand...
Your moral theology professor needs a remedial course for himself.

First, the Catechism and Humanae Vitae are quite clear that contraception is intrinsically disorderd.

Secondly, your professor completely misapplies the Principle Of Double Effect to the point of rendering it completely meaningless.

Based on his absurd reasoning one could say that the principle of double effect applies to bank robbery as their intent wasn’t to steal but to protetc the family’s financial health situation.

The Principle of Double Effect is not some “moral get out of jail free card”. The Principle has specific criteria that must be met-- and his example does not meet them AT ALL.

Study up on the principle of double effect.
 
Thank for your responses, folks.

I definitely do need to study up on the Double Effect principle.

However, if I could just borrow your knowledge once again…

The two examples he cited, which I think are fairly common when discussing double effect:

Ectopic pregnancy, baby implanted on the fallopian tube, both Mum and baby will die unless something is done about it.

So, by applying the principle of double effect, the Mother has a medical operation to cut/take out the fallopian tube, the baby dies, but it’s morally permissible because the intention is not to kill the baby.

The second example he used was where the pill is used be a female who has menstrual problems. Although, this renders the woman infertile, it is morally permissible because the intention is not make the woman infertile.

Could you run me through how these scenarios are different from the one in my OP? (Mainly for my own benefit)

In Christ,

JD
 
Johndigger said:
Thank for your responses, folks.

I definitely do need to study up on the Double Effect principle.

However, if I could just borrow your knowledge once again…

The two examples he cited, which I think are fairly common when discussing double effect:

Ectopic pregnancy, baby implanted on the fallopian tube, both Mum and baby will die unless something is done about it.

So, by applying the principle of double effect, the Mother has a medical operation to cut/take out the fallopian tube, the baby dies, but it’s morally permissible because the intention is not to kill the baby.

The second example he used was where the pill is used be a female who has menstrual problems. Although, this renders the woman infertile, it is morally permissible because the intention is not make the woman infertile.

Could you run me through how these scenarios are different from the one in my OP? (Mainly for my own benefit)

In Christ,

JD
Click to expand...
Both of these are medical conditions. Neither involves contraception.

The OP is a couple that does not wish to incur expense. This can be a good reason to postpone having a child. However, there is a perfectly effective, ethical, non-double-effect method for couples to do this: periodic abstinence.
 
So, what do I do? Do I speak to the Priest about my concerns? Just ignore him?

Any ideas? 🤷

Things get complicated when someone in a position of higher authority than you is wrong…

JD
 
An action must meet all four criteria of the Principle Of Double Effect to be moral. Your professor’s example fails this test on every point. In fact, it troubles me greatly that an ethics professor could make such a profound error of basic logic. It speaks poorly of the institution that would employ him. He has an agenda and clearly wants to promote it at the expense of sound teaching.

Principle of Double Effect:
  1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
Contraception is not morally good or indifferent, as per Humanae Vitae it is intrinsically disordered.
  1. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
The agent does positively will the bad effect and wills it directly. And, the good effect can be attained without the bad effect through other means (NFP).
  1. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
The good effect (financial well-being) does not flow directly from the action and is not immediate as is the bad effect. In this case, the person is using a bad means to achieve a good ends-- never allowed.
  1. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.
The evil of Contraception is not proportionate to some vague, future state of finances. And, as has been pointed out the good of financial and health stability can be achieved via NFP.
 
Johndigger said:
So, what do I do? Do I speak to the Priest about my concerns? Just ignore him?

Any ideas? 🤷

Things get complicated when someone in a position of higher authority than you is wrong…

JD
Click to expand...
I’d speak to the priest. He said this in public-- how many people did he lead into sin by this? He is not just a professor, he is a priest.

If he doesn’t retract his absurd statement, take it to the head of the department.

If this is a Catholic institution don’t let it drop. And, consider changing schools if they promote his position.

If it’s not a Catholic institution, you can pursue it with whoever the priest reports to within the Church-- diocesan bishop or superior of his order.
 
1ke said:
I’d speak to the priest. He said this in public-- how many people did he lead into sin by this? He is not just a professor, he is a priest.

If he doesn’t retract his absurd statement, take it to the head of the department.

If this is a Catholic institution don’t let it drop. And, consider changing schools if they promote his position.

If it’s not a Catholic institution, you can pursue it with whoever the priest reports to within the Church-- diocesan bishop or superior of his order.
Click to expand...
He’s actually a really good ethics teacher and the school is run by a very traditional Catholic headmaster (Ankle length skirts, compulsary Mass, etc)

So, I am really suprised he fell into such an error really. It’s quite sad. I will, however, speak with him about it in private with him.

JD
 
The term “financial stabilty” is used. It truly demonstrates what people consider a priority today. They are more concerned with making money than to take part in the miralce of creation and bring a person, by the power of God, into being. Consider other countries around the world. They are far poorer than us, yet they have large families. Consider Mexico our good Catholic neighbor to the south. The country is far poorer than America, but they know their priorities. Truly the breakdown of the family in America is a contributing factor to people wanting to use contraception. Also, this health of the relationship stuff? What is that? I have heard it before, but are we saying a couple can not be happy without sex? Is sex so important that a married couple can not live without it? God gave us sex for procreation. Sex is for a man and a woman to take part in the creative process with God. Are we saying to God, “well we don’t want to take part in the creative process we just want to enjoy ourselves”? I myself know many families that have between 6 and 13 children. They are in no way rich, but they manage.
 
John,

I second what 1ke said: don’t let this drop. First, continue to educated yourself on the Principle of Double Effect a) ask questions of us here, and b) continue to research it elsewhere].
Second, speak with your teacher. Perhaps you misunderstood him, or perhaps he miscommunicated. Otherwise, perhaps he himself misapplied the PDE.

I note too, in addition to 1ke’s excellent summary of PDE, that the whole analysis begins only when an act which is either good or morally indifferent in itself has two or more effects. That is the starting point which triggers a PDE analysis in the first place.

God bless you John! 👍
 
I’m glad that MirrorMirror quoted article 2370 above. It states that an action which renders procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. This leaves open the use of condoms, diaphragms and contraceptive medicines since none of these “renders impossible” procreation. They render it unlikely in various degrees but none of them make it impossible. You may be faced with a venial sin by using these things, but never with a mortal sin if we are to judge from this article.

Matthew
 
drafdog said:
I’m glad that MirrorMirror quoted article 2370 above. It states that an action which renders procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. This leaves open the use of condoms, diaphragms and contraceptive medicines since none of these “renders impossible” procreation. They render it unlikely in various degrees but none of them make it impossible. You may be faced with a venial sin by using these things, but never with a mortal sin if we are to judge from this article.

Matthew
Click to expand...
It would really help if you read the entire “article 2370” and then moved onto 2399 to see that using condoms, diaphragms and contraceptive medicines are a mortal sin.
 
Johndigger,

You’ll need more than the Catechism to defend this one. The professor will just claim that acts like he mentioned are not contraception and therefore the Catechism passage in question is not applicable.

Go and get yourself a copy of Veritatis Splendor (you can download it here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html ) to support your argument. Your professor may try to argue that there is no such thing as an “intrinsically evil” act, but he’s wrong and VS will authoritatively show him that (look to paragraph 75 to desribe this faulty position and paragraph 76-83 to demolish that position).

As others have stated quite well here, the key to the morality of an act is the “object” of the act (the act in itself, of the moral not natural order). “The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God.(79)” Even though there may seem to be good reasons that “justify” such actions “If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it.(81)”

Pay special attention to section IV. The Moral Act!

Good luck and God bless!

Let us know how he responds…there are theologians out there who have criticized Veritatis Splendor for being too rigid, but there are good responses to their objections written by faithful Catholic theologians.
 
The priest is correct that the example he gives objectively falls within the doctrine of double effect, but it is not in accord with Church teachings because for some reason the Church has never allowed the double effect principle to be applied to contraception. It may be applied to acts that would otherwise break the Fifth Commandment, but for some reason not to those acts the Church believes would breach the Sixth. I don’t know why, but there it is.
 
TMC said:
The priest is correct that the example he gives objectively falls within the doctrine of double effect, but it is not in accord with Church teachings because for some reason the Church has never allowed the double effect principle to be applied to contraception. It may be applied to acts that would otherwise break the Fifth Commandment, but for some reason not to those acts the Church believes would breach the Sixth. I don’t know why, but there it is.
Click to expand...
TMC,

There is no prejudice between the two commandments. The point is that any act that is “intrinsically evil” can never work in the Principle of Double Effect. One of the key points is that the act itself (in moral theology terms - the object of the act) must be morally good or indifferent. Contraception, that is the deliberate frustration of the procreative faculty, is intrinsically evil. It is never morally good or indifferent.

The flawed proportionalist theology makes the rather bold an unprecedented claim that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act, but rather that all acts must be evaluated independently. This theory is soundly condemned by the Church as an error.
 
TMC said:
The priest is correct that the example he gives objectively falls within the doctrine of double effect, but it is not in accord with Church teachings
Click to expand...
TMC,

Just a point of order here: Technically the principle of double effect can’t ever apply here.

The double effect analysis has as its threshold question “does an act have more than one effect, at least one being an evil effect?”

After that question is answered affirmatively, then we can move on to the first step in applying the principle: “Is the act morally good or at least morally indifferent?”

I think your post above was addressing the first step in applying the principle, and postulating that IF the Church is in error that a contraceptive act in marriage is intrinsically morally evil, then you could start to apply the principle of double effect (i.e. because then the contraceptive act would be either good or indifferent).

You are right about that, assuming *arguendo *that a contraceptive act is good or indifferent would let you take the first step in applying the principle of double effect. However, we still run into a problem regarding the *threshold question. *Given a good or indifferent contraceptive act, what is the evil effect in the above scenario? I can’t see one (as preservation of health, or proper stewardship of finances seem to be good effects.) Therefore there would be no reason to trigger the principle of double effect.

It’s a technical point, but it promotes a clearer understanding of what double effect is and is not.

What do you think?
VC
 
Great posts, Sure and Caro! 🙂
New Catholic Encyclopedia:
  1. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
Click to expand...
Also, the evil effect can’t be the causative factor of the good effect.

In which case, the evil effect (immoral contraception) would be a causative factor for the good effect (Financial benefit, health, etc)

Another reason why the situation doesn’t fit the Double Effect criteria.

JD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top