Legitimate use of the barrier method?

[TMC]

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

You may be right. I think it is complicated. If the act being analyzed is contraception, and contraception is not intrinsically morally evil, then the application of double effect is clear. This may well be why the double effect doctrine is never applied to sexual situations, because sexual acts contrary to the teachings are considered to be intrinsically morally evil.

This is different than how the doctrine is applied to warfare, however. For example, bombing a chemical weapons factory knowing that innocents work in the factory, that some bombs will miss and kill innocents near the factory, and that chemicals will almost certainly be released and endanger still others. The act is “destroying the factory that makes chemical weapons” which is good or at least neutral. There are good and bad effects that flow from the act. You then weigh those effects and decide. If the acts is “employing weapons so imprecise that innocents will be killed” then you may get another result.

Using a condom to prevent transmission of STD, or to prevent a seriously dangerous medical condition can be looked at in the same way. The act is “blocking the flow of virus from one person to another” or “preventing a serious medical condition.” This is a good act. The good effects are stopping spread of disease or dangers to health. The bad effect is seperating the unitive purpose from the procreative purpose. But current Church doctrine does not allow this kind of weighing because although “bombing” is not considered intrinsically evil, barrier contraception is.

Note that in neither case does the double effect doctrine require that the act be the only way to accomplish the good effect.

So I guess you are probably right, but the reason you are right is dependent on the way the act being analyzed is chosen. This is, of course, an inherent weakness in double effect doctrine - the “acts” and “effects” analyzed generally determine the outcome and one can never be certain that the acts and effects selected are not being (even subconsciously) selected just for that purpose.

 

[Sure]

You may be right. I think it is complicated. If the act being analyzed is contraception, and contraception is not intrinsically morally evil, then the application of double effect is clear. This may well be why the double effect doctrine is never applied to sexual situations, because sexual acts contrary to the teachings are considered to be intrinsically morally evil.

This is different than how the doctrine is applied to warfare, however. For example, bombing a chemical weapons factory knowing that innocents work in the factory, that some bombs will miss and kill innocents near the factory, and that chemicals will almost certainly be released and endanger still others. The act is “destroying the factory that makes chemical weapons” which is good or at least neutral. There are good and bad effects that flow from the act. You then weigh those effects and decide. If the acts is “employing weapons so imprecise that innocents will be killed” then you may get another result.

Using a condom to prevent transmission of STD, or to prevent a seriously dangerous medical condition can be looked at in the same way. The act is “blocking the flow of virus from one person to another” or “preventing a serious medical condition.” This is a good act. The good effects are stopping spread of disease or dangers to health. The bad effect is seperating the unitive purpose from the procreative purpose. But current Church doctrine does not allow this kind of weighing because although “bombing” is not considered intrinsically evil, barrier contraception is.

Note that in neither case does the double effect doctrine require that the act be the only way to accomplish the good effect.

So I guess you are probably right, but the reason you are right is dependent on the way the act being analyzed is chosen. This is, of course, an inherent weakness in double effect doctrine - the “acts” and “effects” analyzed generally determine the outcome and one can never be certain that the acts and effects selected are not being (even subconsciously) selected just for that purpose.

But contraception is intrinsically evil.

The act of bombing a weapons factory is not intrinsically evil.

Both examples are analyzed the same way, but one has an evil object and the other does not.

Therein lies the difference.

 

[TMC]

But contraception is intrinsically evil.

The act of bombing a weapons factory is not intrinsically evil.

Both examples are analyzed the same way, but one has an evil object and the other does not.

Therein lies the difference.

I agree that you are correctly stating the Church’s teachings. But I still think the difference lies in the definition of the act. If instead of saying “bombing a factory” you say “killing innocents” then you have an intrinsically evil act and you can’t go any farther. But we say “bombing a factory” because that is what the bombers are trying to do. We aren’t required to characterize the act as “killing innocents” even though that is also an accurate description.

In the contraceptive example, even if what the couple is trying to do is “block the transmission of disease” we are not allowed to characterize the act in that manner. We must characterize it as “barrier contraception” even if the couple does not even WANT the contraceptive effect. So the rest of the analysis cannot take place - we have been defined out of it.

This is the Church’s teaching. I agree that you are right about that. But it seems inconsistent to me.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You may be right. I think it is complicated. If the act being analyzed is contraception, and contraception is not intrinsically morally evil, then the application of double effect is clear.

TMC, I might not have expressed my point clearly. Assuming arguendo that contraception is either morally good or morally indifferent, and given the effects which the priest in the OP posited (health and financial responsibility) we fail on the threshold question and do not even consider a double effect analysis.

Double effect is invalidated in the OP’s scenario regardless of whether or not contraception is considered morally good, evil, or indifferent: 1)if contraception is evil you violate the first step in application (act must be morally good or indifferent); 2) if contraception is morally good or indifferent you fail the threshold question for applying PDE in the first place (1 act, at least 2 effects, one being evil).

Just to clarify, do you understand what I am getting at? I don’t think it fruitful for us to continue a discussion on other matters regarding double effect if I am not being clear on this preliminary one.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Sure]

I agree that you are correctly stating the Church’s teachings. But I still think the difference lies in the definition of the act. If instead of saying “bombing a factory” you say “killing innocents” then you have an intrinsically evil act and you can’t go any farther. But we say “bombing a factory” because that is what the bombers are trying to do. We aren’t required to characterize the act as “killing innocents” even though that is also an accurate description.

In the contraceptive example, even if what the couple is trying to do is “block the transmission of disease” we are not allowed to characterize the act in that manner. We must characterize it as “barrier contraception” even if the couple does not even WANT the contraceptive effect. So the rest of the analysis cannot take place - we have been defined out of it.

This is the Church’s teaching. I agree that you are right about that. But it seems inconsistent to me.

Bombing is an act that requires more information in order to be evaluated. We must add to it a specificity such as “a weapons factory” or “innocent women and children”. The addition of those principal conditions changes the moral nature of the object - in this case from indifferent to evil.

In the contraceptive example, the act of marital intercourse is altered by the principal condition of “with a barrier contraceptive”. That principal condition changes the act from marital intercourse to contraceptive intercourse.

 

[wpr7]

I agree that you are correctly stating the Church’s teachings. But I still think the difference lies in the definition of the act. If instead of saying “bombing a factory” you say “killing innocents” then you have an intrinsically evil act and you can’t go any farther. But we say “bombing a factory” because that is what the bombers are trying to do. We aren’t required to characterize the act as “killing innocents” even though that is also an accurate description.

In the contraceptive example, even if what the couple is trying to do is “block the transmission of disease” we are not allowed to characterize the act in that manner. We must characterize it as “barrier contraception” even if the couple does not even WANT the contraceptive effect. So the rest of the analysis cannot take place - we have been defined out of it.

This is the Church’s teaching. I agree that you are right about that. But it seems inconsistent to me.

I do not understand what the difference is between using the “pill” for medical reasons, which someone justified earlier, and using barrier contraception for the prevention of HIV or other STDs. In both cases, you are rendering procreation nearly impossible, but that is not your intention, only an unwanted side effect. Is there a moral difference? If anything, I would think using the pill would be worse since it can cause abortions. Has the Church actually said that condems are intrinsically evil, regardless of whether you are using them for contraception or not?

 

[Sure]

I do not understand what the difference is between using the “pill” for medical reasons, which someone justified earlier, and using barrier contraception for the prevention of HIV or other STDs. In both cases, you are rendering procreation nearly impossible, but that is not your intention, only an unwanted side effect. Is there a moral difference? If anything, I would think using the pill would be worse since it can cause abortions. Has the Church actually said that condems are intrinsically evil, regardless of whether you are using them for contraception or not?

Using the Pill = contraception is a side effect from taking a medicine for a legitimate purpose.

Using a Condom = the good effect (avoiding disease) is a side effect from the contraceptive effect of preventing contact.

 

[drafdog]

The entire thrust of the argument found in article 2370 is that contraception is intrinsically evil because it renders conception impossible. There exists no evidence that any current contraceptive medication, device, or family planning method renders conception impossible. All methods, rhythm, natural family planning, prophylactics, diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, interuterine devices, pills, etc., reduce the probability of conception but do not and cannot render it impossible. All methods listed have a “failure rate” which is readily acknowledged by the manufacturers of the products. Since none of them eliminates the possibility of conception, they all allow for the possibility of the generation of new life and cannot be prohibited on that basis. The difference between natural family planning and the use of “the pill” is one of degree and not of kind. If the use of “the pill” is a mortal sin, then so is natural family planning.

Matthew

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The entire thrust of the argument found in article 2370 is that contraception is intrinsically evil because it renders conception impossible. There exists no evidence that any current contraceptive medication, device, or family planning method renders conception impossible. All methods, rhythm, natural family planning, prophylactics, diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, interuterine devices, pills, etc., reduce the probability of conception but do not and cannot render it impossible.

drafdog, Matthew,

If your argument rests on the language “render impossible” you might have a small problem. The Latin text, which is the official text, reads in pertinent part:
E contra, est intrinsece malus quivis “actus qui, cum coniugale commercium vel praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur”
The actual text uses “impediatur” which means to **impede, hinder, or obstruct.

**God bless you,
VC

 

[Sure]

drafdog, Matthew,

If your argument rests on the language “render impossible” you might have a small problem. The Latin text, which is the official text, reads in pertinent part:
E contra, est intrinsece malus quivis “actus qui, cum coniugale commercium vel praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur”
The actual text uses “impediatur” which means to **impede, hinder, or obstruct.

**God bless you,
VC

Well done Verbum!

It is indeed very much a difference of kind and not of degree.

 

[Johndigger]

I talked to my Priest today about contraception being intrinsically evil.

He said that the pill is intrinsically evil, but it can still be used for health reasons. And he applied the same argument to contraception, normally it is an evil, but when it’s being used for health reasons, it isn’t.

JD

 

[mercygate]

I talked to my Priest today about contraception being intrinsically evil.

He said that the pill is intrinsically evil, but it can still be used for health reasons. And he applied the same argument to contraception, normally it is an evil, but when it’s being used for health reasons, it isn’t.

JD

The distinctions he has failed to make is

1. there may be no alternative to the pill for treating certain medical conditions.
2. the intention is not to contracept but to treat an illness
3. there is an alternative to barrier contraception for avoiding pregnancy when non-reproductive illnesses are involved: NFP.

 

[Sure]

I talked to my Priest today about contraception being intrinsically evil.

He said that the pill is intrinsically evil, but it can still be used for health reasons. And he applied the same argument to contraception, normally it is an evil, but when it’s being used for health reasons, it isn’t.

JD

He is incorrect, unfortunately.

Here’s a way to explain.

The pill is a medicine and when taken to cure some ailment is NOT contraception. It is a fundamentally different act that is taking medicine (which happens to have a contraceptive side effect). This medicine you take does not alter the natural sexual act in any way.

The condom on the other hand is not acting to cure some ailment. There is no disease that requires wearing latex to cure it (as far as I know). The condom works by “impeding” the natural sexual act. A sexual act is the unity of the man and woman and the sperm is deposited in the woman. To alter this is to fundamentally change the character of the act to an act of contraception.

For more assistance you should check out Janet Smith’s numerous articles on the subject. Pay particular attention to her refutations of the proportionalists who contend that are commonly “intrinsically evil” can be done under certain circumstances.

aodonline.org/SHMS/Faculty+5819/Janet+Smith+9260/Dr.+Janet+Smith±+Welcome.htm

 

[Good_Daughter]

The entire thrust of the argument found in article 2370 is that contraception is intrinsically evil because it renders conception impossible. There exists no evidence that any current contraceptive medication, device, or family planning method renders conception impossible. All methods, rhythm, natural family planning, prophylactics, diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, interuterine devices, pills, etc., reduce the probability of conception but do not and cannot render it impossible. All methods listed have a “failure rate” which is readily acknowledged by the manufacturers of the products. Since none of them eliminates the possibility of conception, they all allow for the possibility of the generation of new life and cannot be prohibited on that basis. The difference between natural family planning and the use of “the pill” is one of degree and not of kind. If the use of “the pill” is a mortal sin, then so is natural family planning.

Matthew

No, the entire thrust of the argument found in article 2370 is that contraception is intrinsically evil because it renders procreation impossible. You’re equating procreation with reproduction (or conception) when they’re not necessarily the same thing.

In order for any sex act to be procreative it has to be ordered toward life, in other words, no direct action may be taken to stop or inhibit conception. That’s why couples who are naturally infertile (due to pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopause, etc.) are still able to engage in procreative sex. Nothing has been done to remove the life-giving potential of the sexual union, it simply doesn’t exist in these situations. What these couples are incapable of is reproductive sex.

This is why NFP is a moral form of birth control for those who follow Catholic teaching. Practiced properly, it is the only way for couples to participate in (relatively) non-reproductive sex that retains its procreative element. (I say “relatively” because, as we all know, other than removal of sexual organs, no method of birth control is 100% effective.)

 

[Good_Daughter]

I talked to my Priest today about contraception being intrinsically evil.

He said that the pill is intrinsically evil, but it can still be used for health reasons. And he applied the same argument to contraception, normally it is an evil, but when it’s being used for health reasons, it isn’t.

JD

You may want to ask the priest what health problems could possibly have contraception as their treatment, keeping in mind fertility itself is not a health problem but a sign of good health.

It’s so important to pray for priests. This man has probably faced some tough situations and tried to respond in love. His error should be gently corrected, though. You should be commended for your efforts, Johndigger.