Pregnancy and codoms

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon,

You’re wrong. The use of a condom is not permitted, even if conception is impossible. Sex must be ordered towards procreation in all cases. Procreation actually taking place isn’t part of that. Infertile, already pregnant, or post-menopausal couples are not allowed to use a condom.

HisAngel you haven’t responded so I presume the following opinion is what you refer to…

[Apparantly] it is your pregnancy itself that is the barrier to unitive purpose of sex (ie sexual congress) because of [seminal] prostaglandins [which likely trigger premature labour]. In which case the use of condoms to preserve life seems an acceptable “medical procedure” which, due to the pregnancy, has no inherent contraceptive negative associated with it I can see…"

If a 32 yr old wife had a hysterectomy for therapeutic reasons and her husband had contracted HIV through a blood transfusion what would you advise they do in the bedroom department?
I suggest the use of condoms would not constitute a contraceptive moral act nor drag their conujugal sex down to mere mutual masturbation as some might suggest were the unitive purpose completely lost.
I am not even sure that one would need to invoke the principle of double-effect to put forward this case.

I am not aware of any specific Vatican pronouncements on situations like this that would make it an open and closed case of “not permitted” but maybe someone here does.
Having said that, something may be morally acceptable in some situations yet still not permitted by the Pope (I believe that is called a “ban” and is a “political” decision rather than a moral one).

If condoms are indeed not permitted in a situation like this then I would suggest it is more because of a Papal “ban” than “intrinsically evil.”

 

[His_angel]

HisAngel you haven’t responded so I presume the following opinion is what you refer to…

If a 32 yr old wife had a hysterectomy for therapeutic reasons and her husband had contracted HIV through a blood transfusion what would you advise they do in the bedroom department?
I suggest the use of condoms would not constitute a contraceptive moral act nor drag their conujugal sex down to mere mutual masturbation as some might suggest were the unitive purpose completely lost.
I am not even sure that one would need to invoke the principle of double-effect to put forward this case.

I am not aware of any specific Vatican pronouncements on situations like this that would make it an open and closed case of “not permitted” but maybe someone here does.
Having said that, something may be morally acceptable in some situations yet still not permitted by the Pope (I believe that is called a “ban” and is a “political” decision rather than a moral one).

If condoms are indeed not permitted in a situation like this then I would suggest it is more because of a Papal “ban” than “intrinsically evil.”

The use of condoms would still be a contraceptive act in that case. They abstain. Sexual acts are to be ordered towards procreation, the actual act of conception is irrelevant.

 

[MJJean]

The use of condoms would still be a contraceptive act in that case. They abstain. Sexual acts are to be ordered towards procreation, the actual act of conception is irrelevant.

Umm, how so? The wife had a hysterectomy. There is literally no way to procreate. Ever. None. Not possible. It’s not possible to order a sex act toward procreating when there is never going to be a way for the couple to procreate. The condom in that case does not destroy unity, it preserves it by allowing the married couple to share physical intimacy. And it preserves life by protecting the wife from infection. .

 

[Elizium23]

The use of condoms would still be a contraceptive act in that case. They abstain. Sexual acts are to be ordered towards procreation, the actual act of conception is irrelevant.

This.

“Ordered toward procreation” means that the couple does everything right on their part. It doesn’t matter whether it is currently possible, sometimes possible, or never possible again to conceive.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The use of condoms would still be a contraceptive act in that case. They abstain. Sexual acts are to be ordered towards procreation, the actual act of conception is irrelevant.

**The use of condoms would still be a contraceptive act **
HisAngel for this to fly it seems you would need to explain how, if conception is not on the table to start with, how use of a condom can be “against conception”.
Therepore, by definition, contraceptive human acts are not possible so far as the “object” or “matter” of the act is concerned.

I accept that if the intention (admittedly irrational) of the couple for using the condom was to be absolutely sure pregnancy would not ensure then yes this might be regarded as an immoral contraceptive act.

However what is at issue here is the nature of the “matter” of the act - is it contraceptive (and therefore intrinsically evil regardless of purpose) or not? Clearly if conception is not possible in the first place then we cannot be looking at a contraceptive “matter” and a rational person choosing such an object cannot have a contraceptive intention/purpose.

"Sexual acts are to be ordered towards procreation"
Are you able to reference a Papal Document where this phrase is to be found?
Unless I am badly mistaken, if you can find such a reference, I believe you will also find that the discussion assumes we are talking about fertile couples. Even Humanae Vitae assumes this. I find it interesting how Humanae Vitae actually expresses opposition to contraceptive acts and why it is so opposed:

"…the Church…condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception…they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. "

This particular statement clearly assumes a “natural development of the generative process” i.e. the possibility of a child.

So I do not see how we can possibly assume that the principles enunciated in Humanae Vitae must be interpretted in such a way that they apply even when “the natural development of the generative process” is obviously never going to happen.

The beginning of Humanae Vitae starts by talking about guiding principles. An important but brief phrase would seem to be “…experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception.”

In other words we cannot understand the Church’s teaching against contraception if we do not start with the positive side that is being safeguarded - its about respecting the eternal laws associated with conception. If conception is no longer a natural possibility…then it seems conclusions regarding the use of “contraceptive means” are of no direct relevence and cannot be assumed to make any sense .

In Donum Vitae we find:
“Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage.” (Donum Vitae)

The ends of marriage are children (and their education) and mutual support (including a remedy for concupiscence). For the sterile one of the ends of marriage (children) appears already disassociated from the other end (“mutual support”). That seems not a problem because sterility (for therapeutic reasons if chosen) is not a direct voluntary disassociation.

Now Donum Vitae makes it clear that we best understand the ends of the conjugal act by looking at the ends of the marriage itself. If the ends of the marriage are already disassociated in the sterile then so too with their unimpeded conjugal acts.

If their conjugal acts already have disassociated ends (ie the act itself is not procreative in nature [through no personal fault] but the unitive end remains) . Therefore how can voluntary use of a condom further disassociate the procreative end of their conjugal act? Simply, it cannot. It seems a complete irrelevence as the procreative dimension of the act does not exist at all. Sterility has already releived the conjugal act of all procreative meaning and teleology.

 

[Elizium23]

Matrimony is about a man and a woman coming together and completely giving of themselves to each other. That is exemplified in the marital embrace where the woman opens herself to the man and the man gives his seed to the woman. A barrier in the way frustrates that giving. The user of a condom is holding something back.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Matrimony is about a man and a woman coming together and completely giving of themselves to each other. That is exemplified in the marital embrace where the woman opens herself to the man and the man gives his seed to the woman. A barrier in the way frustrates that giving. The user of a condom is holding something back.

Elizium I believe you are right when speaking of fertile couples.
However even when speaking of fertile couples I believe we need to get the theology right…
(a) ALL contraception (not just condoms) attenuate the unitive end of marriage and the conjugal act because it isn’t about physical barriers but moral barriers in the hearts of the couple themselves which is revealed in their use of any contraceptive regardless of their good intentions.
(b) Magisterial statements on this matter have never stated that the unitive end is completely or even mostly frustrated when the procreative end is deliberately thwarted by the couple. Some very credible theologians (they tend to be Jurists rather than Pastors) push this line but I do not believe Papal support will be coming along for that any time soon. One major problem with their approach is that “a remedy for concupsicence” has always been seen as one of the biggie examples of the “unitive purpose” of marriage. I put it to you that concupiscence is still “remedied” relatively well even if a barrier contraception is used.

If we are talking about sterile couples then we are no longer talking about voluntary “against-conception” because it is not possible for them to voluntarily contracept if a privation/defect of nature (sterility) has already removed that voluntary choice from the table. Clearly a sterile couple would therefore be using a condom or the pill or barrier cream or whatever for a completely non-contraceptive purpose if it was to be used in their conjugal act. And indeed that is exactly what is under discussion here. That purpose would be to protect the life of the wife from her husband’s HIV.

Conclusion:
Presently it seems a bridge way too far to say that such marital acts of sterile couples (where exchange of bodily fluids is purposely inhibited) are illicit on the grounds that the unitive dimension is missing or badly damaged.

The argument would have more weight if the couple were fertile. But why go there because Humanae Vitae has already made it clear that such acts are illicit - not primarily because semen isn’t deposited but because the possibility of a child is voluntarily denied of the act and hence the Procreative end denied. (It would be just as true and for the same reasons if semen was deposited and some other contraceptive method used).

Humanae Vitae seems clear that it is the voluntary separation of unitive and procreative from each other that makes a conjugal act illicit. If the procreative dimension is already lost in the case of a sterile couple…then Humanae Vitae seems to have no more contraceptive prohibitions to say on the matter.

Is it evil to diminish the unitive dimension in the conjugal act when procreation has already been lost by no fault of the couple? Of course.

But what actual acts instantiate such dimunition? Obviously marital rape does.
Does not exchanging bodily fluids? Yes, normally it would diminish unitive purpose and therefore could be an evil thing to do. But why on earth would anyone want to do that when engaging in sterile sex? If it is because I want to save my wife from contracting HIV that sounds like a very reasonable self-giving purpose that has no procreative loss which would give the lie to that self-giving intent.

So yes, not exchanging bodily fluids would normally be evil. But intrinsically evil (regardless of intent and circumstances)…I don’t think so. Without inherent procreative potential in the couple’s normal act that argument seems to fall apart.

 

[underacloud]

"Sexual acts are to be ordered towards procreation"
Are you able to reference a Papal Document where this phrase is to be found?
Unless I am badly mistaken, if you can find such a reference, I believe you will also find that the discussion assumes we are talking about fertile couples. Even Humanae Vitae assumes this. I find it interesting how Humanae Vitae actually expresses opposition to contraceptive acts and why it is so opposed:

"…the Church…condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception…they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. "

This particular statement clearly assumes a “natural development of the generative process” i.e. the possibility of a child.

So I do not see how we can possibly assume that the principles enunciated in Humanae Vitae must be interpretted in such a way that they apply even when “the natural development of the generative process” is obviously never going to happen.

The beginning of Humanae Vitae starts by talking about guiding principles. An important but brief phrase would seem to be “…experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception.”

In other words we cannot understand the Church’s teaching against contraception if we do not start with the positive side that is being safeguarded - its about respecting the eternal laws associated with conception. If conception is no longer a natural possibility…then it seems conclusions regarding the use of “contraceptive means” are of no direct relevence and cannot be assumed to make any sense .

Blue Horizon,

I have a great deal of respect for your position and your reasoning. That said, I believe based on Church teaching that it is not ultimately (or technically) correct.

From the Catechism:

*2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153 *

And from Humanae Vitae:

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

From the Catechism, the term “per se” excludes any external circumstances from negating this imperative. Thus, whether a couple is fertile or not does not influence their responsibility to be ordered to procreation. Married couples must retain this link regardless of their own circumstances.

In HV it talks about the “intrinsic relationship”, and the neccessity of each and every act to retain this relationship. This immediately follows a recognition that fertility varies, so this relationship is not dependant upon fertility but exists independant of it.

To be frank, I see no way around these teachings, even if they seem overly harsh for some couples in certain circumstances. If such acts are technically illict on this basis, we might still say that the sinfulness seems minimal given they are not contraceptive as rightly pointed out, but are more of an issue in natural law, which will be hard for many people to understand.

(I do agree with you that this isn’t really about the unitive aspect. I think that’s just a red herring in this case.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

the Church… teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life…”

From the Catechism, the term “per se” excludes any external circumstances from negating this imperative. Thus, whether a couple is fertile or not does not influence their responsibility to be ordered to procreation. Married couples must retain this link regardless of their own circumstances.

In HV it talks about the “intrinsic relationship”, and the neccessity of each and every act to retain this relationship. This immediately follows a recognition that fertility varies, so this relationship is not dependant upon fertility but exists independant of it.

… If such acts are technically illict on this basis, we might still say that the sinfulness seems minimal given they are not contraceptive as rightly pointed out, but are more of an issue in natural law, which will be hard for many people to understand.

Hello UAC.
I really like your concluding paragraph. Its not often one sees such a harmonious balance between both the pastoral and theological threads of this difficult topic.

Yes I agree that different theologies re contraception most visibly come to a head in these few lines and how they are to be understood. In a sense the actual words are not particularly helpful because they are inherently ambiguous if one is not familiar with scholastic moral theology (and even such theologians themselves see different nuances). We have already seen this confusion on this thread where some sincere Catholics are not aware of the huge distinction between “human acts” and the “acts of a man” for example.

Neither are we always assisted by translation into English. Translators themselves inevitably inject their own theology into this debate by the english words or phrases they choose to use whether paraphrase or transliteration. Therefore excuse me if I ignore the CCC quote which I regard as somewhat distorting (and unnecessary) and prefer to go with the Encyclicals themselves (which the CC attempts to quote and briefly summarise in any case). It is interesting to note how different authoratative english documents render the original Humanae Vitae Latin for example:

(a) Humane Vitae n11 in Latin (the original Encyclical):
“…ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat.”
(b) Humane Vitae n11 in English (Vatican Site):
“…each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life”
(c) Catechism of Catholic Church n2366 in English (as quoted by your good self):
“…each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life”
(d) Catechism of Catholic Church n2366 in Latin
“… ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat.”

It is interesting to note that the “per se” which you place emphasis on in the English CCC above is not actually in the official English version of Humanae Vitae! Yet both documents purport to translate the same quote from Humane Vitae. The difference of course is due to the translators - in the CCC transliteration was used, in Humane Vitae (official English) paraphrasing was used instead. This itself is a warning that the English translators themselves saw an ambiguity here in a direct transliterated use of the scholastic Latin understanding of “per se” - and attempted to use better English to clarify that scholastic meaning.

Also interesting are the references that the original quote from Humanae Vitae attaches to this sentence: (a) Casti Connubii (1930): A. A. S. XXII (1930) p. 560; (b) Pii XII, Alloc. iis quae interfuerunt Conventui Societatis Catholicae Italicae inter Obstetrices: A. A. S. XLIII (1951) p. 843. I do not have this collection of Encyclicals so I do not know what p.560 refers to in Casti Connubii but other commentaries I have access to suggest it is the following from Pius XI:
“*any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin…” * CC n56.

Other useful Papal references that prequel this CCC phrase (“each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life”) would be:

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.”
(Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for confessors, n. 4).

“…every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral.”
(Pius XII Address to Midwives)

But before we look at these closely related quotes to help us decide what “ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat” may best mean may I ask a question to help understand where your theology is coming from…

Would you regard periodic abstention (for the purpose of responsibly avoiding more children) a method of contraception - albeit natural?
Would you regard long-term limitation of sex only to the wife’s infertile phase a form of contracepted (albeit natural) sex?

 

[underacloud]

Yes, it is hard to see how certain quotes relate to each other in the crossreferencing of documents and the vaguaries of translations. I know they can be translated in subtly different (or even very different) ways. I just work with what the Church gives us in English. Anything more than this is well above my pay grade.

But before we look at these closely related quotes to help us decide what “ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat” may best mean may I ask a question to help understand where your theology is coming from…

Would you regard periodic abstention (for the purpose of responsibly avoiding more children) a method of contraception - albeit natural?
Would you regard long-term limitation of sex only to the wife’s infertile phase a form of contracepted (albeit natural) sex?

Why do I feel I am walking into a trap? Anyway…

No, I do not consider periodic abstention to be a method of contraception. It is a method of birth control, but nothing is done to act against conception when sex is had and thus it is not contraception.

I’m not sure I see the distinction between the first and second questions. In neither case is it “contraception” or “contracepted sex”, since nothing is done to act against conception when the couple has sex. And I do not think there is a moral difference between short-term, long-term, or perpetual recourse to the infertile phase if the couple has sufficiently serious (or “grave”) reasons to avoid children.

 

[mwncheesehead]

Umm, how so? The wife had a hysterectomy. There is literally no way to procreate. Ever. None. Not possible. It’s not possible to order a sex act toward procreating when there is never going to be a way for the couple to procreate. The condom in that case does not destroy unity, it preserves it by allowing the married couple to share physical intimacy. And it preserves life by protecting the wife from infection. .

You aren’t understanding Church teaching. Whether a couple can or cannot conceive a child is irrelevant as to whether a condom is moral or not. They still must carry out each and every sexual act —here we go — in a procreative manner. “Procreative” is an adjective that describes the sex act. The spouses complete intercourse in a manner as if it they can conceive a child. Whether they are fertile or not is subjective. Older spouses past their childbearing years still complete intercourse in a procreative manner, in that the husband finishes within his wife with no barriers. Same as with an infertile couple…they can have procreative sex as much as a fertile couple. It’s in how they finish the act, not as to whether they are fertile or not.

One way a couple cannot procreate as you seem so sure about is if one or both of them were in an accident and weren’t able to carry out a completed act of intercourse. For example, if the husband were paralyzed from the waist down and as such was not able to have erections and ejaculate within his wife vaginally, then yes I agree with you…this wouldn’t be a procreative act. However a hysterectomy, while rendering the couple infertile, doesn’t necessarily prevent the couple from carrying out sex in a procreative way…ie, the husband still ejaculates into his wife as normal.

Please stop advocating that condoms are preservatives for unity…to be blunt, any Catholic who knows his faith knows darned well that to use condoms is a grave sin. We’re not allowed to use condoms…if the wife needs to be preserved from infection, then the couple is asked to sacrifice and abstain. It’s not worth their immortal souls to engage in contraceptive sex. It’s a slippery slope you’re treading on by defending the use of these pieces of rubber.

 

[THP]

However a hysterectomy, while rendering the couple infertile, doesn’t necessarily prevent the couple from carrying out sex in a procreative way…ie, the husband still ejaculates into his wife as normal.

:

I think the primary difficulty with this is one of language. The vast majority of the English speaking world would find this sentence non-sensical.

Even though I think in this particular situation this Catholic rule is harsh and lacks compassion, I understand why they cannot budge from this stance as ridiculous as it is to outside (and frankly most inside) observers.

 

[mwncheesehead]

I think the primary difficulty with this is one of language. The vast majority of the English speaking world would find this sentence non-sensical.

Even though I think in this particular situation this Catholic rule is harsh and lacks compassion, I understand why they cannot budge from this stance as ridiculous as it is to outside (and frankly most inside) observers.

Why harsh and why lacking compassion? It is what it is. The Church bases her teachings on natural law. The nature of sex is to procreate…if the man does his thing inside his wife, it’s a procreative act because it’s done in the manner that could conceive a child. Why is this harsh, lacking in compassion, and non-sensical? It’s the English speaking world then that doesn’t get it. The Church gets it .

 

[THP]

Why harsh and why lacking compassion? It is what it is. The Church bases her teachings on natural law. The nature of sex is to procreate…if the man does his thing inside his wife, it’s a procreative act because it’s done in the manner that could conceive a child. Why is this harsh, lacking in compassion, and non-sensical? It’s the English speaking world then that doesn’t get it. The Church gets it .

The Church rule isn’t non-sensical, it’s actually very consistent. The way the words are used to explain the rule don’t make sense. This is why there is so much confusion with this topic. You will never convince me that any sexual act with a woman who has had a hysterectomy can possibly be “ordered towards procreation”, I don’t care where the semen is placed.

It is what it is huh. . . I think the rule is harsh (I would even use the word cruel) because it prevents a married couple from being able to enjoy the marital embrace because of a technicality that is completely irrelevant to the couple. Try to imagine how this appears to a non-Catholic.

Underacloud does an excellent job of summarizing above with reference to HV but I don’t understand why the “intrinsic relationship” must be retained other than to maintain the consistency of the teaching now matter how awful the result is. It’s like the zero tolerance policies in elementary schools that drive me nuts.

 

[TeresaMarie24]

I cannot imagine a man who truly loves his wife being willing to risk her life because he wants to have sex. I would think the love he has for her would outweigh his sexual desire, and thus, he would abstain. Even if there were no moral implications to using condoms, which there are, grave ones at that, the condom is no guarantee that the infection would not still be passed from one spouse to the other.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
Would you regard periodic abstention (for the purpose of responsibly avoiding more children) a method of contraception - albeit natural?
Would you regard long-term limitation of sex only to the wife’s infertile phase a form of contracepted (albeit natural) sex?

No traps UAC, no point trying to discuss if we use words differently. Just checking we are on the same page.
(The difference between the two is that one involves sex in a non-fertile period, the other involves no-sex in a fertile period. I suppose it would have been clearer if I said perpetual abstinence).

Would you therefore agree with me that:
(a) “non-procreative intent” and “contraceptive intent” are not necessarily the same thing?
(b) “non-contraceptive intent” and “procreative intent” are not necessarily the same thing?

I believe that when a couple practice “birth control” their free, personal, purpose/intent is definitely in the “non procreative” camp.
Further, depending on the means they choose to effect this intent, that intent may be further determined to actually be “contraceptive.”
Would you agree with this?

I think the above distinctions will help us cut through the “language difficulties” THP wisely has alerted us to below. This sort of “in house” use of words seems to cloud 50% of debate on this matter rending it unintelligible to the normal English speaking world.

Originally Posted by mwncheesehead
However a hysterectomy, while rendering the couple infertile, doesn’t necessarily prevent the couple from carrying out sex in a procreative way…ie, the husband still ejaculates into his wife as normal.

 

[underacloud]

Would you therefore agree with me that:
(a) “non-procreative intent” and “contraceptive intent” are not necessarily the same thing?
(b) “non-contraceptive intent” and “procreative intent” are not necessarily the same thing?

I believe that when a couple practice “birth control” their free, personal, purpose/intent is definitely in the “non procreative” camp.
Further, depending on the means they choose to effect this intent, that intent may be further determined to actually be “contraceptive.”
Would you agree with this?

Yes, I agree with all of that.

It is not the intent that is of concern here, but the means. Married couples can have non-procreative sex, in terms of their intent, they just need to use the right means to acheive this.

So whether we are talking about the intent of avoiding pregancy, or avoiding passing on some sort of STI, or inducing labor (the OP’s situation), the intent is only part of the equation. The means are also important. For the reasons outlined and my understanding of the teaching based on translations available, the Church is limiting the means to techniques that do not in themselves negate the procreative potential, even if such a potential does not exist in reality.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not the intent that is of concern here, but the means.

I don’t think so UAC. Human acts are all about intent/purpose, that is what makes them 3D human acts rather than the 2D mechanical “actions of a man” (the “object” or “matter” of a human act). The scholastic Christian insight is that intention is related to its object pretty much like soul to body. Together they form a single “human act” and each side shapes/restricts the other. There are some “objects” (eg contraceptive ones) of a human act so seriously disordered that even a good intention is overpowered by it and the whole human act rendered bad regardless of that intention or external circumstances.

Yes it is the proximate/immediate intent, as revealed in the “means”, that effects the ultimate intent (“non procreative” birth control). This is what finally determines whether the legitimate desire for birth control (ultimately intended) is evil or not.

Married couples can have non-procreative sex, in terms of their intent, they just need to use the right means to acheive this.

Agreed, but this “means” is another human act with its own intent/purpose (the immediate/proximate intent) and it is by reason of the “object” of this intent that we can discover something about the intent. If we decide on objective grounds that the object/matter is disordered (eg an action which thwarts a chain of natural causality that would lead to the birth of a child) and it is knowlingly and voluntarily purposed…then that human act as a whole is evil because its object/matter is intrinsically evil as Humanae Vitae makes clear and the intention/circumstances cannot change that.

The question is, what sort of scenarios exhibit thwarting of a chain of natural causality that would lead to the birth of a child?

You understand Humanae Vitae to define such disordered scenarios (ie the object/matter of the act) as “techniques that do not in themselves negate the procreative potential, even if such a potential does not exist in reality.”

If I have understood you correctly then your interpretation of Humanae Vitae here is in the “naturalistic” camp. My own view is that it is in total accord with tradition…as long as one holds to medieval biology and understanding of reproduction. Namely that the essence of human life resides in the the semen (a complete seed) and once ejaculated in a marital act it must be treated as we would today a fertilised ovum descending into the uteris.

However Humanae Vitae (and Castii Conubii) no longer adheres to this incorrect understanding of human biology and articulated guiding principles to make practical sense of this more complex world (I believe NFP sex was considered very suspect for a long time by respected theologians misapplying unchanging principles to this new biological landscape).

UAC I put it to you that “techniques that do not in themselves negate the procreative potential, even if such a potential does not exist in reality” only makes sense if we hold to a medieval understanding of reproductive biology.

When we try and apply it to modern understanding of reproduction it doesn’t well fit and Platonises scholastic natural law theory. I believe it misinterprets Humanae Vitae which is going beyond the old juridical law tradition in the light of new biological understanding.

Your comment suggests that it is more important not to interfere in the blind reproductive forces of biological nature () than to use reason to discern whether or not the forces in play are actually fruitful and act accordingly. (ie if it is known with certainty that particular acts will not be nayrally fruitful then condomisation cannot make it a contraceptive act).

There are many scenarios when it is morally good to “interfere” with the blind forces of biological nature. We do corrective surgery to repair anatomical abnormalities. This is not mutilation. We use reason to discover what it is that nature meant “to do” and if nature for whatever reason falls short we reconstruct to complete it.

I understand that marital sexual acts of some couples need mechanical assistance to be fruitful. This is interfering in nature and is not “natural” but it is licit precisely because it renders those acts fertile ( or more fertile).

If the basis of evil birth control methods is their artificiality (interfering with nature) and the basis of acceptable birth control methods is letting nature (whether actually fertile or not) do its thing (natural) then the above reproductive “interference” should not be licit.

I do not believe Humanae Vitae is asking us primarily to keep sex intrinsically related to the blind forces/causality of reproductive biology. It is asking us to inviolably respect actual fertile consequences consequent to marital sexual intercourse which means we must not thwart the blind forces of nature UNLESS we are absolutely certain this particular act is of no fertile consdequence whatsoever. Any doubt whatsoever must be in favour of letting the forces of biology take there course without interference.

UAC I believe you accept that use of a condom when an act is known to be sterile cannot be defined contraceptive. You still see it as at least mildly sinful. I do not necessarily disagree but I would say it cannot be called intrinsically evil. Can you m,ore clearly explain on what grounds it would still be sinful?

Are you suggesting a “statutory contraception” approach. (Comparable to the concept behind stat rape whereby “consent” is arbitrarily defined as impossible in an underage participant even if he/she was more than willing and may well have given mature consent beyond his/her years).

 

[underacloud]

I hesitate to post because I do not wish to be rude, but frankly your post seems to be overly wordy and equivocative in a perhaps deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues here. In parts, your wording is so constructed that the meaning is very unclear.

As to the notion that Humanae Vitae is based on medieval understanding of biology. This is absurd. It was published in 1968. Understanding of human biology does not contradict anything written in the encylical. We cannot write off the morality on the grounds that it did not take biology into account.

As to your contradiction of what I said about means being important, I think you have attempted a classic tactic of reducing all ‘means’ into ‘intents’ and it just goesn’t work. No matter how much you wish to reduce any means back to the intents of the actor, we can still recognise that there a means that may or may not be considered licit. In the end, as discussed, the means of acting in a way that does not protect the procreative significance of the marital would seem to be illicit. If you are asking for a defense of this possition, I am not the one to provide it, but merely to point out that it seems quite clear in the English translations of Church documentsnthatnare available.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I hesitate to post because I do not wish to be rude, but frankly your post seems to be overly wordy and equivocative in a perhaps deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues here. In parts, your wording is so constructed that the meaning is very unclear.

As to the notion that Humanae Vitae is based on medieval understanding of biology. This is absurd. It was published in 1968. Understanding of human biology does not contradict anything written in the encylical. We cannot write off the morality on the grounds that it did not take biology into account.

UAC I am sorry if my response has come across as overly wordy and equivocative as my intent was the very opposite. The only way I can think of that you could come to that conclusion is if you think the whole matter is clear and simple. Obviously the history of intense debate since 1968 amongst the wisest theologians and the most sincere of lay Catholics gives the lie to that view. So if this is not the reason I am at a loss to understand your provoked reaction.

In all sincerity I cannot help but notice you appear consistantly distrustful re my sincerity towards you without any concrete reason I can see other than the fact I think differently from you and you are having trouble with that. I believe my observations are logical and sound (though I accept that this alone is not enough to be right). For example you say:
“Why do I feel I am walking into a trap?”
“your post seems to be overly wordy and equivocative in a perhaps deliberate attempt to obfuscate.”

May I kindly observe from my own counselling training that what we “see” on the outside is often due to our own character weaknesses on the inside.

Perhaps I am wrong but you appear to possess an inherent distrust of any views on this matter that require in depth analysis or professional understanding. As I have been trained in medieval scholastic philosophy/theology I attempted to guide you through a standard traitional understanding in layman’s terms. Complexity cannot be avoided unfortunately. You see that attempt as being equivocal and wordy and even maliciously obscurantist. Fair enough, it seems I can do little more to assist.

"As to the notion that Humanae Vitae is based on medieval understanding of biology."

Where on earth did you get the idea that I ever opined such an absurdity ! May I humbly suggest you re-read my contribution. You will discover I clearly said the very opposite. Namely:
"However Humanae Vitae (and Castii Conubii) no longer adheres to this incorrect understanding of human biology… "
“Humanae Vitae … is going beyond the old juridical law tradition in the light of new biological understanding.”

What I actually said was that the “naturalistic camp” (whose arguments you seem to use) interprets Humanae Vitae according to the old medieval way of understanding reproductive biology:
“…your interpretation of Humanae Vitae here is in the “naturalistic” camp. … it is in total accord with tradition…as long as one holds to medieval biology … namely that the essence of human life resides in the the semen (a complete seed) and once ejaculated in a marital act it must be treated as we would today a fertilised ovum descending into the uteris.”

I would like to discuss this further with you because you have some very deep intuitional insights unfortunately your distrust of my motives seems to be interfering with your ability to understand even the very clear things that I am actually saying. If this is how it is with the green then what chance the dry!

Lets give it a rest for a while.
Thanks .
I learnt a lot from your comments as it made me go back to my Aquinas books.