Pregnancy and codoms

[Elizium23]

I ask you these questions then.

What would our faith be like if Abram and Sarai had used condoms?

What would our faith be like if Elizabeth and Zechariah had used condoms?

What about both?

Well, Elizabeth and Zechariah wouldn’t have existed if Abram put one on. And Western culture wouldn’t exist if either one of them had.

And yet, Sarai and Elizabeth were thought to be barren.

And yet, God worked through them and even bestowed new names on Abraham and Sarah. To Elizabeth and Zechariah he bestowed John the Baptist, the Forerunner. So married couples should ask themselves: are we chosen to beget the next Isaac or the next holy prophet? What is God’s plan for us?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I ask you these questions then.

What would our faith be like if Abram and Sarai had used condoms?

What would our faith be like if Elizabeth and Zechariah had used condoms?

What about both?

Well, Elizabeth and Zechariah wouldn’t have existed if Abram put one on. And Western culture wouldn’t exist if either one of them had.

And yet, Sarai and Elizabeth were thought to be barren.

And yet, God worked through them and even bestowed new names on Abraham and Sarah. To Elizabeth and Zechariah he bestowed John the Baptist, the Forerunner. So married couples should ask themselves: are we chosen to beget the next Isaac or the next holy prophet? What is God’s plan for us?

Elizium why don’t you include a couple called Mary and Joseph as well? If this be God’s power in the face of the best of all contraceptives (virginity) what chance Elizabeth, Sarai and a condom (merely to avoid disease)? If Eliz and Sarai were already pregnant (the point of this thread) no problem anway. And if they died from HIV infection then what of God’s plans .

But lets both of us stop playing silly anachronistic impossibilities.
The issue on this thread is whether someone already pregnant (or sterile) can truly be said to be committing a “contraceptive marital act” when they use a condom to prevent disease transmission.

Many people logically enough find it difficult to understand how the object of a human intention can be defined “contraceptive” if they know with certainty that contraception is not naturally possible.

If the object of a human intention/purpose cannot be called contraceptive then their intention may be presumed otherwise and **the human act as a whole **cannot be really be called “a human act of contraception.”

Therefore, though the use of a condom in these situations may still be wrong - it won’t be because it is intrinsically evil.

Use of a condom in these situations may still be wrong for two other reasons:
(a) Despite the fact that the **object **of the couple’s intention is not contraceptive the intention may still be contraceptive. It is hard to imagine how that may be because it would be irrational. Nevertheless if the intention for use of the condom was to “give God the finger” by a simulated act of contraception then the human act as a whole would be evil because one of its three fonts (intention) was bad. (The other two fonts are of course the object and the circumstances in connection with the intention).
(b) If Humane Vitae is interpretted as juridically (ie arbitrarily) deciding that the definition of "contraception is “interfering with the course of nature from the moment of vaginal ejaculation” (regardless of whether actual conception is possible or not) … then the couple’s act is still illicit. However it would then be “juridically illict” rather than “intrinsically evil.” This amounts to a legal “ban” even on those uses of contraceptives that are not really contraceptive human acts (becvause contraception is impossible).

The last case, it seems to me, is a bit like saying that the killing of a 5yr old child is always murder (intrinsically evil) because 5 yr-olds are always innocent. We know that isn’t always true (from Vietnam for example where mothers sent children with hidden handgrenades into army checkpoints/camps). However if a country made this law then despite the fact that the killing of some 5yr-olds may well be self defence (and not intrinsically evil) it would, statute wise, be murder (intrinsically evil).

I find it interesting that Humanae Vitae sometimes says “illicit” (a juridical word) and sometimes says “intrinsically wrong” (a moral phrase).

I believe it may be argued that Humae Vitae is not saying that all use of contraceptives is immoral/intrinsically-evil (ie in those cases when conception is impossible). Nevertheless Humanae is still banning (a legal term not a moral term) use of contraceptives even on those occassions which amount to “statutory contraception.”

If that line of thinking is correct then couples who do use condoms when pregnant or when sterile (to avoid disease transmission) are by no means putting themselves in the same moral peril as those who interfere in fertile sex.

Given the present level of debate that is acceptably going on in professional theological circles under the tolerant eye of the Vatican the above position is actually tame - though liberal.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #139
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).

The myriad of “theologians” who rejected Humanae Vitae, apparently oblivious to Casti Connubii, illustrate the depths to which theology had sunk prior to, during and after Vatican II, for Vatican II had expressly warned in Gaudium et Spes against the use of methods disapproved of by the Church in #51 in which footnote #14 refers to Casti Connubii.

Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, teaches infallibly (#56) that “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.”

Anyone acquainted with St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers would know that “against nature” = against the natural moral law. Even the ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

The first time Rome spoke on NBR was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
cmri.org/03-nfp.htm

‘The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary on June 16 of that year issued a more general response (i.e., not directed just to an individual bishop). This time the Vatican goes further: not only does it instruct confessors not to “disquiet” or “disturb” married couples who are already practising periodic continence; it even authorizes the confessor to take the initiative in positively suggesting that method, with due caution, to couples who may not yet be aware of it, and who, in his prudent judgment, are otherwise likely to keep on practising the “detestable crime” of onanism. One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that already, more than eighty years before Vatican II, the Holy See saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods (which Catholic moralists then referred to globally as ‘onanism’ of different types).

‘Now, this was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests well-formed in moral theology learned in seminary from the mid-19th-century onward. So before Pius XI was elected, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV all clearly approved of this status quo established by their own Sacred Penitentiary, and never showed the slightest inclination to reverse its decisions of 1853 and 1880.’
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

 

[underacloud]

"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.

Blue Horizon,

Indeed, I completely misunderstood your post! I understood this paragraph (below) differently from how you meant it…the pronoun “it” threw me. I see now that when you say it, you mean my interpretation of HV, whereas I read it to mean HV itself. I am sorry about that. I hope you can perhaps see why my misunderstanding here would affect the way I read the rest of your post and thus my puzzled (and yes rude) response.

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.

But no, this is not at all my interepretation of HV. I certainly don’t hold to such a view of biology. I joined this post merely to note the relevant teachings that I feel prohibit what is being discussed, but not to try to explain or defend them. In truth, I do find it difficult to analyse them, since it seems even when procreation isn’t possible and the unitive dimension is not in question, otherwise-contraceptive acts still seem to be illicit. As you note here:

Nevertheless Humanae is still banning (a legal term not a moral term) use of contraceptives even on those occassions which amount to “statutory contraception.”

So I think now I understand better what you are saying in regards to “statutory contraception.”

I’m quite happy for theologians to thrash this out further and wait to see if the Vatican ever clarifies/adjusts this position. Until then, I think the Church’s position is that such things are “banned”, which is pretty hard for anyone going through it and not understanding why this position has been taken (as through our discussion, it’s hard to find a clear explanation). So yes, I completely agree with this sentiment:

If that line of thinking is correct then couples who do use condoms when pregnant or when sterile (to avoid disease transmission) are by no means putting themselves in the same moral peril as those who interfere in fertile sex.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Anyone acquainted with St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers would know that “against nature” = against the natural moral law. Even the ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

Abu this is an extremely important clarification and that Cicero quote I had not seen before. I believe it sums up Aquinas’s understanding of natural law very well.

It was the point I was trying to clarify above, how some mistakenly believe that artificial birth control methods are wrong precisely because they are artifical and against the inbuilt unfolding of “mother nature”. This is not really what “natural law” in Catholic theology means.

Yes it is that, but it is also “human reason” discerning that pattern/purpose as well. Sometimes “mother nature” is blind and gets it wrong. Yet right human reason is often able to see even when “mother nature” goes astray and make a beneficial and right “interference.”

The correct understanding (by applying human reason) of the intrinsic objective “purposes” inherent in a variety of chosen marital scenarios is really what is meant by “natural law” in Humanae Vitae. To intentionally thwart the recognised natural fertile unfolding of marital sex is so grave as to be seriously evil and not very much different from intending abortion/infanticide/murder so far as the act of choosing is concerned.

Reason tells us the true reason for this intrinsic evil is not simply the act of manually “interfering” with “mother nature” (where sex is not always fertile) but because we may be reasonably judged to have chosen an act which could actually thwart generation of a new human person if “mother nature” had been left to run her course.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon…indeed, I completely misunderstood your post!

All good thanks UAC - glad we managed to sort out the confusion.

So I think now I understand better what you are saying in regards to “statutory contraception.”

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
If that line of thinking is correct then couples who do use condoms when pregnant or when sterile (to avoid disease transmission) are by no means putting themselves in the same moral peril as those who interfere in fertile sex.

So yes, I completely agree with this sentiment.

Given your previous analysis of what I had opined I thought you would appreciate and even accept the distinction as possible. Thankyou for sharing your view.

I’m quite happy for theologians to thrash this out further and wait to see if the Vatican ever clarifies/adjusts this position. Until then, I think the Church’s position is that such things are “banned”, which is pretty hard for anyone going through it and not understanding why this position has been taken (as through our discussion, it’s hard to find a clear explanation).

A “blunt” cover-all “bann” is probably a typical diplomatic solution when new-wine meets old wine skins and the community is in danger of fragmenting and uncharitable debate needs to be cooled off. I believe we are in a period of transition where “face” has to be given to the “old school” theologians whose applied theology (based on a mistaken understanding of biology and needs to be re-invented) doesn’t quite work in new scenarios never envisaged before. Pretty much like Galileo’s cosmology (the sun is the centre) versus the old one (the earth is the centre). As you say that doesn’t help persons caught up in these unusual situations who may well be vindicated in another 50 years! But at least we can signal here that the matter may still be theologically open - though we are obliged to pay at least public lip-service to marital situations that may be of the “statutory contraception” variety only.

I also believe that Benedict’s book was a subtle intentional signal to the professional theological world that he felt conditions were ready for a little more open debate on the matter. If not, why stir the pot when sitting on a powder-keg (if you’ll excuse my mixed metaphor ).

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #141
Humanae is still banning (a legal term not a moral term) use of contraceptives even on those occassions which amount to “statutory contraception.”

On the imagined permission for condomania re AIDS, Fr Torraco enlightens.
**Double effect and AIDS prevention
Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN) **
“In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.”
[The late Fr Stephen Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church].

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope John Paul II teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf.Rom.3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.’ (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).

On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

The fact of the infallibility of the teaching against contraception was taught by Pius XI in Casti Connubii, when he affirms that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time”, which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

In Casti Connubii (II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

So those who are past child bearing age, are infertile, or have had hysterectomies engage in moral sexual intercourse because what is moral is the intention and moral action – no human barrier is placed to thwart the act. The “inseparable connection” is directed to the will of mankind which must not so separate the two ends of the marital act.

Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes:
51. “Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)”
Note:
14. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

On the imagined permission for condomania re AIDS, Fr Torraco enlightens.
**Double effect and AIDS prevention
Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN) **
“In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.”
[The late Fr Stephen Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church].

On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

In Casti Connubii (II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

So those who are past child bearing age, are infertile, or have had hysterectomies engage in moral sexual intercourse because what is moral is the intention and moral action – no human barrier is placed to thwart the act. The “inseparable connection” is directed to the will of mankind which must not so separate the two ends of the marital act.

Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes:
51. “Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)”
Note:
14. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930)

Abu, you really do have a knack for throwing out chunks of text that are not related to discussion at hand. I have previously suggested you might like to provide personal comments so open readers can understand the relevence of your “contributions” and be influenced by you.

Anyways I have read your contribution thoroughly so do humour me why I try and explain why your chunked quotes do not appear relevent:

“In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable… because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.”

Noone here is strongly advocating that condom use is justified by the principle of double effect. I am aware that some very reputable theologions (eg Fr Rhonheimer SJ of the Pontifical University) believe condomistic intercourse may be justified when one partner is HIV infected even if sex is known to be fertile. But noone on this thread is advocating that. Rhonheimer may be right (but maybe not by using the principle of double effect). This is presently a professionally debated point and discussion is apparantly tolerated by the Vatican

Re

"because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.”

Fr Torraco seems to be drawing a very ambiguous conclusion that is prob not in accord with Aquinas. If you can find the exact expression “inner meaning of the marital act” in a Papal Encyclical I would be grateful. I believe we should really be talking about the inner “end” or “purpose” of the “marital act” - which is generation of new human life and a 'remedy for concupiscence." If a particular marital act is known to be infertile then the so-called “inner meaning” has 50% disappeared hasn’t it? Therefore the procreative “inner meaning” involuntarily no longer exists. So the marital act, as a unitive one, becomes very good doesn’t it? Therefore the principle of double effect may very well apply in condomised cases of involantarily pre-existing infertile sex due to nature (eg infertile period, pregnancy, sterility, old age).

To talk about an infertile marital act as having an honorific/mystical procreative meaning/end which must still be respected because it is somehow “potentially fertile” (or was once blessed with fertility long ago) appears a nonsense to many people. One might call infertile marital acts “statutory fertile” if one was a Canon Lawyer…but intrinsically fertile…not any more to most people. That intrinisc meaning of the “marital act” used to work in medieval times (where the incorrect biology backed it up as the complete seed was ejaculated) but not now.

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

Yes I think all of us agree with this completely. And when a couple use a condom when they are reasonably sure the marital act is not fertile then they have not rendered the natural consequences unfruitful have they? Therefore the use of a condom in these circumstances does not appear to be a “contraceptive marital act.”

 

[Elizium23]

Yes I think all of us agree with this completely. And when a couple use a condom when they are reasonably sure the marital act is not fertile then they have not rendered the natural consequences unfruitful have they? Therefore the use of a condom in these circumstances does not appear to be a “contraceptive marital act.”

Elizabeth was reasonably sure she was too old to have children. Sarai was reasonably sure she was barren. Why not use the withdrawal method just for grins? (Not an anachronism now, is it?)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Elizabeth was reasonably sure she was too old to have children. Sarai was reasonably sure she was barren. Why not use the withdrawal method just for grins? (Not an anachronism now, is it?)

Elizium I agree this is a very perceptive and interesting borderline scenario in this discussion.

Here we can see most clearly the relationship between one’s “intention” (ie purpose) and the objective “object” of action immediately intended, and the circumstances attending that intended purpose. And depending on how one philosophically understands the relationship between these three fonts that determine the goodness of a “human act.”

First up we must define what the **object **is here. And here we run straight into an issue. Catholic Teaching normally says that the external action we call “coitus interruptus” is an object whose intrinsic nature is contraceptive.

But, as Aquinas makes clear, we must not fall into the temptation of thinking that exactly similar scenarios (eg “coitus interruptus”, or “killing someone”) seen with the eye must always specify the same object. For example, two men are fighting and one dies. Was the “object” of the surving man’s intention murder or self defence? Aquinas says that usually we can tell from visible details of the scenario which it was…

But sometimes we cannot. Sometimes lethal self-defence and murder can be exactly the same in every discovered detail. What then defines the difference? … it is the (unknown) intention of the survivor at the moment he struck the fatal blow.

At this point many people say…but circumstances cannot justify the intrinsic evil of an act. And this is true. But they have misunderstood “circumstances.” And we are not yet looking at the “human act” as a whole, we are just looking at the object of the “human act” (which is only part of the “human act” as a whole).

In any “human act” there are at least two sets of “circumstances”. First we look at the details of the scenario at hand (in English we could call these “circumstances” I suppose) so we may correctly define/identify the sort of object that was immediately intended/purposed (eg was it murder because the other person was innocent, was it self defence because the other person had a gun and our man was unarmed). This discovery is usually trivial.

If at this stage we are happy that the object intended has been well defined/discovered we will then know from Church teaching whether this object is intrinsically evil. If it is, end of story, the act as a whole was evil. No intention (the 1st font of a human act) is good that purposes an intrinsically evil object. Then we look at the 2nd set of circumstances/consequences (the 3rd font of a human act) that surround the person’s intention/purpose (the 2nd font of a human act). Were they coerced? Were the actual bad results small or big. These circumstances may mitigate the imputed guilt of the wrong done (it cannot be denied though).

The point is this: the details of the scenario at hand are NOT the same thing as the circumstances/consequences surriounding the intention/purpose. The details of the scenario at hand are NOT the circumstances of the “2nd font.”

Therefore, in some cases, the intention of the person (if not denied by the details of the scenario at hand) can make all the difference in deciding what sort of moral object is actually under discussion.

So lets apply all this to “coitus interruptus.”
Usually the Church defines such a scenario (seen with the eye) to be an act of contraception because it is understood that 99% of the time it is done (and seen to be done) as birth control. This was exactly the case with Onan.

However, why would a sterile couple (or a husband with a well pregnant wife) choose to do such a thing? it doesn’t make sense. Hence the visible details of the scenario at hand tell us that the husband must have a non-contraceptive motive/intention for doing this.

Elizium you raised the example of Elizabeth and Zechariah. Why would Zechariah do such a thing? What is his immediate intention? A contraceptive intent/purpose cannot be present because you acknowledge they both considered having a child impossible. Yet, it couldn’t even be because he had leprosy (lets pretend its communicated through exchange of bodily fluids like AIDs) because withdrawal hardly gives any surity in that regard.

But lets assume our OT husband thought this was a good way of not passing on leprosy.
Then the object of his intention is would appear to be masturbation, deriving pleasure from the procreative organs. It would be hard to argue that withdrawal sex is good because of the unitive purpose. Most theologians would not regard such sex as meeting the definition of “unitive sex”. (Which incidentally is why IVF is also wrong even though procreative - because the “sex” involved is not unitive).

So in short, this looks to be a sin whose object is masturbation.
Iam sure Zechariah and Elizabeth would never do that, it is intrinsically evil .

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #147
I am aware that some very reputable theologions (eg Fr Rhonheimer SJ of the Pontifical University) believe condomistic intercourse may be justified when one partner is HIV infected even if sex is known to be fertile.

Not only Fr Torraco, Msgr Cormac P Burke, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (21.12.2010), but conclusively the acknowledged Bl John Paul II have condemned such an interpretation, as quoted from Veritatis Splendor, n. 80 (post #146), and ruled out as being moral by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as the Church can never regard condom use as ‘a real or moral solution.’

Attempts to place theologians when disagreeing as somehow on par with the Magisterium falls foul also of Donum Veritatis (CDF 1990, Cdl Ratzinger, #32) which classifies dissent as public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church.

Further, lack of individual condemnation does not signify papal agreement with such disagreement. The weakening of the Catholic mind was abetted by an attempted accommodation with dissent causing problems which are revealed starkly in the case of the American bishops on the dissent over Humanae Vitae.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not only Fr Torraco, Msgr Cormac P Burke, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (21.12.2010), but conclusively the acknowledged Bl John Paul II have condemned such an interpretation, as quoted from Veritatis Splendor, n. 80 (post #146), and ruled out as being moral by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as the Church can never regard condom use as ‘a real or moral solution.’

Further, lack of individual condemnation does not signify papal agreement with such disagreement. The weakening of the Catholic mind was abetted by an attempted accommodation with dissent causing problems which are revealed starkly in the case of the American bishops on the dissent over Humanae Vitae.

That is all good stuff Abu but the …

Attempts to place theologians when disagreeing as somehow on par with the Magisterium falls foul also of Donum Veritatis (CDF 1990, Cdl Ratzinger, #32) which classifies dissent as public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church.

is way over the top here. I have nowhere attempted to “place theologians when disagreeing as somehow on par with the Magisterium.” That is simply your interpretation of my informing readers of what I understand to be the current “state of play” on the liberal side from Magisterially respected theologians. I have nowhere said I agree with Rhonheimer (in fact I personally do not). But I uphold his right, as a well respected theologian in good standing, to debate principles and push the boundaries, boundaries I do not yet believe he has clearly crossed.

I am not aware that Rhonheimer has been explicity censured for his view on this matter. You suggest that is implied by Veritas Veritatis Splendor, n. 80 (post #146). I will of course investigate your alleged assertion. However, forgive me at this early stage for doubting you are correct given your past history of off-focus, “shotgun blast” one-size-fits-all quotes. At this stage I politely suggest you misunderstand him rather than he misunderstands the Magisterium.

Further, lack of individual condemnation does not signify papal agreement with such disagreement

Abu this is silly. I may as well reply “silence means consent” which is equally silly. You are clearly a “cup half empty” sort of person when it comes to authority.
I believe respected and educated people (that includes respected theologians in good standing who may disagree with our own personal interpretation/application of Church teaching) should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you are from Spain or something where sentiment is the reverse. God knows the Messiah himself would never have been accepted in his own country by his own people if what you suggest is accepted principle.
eek: Whoops, that is exactly what happened - so we Catholics should know better than Jesus’s own people shouldn’t we )

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #151
I am not aware that Rhonheimer has been explicity censured for his view on this matter.
this is silly. I may as well reply “silence means consent” which is equally silly. You are clearly a “cup half empty” sort of person when it comes to authority.

Such a confused view of how the myriad of dissenters are handled by Rome was refuted by none other than Fr John Echert of EWTN on this very subject in answer to a question: “Isn’t it a fact that not being censured by name from Rome for errors does not mean necessarily that the person has not spread errors? Several examples come to mind.”

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 24/1/02 (EWTN)
“Thanks, Peter, for elaborating upon this important point with some examples. In fact, in recent decades Rome has been rather cautious and even slow to act against some dissident theologians and renegade bishops, for reasons known to Rome I imagine. As you note, a lack of condemnation or censure from the Vatican in the present times is not the equivalent of an endorsement. In fact, until the very end, Jesus Christ kept to himself the sinister character and corrupt behavior of Judas Iscariot rather than expose him to the other apostles, even as he stole from the purse of the poor and made plans to betray the Son of God into the hands of sinners.”
preview.tinyurl.com/k3uf7zj

The inability to justify the warped view attributed to Pope Benedict XVI as justifying the use of condoms re AIDS is quite evident.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Isn’t it a fact that not being censured by name from Rome for errors does not mean necessarily that the person has not spread errors?

Hmmmnnn… is there any logical reason why “not being censured by Rome” cannot mean, unsurprisingly, nothing significant to censure ?

As Freud once said, “sometimes smoking a cigar is … just smoking a cigar” ."
Pretty pointless statement Abu .

In the end such a self-serving emotional statement seems just the pontificating opinion of someone who actually isn’t the Pontiff but wants to give others the impression he/she is.
If the Pope is allowing professional debate who are lesser mortals not to allow?

However, if you actually have something objective from the Pontiff that in any way actually suggests that this theologian’s views or standing with the Magisterium is in doubt I would, as a loyal Catholic, like to hear.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #153
If the Pope is allowing professional debate who are lesser mortals not to allow?

The purveying of erroneous opinions occurs all the time, without the purveyors and their errors, being necessarily publicly exposed, and there are many examples of such. Similarly, in this case, evident from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI himself, no such error is allowed.

The evidence of the error, without specific condemnation of the one spreading it, is there for all to see from the facts given by the questioner at EWTN as shown:

1. “Rahner, with some others, concocted the notion of a “fundamental option” of a type which denied the doctrine on mortal sin taught by the Council of Trent "An Introduction to Moral Theology”, William E May, p 154-155]. Jesuit Fr Karl Rahner, was one of the signatories of a document dissenting from “Humanae Vitae” actually circulated world-wide by its authors so as to get support for it. [Refer Christian Order, Aug-Sep 92, Jorge Molinero - Recent History of Theological Dissent (20 years of “Parallel Magisterium”, p 432)]. No named censure from Rome, but we know that both errors have been censured by the Holy Father – in “Veritatis Splendour” (# 65-70) and in “Evangelium Vitae”, however.
2. “Certain beliefs propagated by Origen were condemned centuries after he died by several Ecumenical Councils.
3. “Fr Richard McBrien, SJ, has confused many and denigrated the Magisterium – US Bishops have censured much contained in his most recent “Catholicism” as well as his earlier work, but nothing from Rome has publicly condemned him by name.

“Thus, nothing is proved by fallaciously reasoning that because Raymond Brown has not been condemned by Rome to date, in condemning theories which he promoted, that Brown must be in very good standing. The false theories have been condemned by Rome, not only by his bishop who named him, and the reasoning is fallacious because it involves a non sequitur. When bishops govern and teach faithfully, Rome seldom needs to act directly by naming, but in the final analysis Rome chooses when to include names.”
See: preview.tinyurl.com/k3uf7zj

Ruled out as being moral by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as the Church can never regard condom use as ‘a real or moral solution.’

As the acknowledged St John Paul II has affirmed: “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” Veritatis Splendor #81].

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…
“Thus, nothing is proved by fallaciously reasoning that because Raymond Brown has not been condemned by Rome to date, in condemning theories which he promoted, that Brown must be in very good standing. " See: preview.tinyurl.com/k3uf7zj

Let me get this right.
You want us to accept that a top professor of moral philosophy at a Pontifical University in Rome (directly under the authority of the Holy See, influencing/training 100s of seminarians and priests every year for the last 10 years, who has repeatedly sought comment from the CDF on his methodology/conclusions which has never felt the need to say anything even privately) … is to be assumed in poor-standing with the Holy See because, in the opinion of some theologians, he formally dissents from Humane Vitae (even though he states he is being true to the deepest principles in Humanae Vitae and would publicly detract if asked to) and because the Holy See hasn’t formally patted him on the back?
Abu, if you find this reasoning acceptable then one of us is not on planet sanity.

As the acknowledged St John Paul II has affirmed: “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” Veritatis Splendor #81].

Abu, if you have been following this thread you will realise that a case has not yet been made here to show that use of a condom by sterile couples because of HIV is a contraceptive moral act. If this cannot be clearly shown then it is open to debate and such use may well not be intrinsically evil if it is not a contraceptive moral act.

May I repeat the argument you have not yet countered:

Quote from Abu:
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

Yes I think all of us agree with this completely. And when a couple use a condom when they are reasonably sure the marital act is not fertile then they have not rendered the natural consequences unfruitful have they? Therefore the use of a condom in these circumstances does not appear to be a “contraceptive marital act.”

To influence people you really need to make a reasoned case from principles (if you can) instead of quoting geberic chunks of quote that don’t directly bear on the topic.

Ruled out as being moral by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as the Church can never regard condom use as ‘a real or moral solution.’

Abu your ability to repeatedly take things out of context is breath-taking.
The Pope said it was not a moral solutiion to the HIV epidemic and promiscuity (esp prostitutes) didn’t he? He actually said nothing directly about sterile marital sex and contraception as far as I know .

I have asked you to clearly show statements from Rhonheimer that represent a view clearly condemned by the CDF - which you have yet to do. In fact you never do when I challenge you to provide specifics? You only provide unfocused generalities.

You have above implied that Rhonheimer justifies some cases of fertile marital sex (for HIV reasons) by the principle of double effect. I believe you are completely mistaken on this. Please justify your implication with quotes from Rhonheimer if you disagree with me?

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #147
I am aware that some very reputable theologions (eg Fr Rhonheimer SJ of the Pontifical University) believe condomistic intercourse may be justified when one partner is HIV infected even if sex is known to be fertile.

Many others realise the error in that stance and condemn it as condomistic intercourse is not unitive.

In Casti Connubii, 1930, Pius XI has defined:
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

We know already:
Casti Connubii (#56) that “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.”

“57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]”
Note:
46. Matth., XV, 14.

#151
I have nowhere said I agree with Rhonheimer (in fact I personally do not).

Good but, more importantly, his position is untenable in the light of Catholic doctrine.

“The marital act is not solely intended for the procreation of children. It is also intended for the unity of the couple, and contraception hinders that unity by the various “barriers” it employs to frustrate the full union of the couple. And even an infertile couple must leave their relations open to the possibility of new life, unlikely though new life may be. Just because one of the partners is diagnosed as infertile does not mean that it is “God’s will” that there be no new life. Rachel, Hannah, and Elizabeth are all examples of women in Scripture who were believed infertile and yet conceived children.

“As for the prevention of STDs, there has been some discussion among moral theologians about the possibilities for licit means of preventing the transmission of STDs in married couples. The ordinary teaching of the Church though is that couples who are not able to safely engage in marital relations should entirely abstain from engaging in them.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=732619

Condoms destroy the unity essential to the act.
On September 17, 1983, Pope John Paul II told priests in Rome that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.”
The [Hartford] Catholic Transcript, David Q. Liptak, January 20, 1984].
tldm.org/News11/PopeJohnPaulIIContraceptionNeverJustified.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Many others realise the error in that stance and condemn it as condomistic intercourse is not unitive.

Abu please quote a Magisterial document that clearly states any contraception wholly denies the unitive purpose? I believe you will not find one.

Casti Connubii (#56) that “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.”

Are you suggesting Rhonheimer is not aware of CC? Please quote us where Rhonheimer clearly disagrees with this or similar Magisterial statements. I do not believe you will find him disagreeing. I believe what you will find is that he in fact explicitly agrees, but also sees cases of contraceptive use which are not deliberate contraceptive acts whose purpose is to frustrate fertility.

As for the prevention of STDs, there has been some discussion among moral theologians about the possibilities for licit means of preventing the transmission of STDs in married couples. The ordinary teaching of the Church though is that couples who are not able to safely engage in marital relations should entirely abstain from engaging in them.”.

OK, quote the Papal document that actually says this: I believe you will find no such document that comes anywhere near saying that use of contraceptives, by married couples unable to safely engage in marital relations, is intrinsically illicit - far less that they must perpetually abstain.

his position is untenable in the light of Catholic doctrine.

OK, please state his position and explain why you do not accept his reasons for saying that they are actually in accord with Catholic doctrine? Do you personally know what his reasons are? Do you care to know?

Abu may I observe that it is serious business when you personally and publicly defame a respected theologian by saying he cannot be presumed to be in good-standing with the Magisterium when the Magisterium has apparantly never mentioned his name in any prejudicial way. Indeed the Holy See directly controls his chair at his Pontifical University and could easily, and politely, remove him whenever desired at any time in the last 10 yrs. It has not done so to date. So if we must make any judgment at all re Rhomheimer I suggest the most reasonable (and christian) conclusion is to assume the Papacy is allowing debate on these finer points.

I also observe that you do not appear to have a christian grace to read his works/arguments for yourself before denouncing him - for you never quote his work when challenged and do not appear to even know his reasons. You simply chunk-quote other persons (whom you respect only because they reinforce your own general views). I respect those persons because they actually read the person they disagree with and usually do not feel the need to additinally legitimate their counter-arguments by anathematising where the Pope has not.

We gain noone’s respect when we anonynously snipe and defame another from the other side of an impersonal PC screen without even bothering to read or analyse or debate the reasons of the person we denigrate.

You remind me of the story of the Catholic bishop in 1610 invited by Galileo to come and look through his telescope so that he could see for himself the moons revolving around Jupiter. The bishop refused saying words to the effect “I do not need to squint through your fuzzy lenses to know that these moons cannot possibly exist and so are but figments of your imagination.”

BTW you have not proven your unsupported opinions which I challenged below:

However, if you actually have something objective from the Pontiff that in any way actually suggests that this theologian’s views or standing with the Magisterium is in doubt I would, as a loyal Catholic, like to hear.

have asked you to clearly show statements from Rhonheimer that represent a view clearly condemned by the CDF - which you have yet to do. In fact you never do when I challenge you to provide specifics? You only provide unfocused generalities.

You have above implied that Rhonheimer justifies some cases of fertile marital sex (for HIV reasons) by the principle of double effect. I believe you are completely mistaken on this. Please justify your implication with quotes from Rhonheimer if you disagree with me?

May I repeat the argument you have not yet countered:

Quote from Abu:
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

Yes I think all of us agree with this completely. And when a couple use a condom when they are reasonably sure the marital act is not fertile then they have not rendered the natural consequences unfruitful have they? Therefore the use of a condom in these circumstances does not appear to be a “contraceptive marital act.”

 

[Abu]

Rhonheimer’s error is also exposed by Professor William E May who shows that condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil.

From William E. May
Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology
John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family at The Catholic University of America
“Rhonheimer is not the first Catholic moral philosopher/theologian to point out that using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is not necessarily contraceptive. The contraceptive effect could indeed be “praeter intentionem.” “outside the moral intention” - doing something harmful in the course of doing something morally neutral or good. Abu]. Several theologians in the 80’s, among them Norman Ford, argued in similar fashion that use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS is not of itself contraceptive, because the moral object of the act is not to contracept but to avoid transmitting a disease

‘…as I argued in a brief essay published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, vol. 11, no. 3 (June 1988), pages 1-2, it would, as I said in that essay, “be morally wrong to use condoms in this way. Using them would not violate some of the conditions of the principle of double effect…but it would violate the first condition of this principle, which requires that the act chosen, prescinding from its evil effect, must either be morally good or at least morally indifferent. But condomistic intercourse is not morally good in itself, nor is it morally indifferent.”

‘Moreover, in his masterful October 29, 1951 Address to the Italian Union of Midwives, **Pius XII **gave us a very specific “rule” for the intentional exercise of our generative powers. He wrote as follows: “This, therefore, is the rule to be followed: the use of the natural, generative instinct and function is lawful in the married state only, and in the service of the purposes for which marriage exists” the procreative and unitive purposes] (no. 60). Condomistic sex is not unitive. In and through it husband and wife do not become “one flesh.” ’ [My emphasis]

 

[jayrans]

Does a married couple commit a mortal sin if they condom?