Question about the two-fold (double) effect

[Blue_Horizon]

I am afraid there is no good object to an act of masturbation. No good comes from it. It is a means to some other good. Similarly, there is no good end to a decision to inject a pregnant woman with methotrexate to end an ectopic pregnancy for the purposes of saving the life of the mother. In both cases, there may be a good end in sight, but the act - the means - was a bad one. Contraception comes to mind as another bad act that many believe they can justify due to Intentions & Circumstances. Avoiding pregnancy , and certain dangers resulting therefrom, may be a very good end, but a wrong means has been chosen.

I think my small point has been overlooked.
We mat not be talking masturbation at all.
Sometimes the 1st font is helpful in more accurately determining what the 2nd font actually is.
If the frottage may be reasonably judged as not done for pleasurable purposes then it is not reasonable to insist the object iis masturbation at all.

Certainly the object may still be a disordered use of the sexual faculties, but it is not clear to me that the Church teaches such is intrinsically evil.
Therefore the PODE may be validly on the table.

Neither would it necessarily be an argument to say all frottage is pleasurable and is directly intended. Same with a mother who knows breastfeeding will cause her to orgasm pleasurably. That does not require her to use formula.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s not like “frottage” is the ONLY cure for whatever. There is no absolute need for it.

If a semen sample is needed, there are other ways. Even a defective condom that can be used to capture a small sample while allowing the natural marital act to be fulfilled is an alternative.

(“Honey, no lie…the doctor prescribed sex. I can’t ignore doctor’s orders.”)

Agreed, but we are discussing principles ie as if there was no other means.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thanks for teaching me a new word.

The notions of “intrinsic evil” and “mortal sin” are not tightly related. An act may be intrinsically evil, without constituting a mortal sin (eg. a lie regarding some minor matter and when not under oath). I’m not sure why you raise the question of mortal sin - I don’t think it fits into this discussion.

If the 2nd font is grave matter then no intention, 1st font, can make the act as a whole good. And if the 2nd font, the object, involves grave matter and is fully purposed… then the act as a whole is mortal.

When we say something is intrinsically evil that is usually understood to mean that if done freely with full knowledge it will be a mortal sin.
Only acts of grave matter (real or putative so) can cause us to sin mortally.

That is my understanding from my Moral Theology degree but perhaps I am mistaken on some point here?

 

[nodito]

Certainly the object may still be a disordered use of the sexual faculties, but it is not clear to me that the Church teaches such is intrinsically evil.

In Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith writes this:

Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20]

Note that although they are specifically talking about masturbation (and not merely “frottage”), they mention it is “intrinsically and seriously disordered” precisely because it is the “deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations.”

So the act of masturbation is an offense against chastity because it is the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculties. If follows that if this “frottage” is the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculties then it must also be an offense against chastity, in other words, a sin, which is by definition evil.

 

[Rau]

When we say something is intrinsically evil that is usually understood to mean that if done freely with full knowledge it will be a mortal sin.

I can’t speak for the understanding of others, I can only point out that such a conclusion is factually flawed as the sample I gave you previously demonstrates.

Only acts of grave matter (real or putative so) can cause us to sin mortally.

Indeed, so your previous point is all the more odd.

I do agree with you that, as it happens, most intrinsically evil acts are mortal. But the concepts are distinct.

Mortal vs. venial sin as a concept, is not germane to an assessment of morality of an act.

 

[Rau]

If the 2nd font is grave matter then no intention, 1st font, can make the act as a whole good.

If the 2nd font is “evil”, then the act is intrinsically evil and thus plainly immoral (regardless of Intention and or Circumstances). A “minor” lie is an example. No grave matter involved.

 

[Rau]

I think my small point has been overlooked.
We mat not be talking masturbation at all.
Sometimes the 1st font is helpful in more accurately determining what the 2nd font actually is.
If the frottage may be reasonably judged as not done for pleasurable purposes then it is not reasonable to insist the object iis masturbation at all.

Certainly the object may still be a disordered use of the sexual faculties, but it is not clear to me that the Church teaches such is intrinsically evil.
Therefore the PODE may be validly on the table.

Neither would it necessarily be an argument to say all frottage is pleasurable and is directly intended. Same with a mother who knows breastfeeding will cause her to orgasm pleasurably. That does not require her to use formula.

Not overlooked - rejected.

If sound medical opinion recommended therapy with a sexual surrogate, could we say that to partake is not fornication because of its medical / therapeutic intent?

If prostitution were undertaken to lift the living standards of the prostitute’s child out of poverty, does prostitution in this instance become moral?

If the good Intention could make the act moral, then sexual surrogacy therapy, self-stimulation to produce a semen sample and engaging in sex for money for certain purposes could all be moral.

No - invoking “intentions” (motivation) will not get you there.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith writes this:

Note that although they are specifically talking about masturbation (and not merely “frottage”), they mention it is “intrinsically and seriously disordered” precisely because it is the “deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations.”

So the act of masturbation is an offense against chastity because it is the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculties. If follows that if this “frottage” is the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculties then it must also be an offense against chastity, in other words, a sin, which is by definition evil.

Not all frottage is masturbation so forgive me if I cannot see the relevance of your arguments here.
I find the CCC definition very precise, it requires the seeking of pleasure as a necessary component if frottage is to be called masturbation.

Just as not all killings are homicide.

Yes I agree that killing is disordered, just as frottage is disordered.
But like killing, it may be possible to justify by the PODE, because we are dealing with killing not homicide, frottage not masturbationation.

An intention of self defence can justify killing, likewise if frottage were the only reasonable way to get a test sample for determining if a life saving therapy was required then this may justify in principle.

Of course I do not think such a thing would ever be the only way to get the test done in practice.
However I think this is a valid thought experiment to test the Moral principles involved.

I cannot see you have clearly provided a relevant counter position as yet.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not overlooked - rejected.

If sound medical opinion recommended therapy with a sexual surrogate, could we say that to partake is not fornication because of its medical / therapeutic intent?

If prostitution were undertaken to lift the living standards of the prostitute’s child out of poverty, does prostitution in this instance become moral?

If the good Intention could make the act moral, then sexual surrogacy therapy, self-stimulation to produce a semen sample and engaging in sex for money for certain purposes could all be moral.

No - invoking “intentions” (motivation) will not get you there.

Clearly the Church’s definition of fornication is such that therapeutic intercourse with another you are not Wed to is still fornication.
Therapeutic frottage done purely and only for necessary medical reasons is not intrinsically seeking pleasure. Therefore it is possible that this Moral act is not masturbation.

Just as killing in self defence is not necessarily homicide.

Of course, in both cases, if pleasure or direct death was willed directly then the object would still be mast/homicide.

 

[Rau]

Clearly the Church’s definition of fornication is such that therapeutic intercourse with another you are not Wed to is still fornication.
Therapeutic frottage done purely and only for necessary medical reasons is not intrinsically seeking pleasure. Therefore it is possible that this Moral act is not masturbation.

Just as killing in self defence is not necessarily homicide.

Of course, in both cases, if pleasure or direct death was willed directly then the object would still be mast/homicide.

Are there any respected sources of theological teaching or opinion that stand with you? The USCCB perhaps? Curiously, they identify the “act” used to produce a semen sample for use in IVF as “masturbation” - even though the purpose of that act is (ostensibly) not pleasure (hence you would call it frottage) but to engage in IVF. Now you may say that that end purpose (IVF) alone is enough to make the act immoral - true enough - but I repeat, the USCCB label it “masturbation” and point to that singular act itself as unacceptable.
google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usccb.org%2Fissues-and-action%2Fmarriage-and-family%2Fnatural-family-planning%2Fresources%2Fupload%2FReproductive-Technology-Evaluation-Treatment-of-Infertility-Guidelines-for-Catholic-Couples.pdf&ei=0X9pVdm9F5fv8gWoxoC4Aw&usg=AFQjCNH39zirAoVFmBydA1eMO5oUbNKjZA&bvm=bv.94455598,d.dGc

The CDF, writes:

• “in fact both the Magisterium of the Church — in the course of a constant tradition — and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes ‘the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.’ All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."*

Stimulating one-self to orgasm/emission of semen falls foul of the bolded text, just as an act of prostitution (however motivated) is fornication. This statement is true whether or not you desired the pleasure. [But fyi, I suggest masturbating (or should I say “frottage” of the penis LOL) without desiring the pleasure at some point is near impossible.]

The moral object of the act in question is not healing of the body - the act does not do that - it is not inherently ordered to that. The moral object is the end toward which the act is ordered by its nature - not by the purposes for which it is done. The act in question, by its nature, deprives this use of the sexual faculty of its proper marital, unitive and procreative meanings. That’s its moral object. Its purpose is to facilitate medical tests, but that can’t change its nature and the evil to which it is inherently ordered.

 

[nodito]

Not all frottage is masturbation so forgive me if I cannot see the relevance of your arguments here.
I find the CCC definition very precise, it requires the seeking of pleasure as a necessary component if frottage is to be called masturbation.

You conceded that frottage was the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty. I think Persona Humana shows that the Church considers that the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty is a sin, regardless of whether the act is masturbation, homosexual conduct, rape, fornication, frottage, or what have you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You conceded that frottage was the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty. I think Persona Humana shows that the Church considers that the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty is a sin, regardless of whether the act is masturbation, homosexual conduct, rape, fornication, frottage, or what have you.

Nodito it is not possible for me to continue discussing this with you because you appear to underestimate the importance of different words signalling very different concepts, definititions and underlying human realities.
This leads you to make generalizations and to conclude I am saying things that I clearly have not.

You appear to confuse physical events (“the acts of a human”) with “human acts.” One is in the Moral arena, the other is simply what is observed.

Hence taking a contraceptive and contracepting are not the same thing.
They may be on further enquiry, or they may not.

The killing of somebody may be homicide or even murder or neither. Aquinas himself observes that in some instances an observer may never know with certainty what Moral category of a human act the action of an observed man may fall into. For the ultimate deciding factor will be what that man purposed in his mind. His example is deciding if a killing is good or bad.

Now the physical act of killing is disordered in some way regardless of intent. Hence the command Though shall not kill.
So too is the physical act of manually ejaculating alone, not because it is the Moral act of masturbation (that is yet to be determined) but because reason sees it frustrates the natural teleological of the faculty.

However the point at issue, like killing, is this. Is the disorder so great it cannot be sought in such a way that love of God is directly confronted?
The Church teaches that killing, while disordered, is Not intending homicide if self defence is in fact one’s object. In other words, it is possible when killing not to intend killing… only in the case (call it circumstance if you wish but it is not the same as the circumstance of the 3rd font) of self defence.

Now I believe the same traditional analysis can be applied to the physical activity of frottage. Yes it is disordered like killing.
But if it is not done for pleasure then you are quite mistaken to introduce the word masturbation to describe the object in question.

That would be like saying our killer above was certainly homiciding , hang the bastard. You would be prematurely short circuiting the complete Moral analysis of the situation.

We do not know if frottage is so bad that it is like masturbation (no intention can engage in masturbation without directly challenging God) because the Church has never taught as far as I know, that frottage purposed for reasons other than pleasure is a mortal sin like masturbation.
The Church has clearly taught that purposed killing is not always mortal sin (in two cases only - cap punish and self defence).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are there any respected sources of theological teaching or opinion that stand with you? The USCCB perhaps? Curiously, they identify the “act” used to produce a semen sample for use in IVF as “masturbation” - even though the purpose of that act is (ostensibly) not pleasure (hence you would call it frottage) but to engage in IVF. Now you may say that that end purpose (IVF) alone is enough to make the act immoral - true enough - but I repeat, the USCCB label it “masturbation” and point to that singular act itself as unacceptable.
google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usccb.org%2Fissues-and-action%2Fmarriage-and-family%2Fnatural-family-planning%2Fresources%2Fupload%2FReproductive-Technology-Evaluation-Treatment-of-Infertility-Guidelines-for-Catholic-Couples.pdf&ei=0X9pVdm9F5fv8gWoxoC4Aw&usg=AFQjCNH39zirAoVFmBydA1eMO5oUbNKjZA&bvm=bv.94455598,d.dGc

The CDF, writes:

• “in fact both the Magisterium of the Church — in the course of a constant tradition — and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way*, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes ‘the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.’ All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."

Stimulating one-self to orgasm/emission of semen falls foul of the bolded text, just as an act of prostitution (however motivated) is fornication. This statement is true whether or not you desired the pleasure. [But fyi, I suggest masturbating (or should I say “frottage” of the penis LOL) without desiring the pleasure at some point is near impossible.]

The moral object of the act in question is not healing of the body - the act does not do that - it is not inherently ordered to that. The moral object is the end toward which the act is ordered by its nature - not by the purposes for which it is done. The act in question, by its nature, deprives this use of the sexual faculty of its proper marital, unitive and procreative meanings. That’s its moral object. Its purpose is to facilitate medical tests, but that can’t change its nature and the evil to which it is inherently ordered.

When we quote people outside of strict Moral Theology contexts we have to be very careful that the definitions used are the same.

Homocide or contraception for example can refer to the Moral act or merely the descriptive act of a man depending on context eg legal, health, Moral Theology.

LOL all you will, this inability to distinguish leads to endless confusions and debates and poor Moral judgements.

The USCCB above is not at all clear how they use the word masturbation in the text above. It could mean the medical action of ejaculating to produce a sample, or it could additionally be making a moral judgement of that physical action.
You seem to believe it is the latter, yet that is not at all clear. A doctor may simply read that word as simp, y the physical action.

Often these documents are being written for pastoral/medical target groups and so it is impossible to always know what exact meaning non Vatican authors intend. Sometimes they are not aware of their inexact usage themselves.

I find Vatican documents are usually much more exact and consistent in these matters - esp the Latin.

If you can find a Magisterial doc to make your point that would be preferable.
I respect USCCB. docs though their judgements, if indeed more than prudential, are hardly definitive doctrine if even the Magisterial has not come out clearly on this fine point.

 

[Rau]

…We do not know if frottage is so bad that it is like masturbation (no intention can engage in masturbation without directly challenging God) because the Church has never taught as far as I know, that frottage purposed for reasons other than pleasure is a mortal sin like masturbation…

Perhaps then you will need to place me in the persona non grata category too. However, I only quote the CDF: “whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty”, and here the word you will not have applied to the act is not used.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps then you will need to place me in the persona no grata category too. However, I only quote the CDF: “whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty”, and here the word you will not have applied to the act is not used.

I am asking you to demonstrate that “essentially contradicts” means anything more than “disordered” and has to mean “intrinsically evil” or “mortal sin”.

Killing also “essentially contradicts” does it not?
Yet the PODE can be applied to this disorder making killing acceptable in some cases.

It’s a reasonable question surely?

 

[Rau]

…The USCCB above is not at all clear how they use the word masturbation in the text above. It could mean the medical action of ejaculating to produce a sample, or it could additionally be making a moral judgement of that physical action.

I think it means the concrete act you call “frottage of the penis”, with its inherent moral ordering (which is quite separate to what motivated you to do it). Is there a conference of Bishops anywhere that says this is a moral act?

Often these documents are being written for pastoral/medical target groups and so it is impossible to always know what exact meaning non Vatican authors intend. Sometimes they are not aware of their inexact usage themselves.

I see - they are only the US Bishops, what would they know? Surely the intended audience is irrelevant - they make a moral determination, not a medical one.

 

[Rau]

I am asking you to demonstrate that “essentially contradicts” means anything more than “disordered” and has to mean “intrinsically evil” or “mortal sin”.

They did not write this to explain why something can be moral, but rather why it is not.

It’s a reasonable question surely?

Of course. Asked and answered.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You conceded that frottage was the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty. I think Persona Humana shows that the Church considers that the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty is a sin, regardless of whether the act is masturbation, homosexual conduct, rape, fornication, frottage, or what have you.

If you are able to accept a less controversial pointer from me…

a disordered action is not the same as a sinful action.

A disorder is used to describe the matter of a moral act.
Only the act as a whole can strictly be called sinful.

One can probably get away with saying a disordered act is materially sinful.
But usually “sin” is understood to mean formally sinful.

 

[Rau]

Killing also “essentially contradicts” does it not?

Contradicts what? The moral course? No, not necessarily at all.

“Killing” may have a good moral object and no evil moral object, and thus may be a moral act according to Intentions and Circumstances. There is always an evil in the consequences, but in self-defence, it is balanced by a good.

 

[Rau]

…One can probably get away with saying a disordered act is materially sinful.
But usually “sin” is understood to mean formally sinful.

Material sin involves of an act that is wrong, though the perpetrator is protected from guilt by ignorance that it is indeed wrong.

You seem to have shifted position if you are now acknowledging:

• the act in question is disordered;
• disordered acts are materially sinful.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.