Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[underacloud]

I spent a good time trying to understand the natural law behind NFP.
It’s just not there for me. I asked a professor that defends and wrote book about the Church’s teaching on the sexuality. No luck. He does not seem to have good answers so far.

It’s fair to say that Catholic theologians have viewed this matter differently over the years, and that many were hoping for a different outcome prior to Humanae Vitae. For a Catholic who trusts the Church’s teaching, the matter is resolved, although it may be challenging to accept. For Catholics who are less obedient (for want of a better word) it remains difficult.

It seems that my last post shows you some cracks in the teaching. Believe me, I am disappointed that I see them. It’s not good. Especially when you got those three lines.

No, I would not say there are “cracks”. The teaching is entirely consistent, as long as the premise it is based on - with regard to natural law - is established/accepted. From that premise the rest of it flows very well. Understanding and/or accepting the natural law premise is the key to all of this. And yes, it is very difficult.

 

[Prodigirl]

Not quite true. Homosexuality itself is a moral disorder (CCC 2358). A disorder itself is not sinful, a person can have a moral disorder (of any type), but still live a holy life.

The acts themselves are sinful.

Are you saying that just by virtue of BEING, a homosexual person has a moral disorder?

That’s insane.

 

[Jaaanosik]

It’s fair to say that Catholic theologians have viewed this matter differently over the years, and that many were hoping for a different outcome prior to Humanae Vitae. For a Catholic who trusts the Church’s teaching, the matter is resolved, although it may be challenging to accept. For Catholics who are less obedient (for want of a better word) it remains difficult.

No, I would not say there are “cracks”. The teaching is entirely consistent, as long as the premise it is based on - with regard to natural law - is established/accepted. From that premise the rest of it flows very well. Understanding and/or accepting the natural law premise is the key to all of this. And yes, it is very difficult.

It does not appear the teaching is consistent.
There is a change going from CC to HV. CC does not require the unitive aspect to be present at the act. As it was quoted “… it’s not forbidden to consider …”. This does not imply it’s supposed to be present at every single act.
That’s also not good. How it’s possible that the teaching on morals is changing?

 

[underacloud]

It does not appear the teaching is consistent.
There is a change going from CC to HV. CC does not require the unitive aspect to be present at the act. As it was quoted “… it’s not forbidden to consider …”. This does not imply it’s supposed to be present at every single act.
That’s also not good. How it’s possible that the teaching on morals is changing?

Teaching may evolve over time. There is no inconsistency, but better clarification as the doctrine develops.

So while more recent writings may have put greater emphasis on the unitive aspect of sex, it is not true that this in any way contradicts the previous writings, which may place a greater emphasis on the procreative dimension, since that is the very issue they deal with.

The term used there “are not forbidden to consider” means that it is acceptable. So yes, a couple may have sex for those reasons, as long as procreation is not deliberately prevented. That remains consistent with the current teaching.

Perhaps the reason that the unitive aspect is not more directly discussed there is because it is fairly obvious - couples have sex because it is pleasurable and bonds them. It directly discusses the procreative aspect because that is the issue that required clarification.

I don’t see any inconcistencies, but there are different emphases in different writings.

 

[Rau]

Are you saying that just by virtue of BEING, a homosexual person has a moral disorder?

That’s insane.

Same sex (sexual) attraction is disordered attraction - it is not a disorder, and there are no moral wrongs in experiencing said attractions.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Are you saying that just by virtue of BEING, a homosexual person has a moral disorder?

That’s insane.

That is insane, it is also not what the Church teaches,

Same sex (sexual) attraction is disordered attraction - it is not a disorder, and there are no moral wrongs in experiencing said attractions.

It’s extremely important to specify that it is “objectively disordered”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you understand that in case of X-rays and many other things the end justifies the means?
That’s the double effect principle in a nutshell.

No, the principle of double effect (PDE) does not involve the end justifying the means. The PDE allows the execution of an act whose intent is objectively good, but which also has morally objectionable unintended consequences. If anything, the principle says that the first end justifies the second end – but only if the consequences of the second end are proportionally less and the second end is not intended.

The PDE does not ever justify doing anything intrinsically wrong as an instrument to some desired end. It is permissible to remove cancer thereby causing an embryo to die, on PDE, but it is NOT permissible to kill an embryo that is directly endangering the mother’s life. We do not do evil so that good may result.

In contraception, one intends a morally illicit result: changing intercourse into an action closed to life. The action has two consequences: (1) spacing of children / responsible parenting, and (2) making intercourse infertile. The first consequence is a good one, perhaps, but the second consequences MUST be intended, because it is the indispensable means to attaining the first consequence. The PDE does not allow such a thing.

It gets more complicated though. Do you know the difference between mutilation and amputation from moral law point of view?

Surely the difference is intent and just cause.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

Surely the difference is intent and just cause.

The first question is if the nature of the act - cutting a limb - is morally neutral.

The Church has to say that it is morally neutral, but there are people who would argue it’s not.
Cutting a limb is morally wrong according to many.

The Church defines mutilation as an intrinsically evil act.
The amputation is accepted.

It’s cutting a limb but what constitutes one being intrinsically evil and the other OK?
It’s amazing that the Church allows such opposite definitions based on the intent and the end.

The logical question is if the contraception is intrinsically evil then is there a good intent and an end when the contraception could be OK?

If the answer is no then the Church would be inconsistent and the Church would create a double standard. What would merit this double standard? What logic? What reasoning?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The first question is if the nature of the act - cutting a limb - is morally neutral.

The Church has to say that it is morally neutral, but there are people who would argue it’s not.
Cutting a limb is morally wrong according to many.

The Church defines mutilation as an intrinsically evil act.
The amputation is accepted.

Citation? I cannot believe that the Church says cutting a limb is morally neutral.

The logical question is if the contraception is intrinsically evil then is there a good intent and an end when the contraception could be OK?

You cannot morally do intrinsically evil things with a good intent. You can do intrinsically good things with bad unintended consequences. Otherwise directly intended abortion would be licit, in certain cases.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

In contraception, one intends a morally illicit result: changing intercourse into an action closed to life. The action has two consequences: (1) spacing of children / responsible parenting, and (2)** making intercourse infertile**. The first consequence is a good one, perhaps, but the second consequences MUST be intended, because it is the indispensable means to attaining the first consequence. The PDE does not allow such a thing.
…

Making intercourse infertile is neutral. It’s allowed by HV.
NFP makes the intercourse infertile - it makes sure that the sperm does not come to date with the ovum.

The only difference between NFP and contraception is how it’s done.
NFP is natural.
Going back to my question if you use only natural way of transportation.
Is your act of moving natural all the time?

If not then where the double standard come from?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Citation? I cannot believe that the Church says cutting a limb is morally neutral.

You cannot morally do intrinsically evil things with a good intent. You can do intrinsically good things with bad unintended consequences. Otherwise directly intended abortion would be licit, in certain cases.

‘Cutting a limb is morally neutral’ follows from the fact that the amputation is allowed.
If it was morally wrong then what makes a morally wrong act a good one?
That’s why I said the Church has to say it’s neutral.

… but mutilation is defined as an intrinsically evil act.

How do we reconcile mutilation and amputation?
What logic?

The only difference is the intent and the end.
The mutilation and the amputation is as good as example as it gets to show how moral teaching can be twisted.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Making intercourse infertile is neutral. It’s allowed by HV.

Absolutely false. How does NFP make intercourse infertile? NFP may involve evaluating whether intercourse is likely to be infertile, but it most certainly does not involve changing the act into an infertile act.

NFP makes the intercourse infertile - it makes sure that the sperm does not come to date with the ovum.

Not in the context of intercourse! When my wife and I are not having sex, we’re not having intercourse. NOT having intercourse is not just a contraceptive way to have intercourse.

The only difference between NFP and contraception is how it’s done.
NFP is natural.

So is contraception. Again, natural law theory does not say objects are unnatural. It says that some actions are unnatural. “NFP” is not an action. Putting on a condom is an action that changes the sexual act into an infertile act. Charting is an action, but charting is not an action that changes the sexual act into an infertile act.

Going back to my question if you use only natural way of transportation.
Is your act of moving natural all the time?

All means of transportation are natural, so far as I can tell.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

‘Cutting a limb is morally neutral’ follows from the fact that the amputation is allowed.

False. Killing is not morally neutral, but killing is sometimes allowed.

If it was morally wrong then what makes a morally wrong act a good one?

I never said cutting a limb was a morally wrong act. I said that the cutting of a limb is not morally neutral – it has a morally bad result. Cutting a limb, however, is not wrong in the way that rape or sacrilege or killing an innocent are wrong. These things are wrong in every conceivable instance.

One may cut a limb when such an action is reasonably expected to produce a result that is proportionally better and when such an action does not intend the absence of the limb as a consequence. The consequence is foreseen, but unintended.

Rape doesn’t work the same way. Even if one’s intent in raping is somehow good, the act of rape is intrinsically wrong. Similarly, even if one’s intent in putting on a condom is good, the act is intrinsically wrong – not as severely wrong as rape, to be sure! But wrong in itself, no matter what good consequences are intended.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Absolutely false. How does NFP make intercourse infertile? NFP may involve evaluating whether intercourse is likely to be infertile, but it most certainly does not involve changing the act into an infertile act.

Not in the context of intercourse! When my wife and I are not having sex, we’re not having intercourse. NOT having intercourse is not just a contraceptive way to have intercourse.

So is contraception. Again, natural law theory does not say objects are unnatural. It says that some actions are unnatural. “NFP” is not an action. Putting on a condom is an action that changes the sexual act into an infertile act. Charting is an action, but charting is not an action that changes the sexual act into an infertile act.

All means of transportation are natural, so far as I can tell.

You like to play with words?

The marital act has two possible outcomes.
Fertile - a baby is conceived
Infertile - no baby is conceived

Any time an act does not result in a conception it’s an infertile act and it’s a direct consequence of NFP.
That’s why NFP can be abused.
It’s like you know a visitor is coming to your house and you make sure you are out so you don’t have to invite the visitor in.

So there are no artificial means of transportation. Correct?
Artificial as “made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally”
Now you are being very illogical.
That’s were the fun stops.

 

[Jaaanosik]

False. Killing is not morally neutral, but killing is sometimes allowed.

I never said cutting a limb was a morally wrong act. I said that the cutting of a limb is not morally neutral – it has a morally bad result. Cutting a limb, however, is not wrong in the way that rape or sacrilege or killing an innocent are wrong. These things are wrong in every conceivable instance.

One may cut a limb when such an action is reasonably expected to produce a result that is proportionally better and when such an action does not intend the absence of the limb as a consequence. The consequence is foreseen, but unintended.

Rape doesn’t work the same way. Even if one’s intent in raping is somehow good, the act of rape is intrinsically wrong. Similarly, even if one’s intent in putting on a condom is good, the act is intrinsically wrong – not as severely wrong as rape, to be sure! But wrong in itself, no matter what good consequences are intended.

I am sure I am missing something.
Please, explain to me the difference between not morally neutral and morally wrong.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You like to play with words?

The marital act has two possible outcomes.
Fertile - a baby is conceived
Infertile - no baby is conceived

Any time an act does not result in a conception it’s an infertile act and it’s a direct consequence of NFP.
That’s why NFP can be abused.
It’s like you know a visitor is coming to your house and you make sure you are out so you don’t have to invite the visitor in.

Sex with a condom is an infertile type of act. “Unprotected” sex at a (possibly) infertile period is a fertile type of act. You can tell it’s fertile because a pregnancy that arises out of the second type of act is an indication that the act has been PROPERLY done. One does not have sex IN ORDER TO not have procreative sex. That would be absurd! One *does *put on a condom in order to not have procreative sex.

So there are no artificial means of transportation. Correct?
Artificial as “made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally”

For the thousandth time, the notion of “natural” used in “natural law” has NOTHING to do with the natural/artificial distinction. Aristotle and Aquinas would say that a spaceship is perfectly natural, in the relevant sense. No rational person objects to condoms because they’re made in factories.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am sure I am missing something.
Please, explain to me the difference between not morally neutral and morally wrong.

An action may have a morally bad outcome without being morally wrong. “Bad” pertains to the value or worth of an outcome; wrong pertains to the choiceworthiness of an action. You can’t talk about a “wrong” outcome, only about a bad outcome.

I’m just saying how the words are used in professional ethics. I understand there are other ways to use them, but this way cuts down on ambiguity.

 

[Prodigirl]

Absolutely false. How does NFP make intercourse infertile? NFP may involve evaluating whether intercourse is likely to be infertile, but it most certainly does not involve changing the act into an infertile act.

Not in the context of intercourse! When my wife and I are not having sex, we’re not having intercourse. NOT having intercourse is not just a contraceptive way to have intercourse.

So is contraception. Again, natural law theory does not say objects are unnatural. It says that some actions are unnatural. “NFP” is not an action. Putting on a condom is an action that changes the sexual act into an infertile act. Charting is an action, but charting is not an action that changes the sexual act into an infertile act.

All means of transportation are natural, so far as I can tell.

I’ll say it again: END RUN.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Sex with a condom is an infertile type of act. “Unprotected” sex at a (possibly) infertile period is a fertile type of act. You can tell it’s fertile because a pregnancy that arises out of the second type of act is an indication that the act has been PROPERLY done. One does not have sex IN ORDER TO not have procreative sex. That would be absurd! One *does *put on a condom in order to not have procreative sex.

For the thousandth time, the notion of “natural” used in “natural law” has NOTHING to do with the natural/artificial distinction. Aristotle and Aquinas would say that a spaceship is perfectly natural, in the relevant sense. No rational person objects to condoms because they’re made in factories.

“You can tell it’s fertile because a pregnancy that arises out of the second type of act is an indication that the act has been PROPERLY done.”
Good, do you agree that if a pregnancy does not arise then the act has not been done properly? It means that the act was infertile. Correct?

The act of moving from point A to point B can be done in a natural way - on your foot
… or in an unnatural way by a car.

You are being really illogical in your last posts.

 

[Jaaanosik]

An action may have a morally bad outcome without being morally wrong. “Bad” pertains to the value or worth of an outcome; wrong pertains to the choiceworthiness of an action. You can’t talk about a “wrong” outcome, only about a bad outcome.

I’m just saying how the words are used in professional ethics. I understand there are other ways to use them, but this way cuts down on ambiguity.

Please, where I’ve talked about wrong outcome?