Using perforated condom as birth control... moral?

[LokisMom]

the “well informed conscience” bit makes the 2 consistent.

I dont see how.

 

[Rau]

I dont see how.

If there is not an available teaching (available to the individual at least) - what is he to do. He should make enquiries, study the matter, and pray. These help form his conscience. He then decides what to do.

Perhaps I am being overly generous but I took his first comment, particularly in light of what followed, as to state the individual should not just go ahead and decide without doing the things I just listed above.

 

[underacloud]

These 2 statements seem to contradict each other.

Yes, perhaps I should have elaborated to make them things clearer. But what Rau said explains what I meant.

the “well informed conscience” bit makes the 2 consistent.

If there is not an available teaching (available to the individual at least) - what is he to do. He should make enquiries, study the matter, and pray. These help form his conscience. He then decides what to do.

Perhaps I am being overly generous but I took his first comment, particularly in light of what followed, as to state the individual should not just go ahead and decide without doing the things I just listed above.

Of course, Loki(name removed by moderator), this may have been precisely what you mean in terms of the individual discerning, so I apologise if I misrepresented or misinterpreted that.

Anyway, hopefully this is clearer now.

 

[LokisMom]

Yes, perhaps I should have elaborated to make them things clearer. But what Rau said explains what I meant.

Of course, Loki(name removed by moderator), this may have been precisely what you mean in terms of the individual discerning, so I apologise if I misrepresented or misinterpreted that.

Anyway, hopefully this is clearer now.

I thought the word “discernment” automatically meant praying about it to make an informed decision, not just deciding on a whim. That’s why I saw your comment as contradictory.

 

[underacloud]

I thought the word “discernment” automatically meant praying about it to make an informed decision, not just deciding on a whim. That’s why I saw your comment as contradictory.

But informing one’s conscience is much more than just praying about it.

As Rau said, one must study the matter, make enquiries, etc. The opinions of our bishops and orthodox moral theologians should help guide us.

One should never rely only on prayer.

 

[thewanderer]

Thanks for the awesome posts! I think the downfall to my logic, like you said, is in my use of the intent/object/circumstance.

As for double effect, I do fail to see how this falls in. From the sources I’ve read regarding the morality of perforated condoms for sampling, none of them say that double effect is the reason why it would be permissible. They all say (at least all the ones Ive seen) that it is morally permissible bc it does not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. Jimmy Atkin explains that, while the Church teaches that sperm must go into the woman in order for sex to be moral, She does no mention how much of it may go in. And that is why perforated condoms, for sampling, is said to be licit. Have you seen anything different? Also, if this is double effect, then why would it still be wrong if using a normal condom?

With the principle of double-effect, the reality is, that it comes into play in pretty much every action we take. I mean, lets face it, how many actions are there that truly have no bad consequences (or risks of bad consequences)? Really not that many, if they exist at all. So, the principle of double effect applies to pretty much anything and we use it all the time in making simple everyday decisions.

However, I have to say, you could be right in it not being all that relevant to this discussion. I just wrote out a reply to you to help show how it applies and found myself questioning my own explanation. Basically, it would be more relevant to the discussion if the Church had not specifically said that the particular combination of an action with the intention to avoid children is always immoral as we could compare the proportionality of reasons used to show why it is ok for medical reasons but not for regulating births. Instead what we are left with is that the principle of double effect allows perforated condoms for medical reasons (assuming of course that the theologians are correct that this is permissible) because the good effects outweigh the bad effects (infertility… again, assuming this is actually a result of the perforated condom ). In the case of regulating births, if the reasons for avoiding were good enough to outweigh the bad effects it would be moral, except for the fact that the Church has pointed out any action for the sake of avoiding children as always being immoral.

lol, I’m kind of rambling now but I hope its helpful.

 

[Rau]

…if the Church had not specifically said that the particular combination of an action with the intention to avoid children is always immoral…

To avoid confusion, better not to use the word “Intention” when addressing the moral object of an act. The Intention is often a more distant end/purpose (eg. spacing children; responsible parenthood considerations, etc.).

The Church teaching (and it is presented in a few ways…) is that an act **whose Moral Object **is the following evil(s):

• the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects; and /or
• depriving it (the conjugal act) of its inherent force / hinder the procreation of new life
  is intrinsically evil. [Casti Connubi]

Perforated condom to reduce chance of conception wills just these evil outcomes so it is inherently evil and the Act is thus immoral.

Perforated condom - assuming it truly interferes with procreation - to catch some semen for testing: good Intention, good Moral Object, so need to check the consequences - which are a mix of good and bad (on the assumption just stated).

I presume Theologians concluded that a perforated condom delivers a satisfactory mix of good and bad, by maintaining the meaning and integrity of the marital act. I’ll bet some theologians take the view that it is overly conservative.

If perforated condom does not interfere with procreation at all, then there would seem to be no adverse consequences, and no need to weigh up consequences.

 

[LokisMom]

To avoid confusion, better not to use the word “Intention” when addressing the moral object of an act. The Intention is often a more distant end/purpose (eg. spacing children; responsible parenthood considerations, etc.).

The Church teaching (and it is presented in a few ways…) is that an act **whose Moral Object **is the following evil(s):

• the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects; and /or
• depriving it (the conjugal act) of its inherent force / hinder the procreation of new life
  is intrinsically evil. [Casti Connubi]

Perforated condom to reduce chance of conception wills just these evil outcomes so it is inherently evil and the Act is thus immoral.

Perforated condom - assuming it truly interferes with procreation - to catch some semen for testing: good Intention, good Moral Object, so need to check the consequences - which are a mix of good and bad (on the assumption just stated).

I presume Theologians concluded that a perforated condom delivers a satisfactory mix of good and bad, by maintaining the meaning and integrity of the marital act. I’ll bet some theologians take the view that it is overly conservative.

If perforated condom does not interfere with procreation at all, then there would seem to be no adverse consequences, and no need to weigh up consequences.

Can you list the moral object, intent, and circumstance of this scenario? I’d like to see what it looks like, considering I’m being told I did it wrong.

That would be really helpful.

 

[LokisMom]

With the principle of double-effect, the reality is, that it comes into play in pretty much every action we take. I mean, lets face it, how many actions are there that truly have no bad consequences (or risks of bad consequences)? Really not that many, if they exist at all. So, the principle of double effect applies to pretty much anything and we use it all the time in making simple everyday decisions.

However, I have to say, you could be right in it not being all that relevant to this discussion. I just wrote out a reply to you to help show how it applies and found myself questioning my own explanation. Basically, it would be more relevant to the discussion if the Church had not specifically said that the particular combination of an action with the intention to avoid children is always immoral as we could compare the proportionality of reasons used to show why it is ok for medical reasons but not for regulating births. Instead what we are left with is that the principle of double effect allows perforated condoms for medical reasons (assuming of course that the theologians are correct that this is permissible) because the good effects outweigh the bad effects (infertility… again, assuming this is actually a result of the perforated condom ). In the case of regulating births, if the reasons for avoiding were good enough to outweigh the bad effects it would be moral, except for the fact that the Church has pointed out any action for the sake of avoiding children as always being immoral.

lol, I’m kind of rambling now but I hope its helpful.

It is.

So basically, some things are SO BAD that they cannot ever fall under double effect? Such as having sex with the intent of avoiding children? Lol. (that I will never understand why it’s so awful that it would be worse than the case where a woman will either die if she gets pregnancy, or break apart her family in divorce if she refuses to have sex with her husband)

 

[Rau]

It is.

So basically, some things are SO BAD that they cannot ever fall under double effect? Such as having sex with the intent of avoiding children? Lol. (that I will never understand why it’s so awful that it would be worse than the case where a woman will either die if she gets pregnancy, or break apart her family in divorce if she refuses to have sex with her husband)

Wanderer’s expression may not have come across well. The double effect principle can be used to analyze the morality of any Act with a mix of good and bad consequences. However, if the moral object is evil (eg, as in murder, or an abortion, as in contraception, as in fornication) then there is no point wasting your time examining (possibly good/supportive) Intention and Circumstances. It is not moral to do evil to pursue a good intention, nor is evil justified by particular Circumstances…

 

[LokisMom]

Wanderer’s expression may not have come across well. The double effect principle can be used to analyze the morality of any Act with a mix of good and bad consequences. However, if the moral object is evil (eg, as in murder, or an abortion, as in contraception, as in fornication) then there is no point wasting your time examining (possibly good/supportive) Intention and Circumstances. It is not moral to do evil to pursue a good intention, nor is evil justified by particular Circumstances…

Can you give me an example of something that is bad but not evil?

 

[Rau]

Can you give me an example of something that is bad but not evil?

Sounds like a word game. Put your thoughts to work to analyse a moral situation, and I’ll happily comment.

 

[LokisMom]

Sounds like a word game. Put your thoughts to work to analyse a moral situation, and I’ll happily comment.

Hm? Ok, how about stealing. Is that something that is bad but not evil? I’m just doing this because Im trying to understand what you were saying.

 

[underacloud]

Can you give me an example of something that is bad but not evil?

As Rau alluded to, you need to be careful in using these words. The precise meaning is important.

In terms of morality, on a basic level, bad = evil.

But one can delve further…

There are such things as natural evils, which are not moral evils.

A natural evil is for example dying from cancer.

A moral evil is for example murder.

Both are “bad”. Only one is “evil” in terms of morality.

When we talk of bad effects, what we are talking about are unintended effects of actions. They are not found in the intentions or the moral object, but in the circumstances. They do need to be weighed in our moral choices.

These bad effects are only evil when they are intended by our actions (or foreseen and not allowable under double effect, because they outweigh the good effect).

To address your question - stealing is morally evil. It is an intended evil.

But Catholic morality leaves some room here - there are circumstances in which taking another’s posession may be considered something other than stealing. Taking another’s possession does not automatically equate to stealing. It is more complicated - which unfortunately may not help you much in understanding.

 

[Rau]

Hm? Ok, how about stealing. Is that something that is bad but not evil? I’m just doing this because Im trying to understand what you were saying.

That approach turns the discussion into a rats nest. Point out what is not clear, and I will try to clarify.

 

[LokisMom]

That approach turns the discussion into a rats nest. Point out what is not clear, and I will try to clarify.

I don’t know what you mean by something having bad consequences vs something being evil, thats why I was asking for examples.

 

[LokisMom]

As Rau alluded to, you need to be careful in using these words. The precise meaning is important.

In terms of morality, on a basic level, bad = evil.

But one can delve further…

There are such things as natural evils, which are not moral evils.

A natural evil is for example dying from cancer.

A moral evil is for example murder.

Both are “bad”. Only one is “evil” in terms of morality.

When we talk of bad effects, what we are talking about are unintended effects of actions. They are not found in the intentions or the moral object, but in the circumstances. They do need to be weighed in our moral choices.

These bad effects are only evil when they are intended by our actions (or foreseen and not allowable under double effect, because they outweigh the good effect).

To address your question - stealing is morally evil. It is an intended evil.

But Catholic morality leaves some room here - there are circumstances in which taking another’s posession may be considered something other than stealing. Taking another’s possession does not automatically equate to stealing. It is more complicated - which unfortunately may not help you much in understanding.

thanks

 

[LokisMom]

I invite all of you intelligent folks to weigh in on my most recent thread!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…1#post12364671