See, I think this is where “circumstances” come in. A perforated condom is not intrinsically evil during sex, the intention to avoid children is not intrinsically evil either, however, when you use a perforated condom for the sake of avoiding children those circumstances make the act intrinsically evil. Again, I could be wrong, but that is how I’m understanding this topic for now.
The ends dont justify the means though. Even if those ends are for medical purposes, if the means are intrinsically evil (meaning, under ANY circumstance) then it is not licit.
"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. " -Summa Theologica
Yes, so, if a perforated condom is intrinsically immoral to use during sex then it would clearly always be immoral. I understand that you believe it is intrinsically immoral. However, there are intelligent, devout, and orthodox catholic theologians in good standing whose opinion differs from yours on this matter. And, since the Church does not have an official answer to that specific question these differing opinions are perfectly permissible so long as the people holding them are doing their best to come to the truth about the issue and not just deciding to hold the position they would prefer to be true.
Honestly, I have no idea how good a job perforated condoms do at preventing conception. If they really have zero effect on the likelihood of conception then yes, you’re probably right that double effect does not come into play at all. However, if they do reduce the likelihood of conception then double effect would come into play, just as it does in pretty much every action we take in life.
Sperm count is not the same as semen volume. Sperm count refers to the amount and motility of the sperm. So the ratio of healthy sperm doesn’t really change according to the amount of semen.
Thanks for the awesome posts! I think the downfall to my logic, like you said, is in my use of the intent/object/circumstance.
She was just saying less sperm would actually make it inside. This is true, no?
If it is moved by private animosity it is unjust and therefore sinful. There are instances where taking life in self defense is required to defend your own. A soldier engaged in a Just War may take life and it is acceptable. That is both voluntary and intentional, and still acceptable. There are many “excepts” in what you’ve quoted, and by definition of giving exceptions, it is therefore not “intrinsically evil” (meaning under ANY circumstance) to kill.
You ONLY get stuck because you fail to consider the Moral object of the observable act of wearing the perforated condom - you stop with what is observable, which leads you to fail to understand the act for what it is. I have said this to you many times, and I assume you discard it, for some reason.
Yes, this is why double effect is relevant, because the perforated condom may be (almost certainly is) reducing the procreative potential of the act. This is a bad effect of using the perforated condom, and thus needs to be weighed against the good effect (semen collection for testing).
Yes. And thus, presumably, reduces the chances of conception. See above.
The “having sex” part is fundamental to the discussion. It makes no sense to frame this discussion without the sex element being addressed in the intentions and moral object.
The Church does NOT teach that you may never do an act that could kill someone.
The ‘excepts’ relate to the authority of the State ie. government, army, police. The scope of an individuals authority is limited to acting in response to an immediate threat to his life or his families lives. As Aquinas says… “it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense.” For example, the 80 year old Californian man who in July, came upon intruders in his house. He shot and killed the retreating thief claiming to stop her returning to his house. That is murder not self defense. When faced with the immediate threat to your life, your act of defense does not qualify as the voluntary and intentional taking of that life. It is the necessary response to save yourself.
Did you read the Catechism references I provided?To be honest, I read post 133 but didnt understand it too much…
I thought intrinsic evil applied only to acts in isolation, not reasons behind the act.
I have certainly never stated nor believe that it’s up to the individual to discern.
These 2 statements seem to contradict each other.
the “well informed conscience” bit makes the 2 consistent.
