Why does the Catholic Church consider contraception a sin?

[Vico]

In as much as I highly respect the writings of St. John Paul II. He was after all a man –not Jesus. Just as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both erroneously taught and believed that the ensoulment of a human took place at the point of quickening JPII may not be the last word either. Note the substitution of the word “murder” for the word “kill” as it appears in the bible. (Mt 19:18) RSVCE. Murder in common usage is a legal term that implies malice and forethought. Perhaps the use of the proper term-kill-would have suggested inconsistency in the instance of war, capital punishment, deadly force etc. Similarly stealing and lying have easily demonstrable instances where they are justified and no sin is committed. Therefore, your premise that negative precepts of the moral commandments are absolutes is not sound.

Incidentally, paragraph 81 gives a laundry list of intrinsically evil acts and, guess what, contraception is not one of them. I don’t think it slipped JPII’s mind as he discusses it in the very next paragraph which is replete with “wiggle room” for contraception. This makes sense, after all, because you never hear of a prayer vigil outside of a drugstore that sells condoms.

Rather than using the “cut and paste” approach to reply to the arguments I have put forth I would like to hear your response the real argument I proposed:

The difference between NFP and some (not all) of other methods of timing the birth of children and limiting family size amounts to artificial subjective constructs such a perceived ‘naturalness’ and the false supposition that people who use a method other than NFP are not open to the possibility of life

And just to curb the desire to stuff more straw men let us restrict the comparison to NFP vs. male condom.

Okay Go!

Veritatis Splendor, St. Pope John Paul II (1993), n. 80, excerpt:

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI 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”.133 Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968), 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491.​

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In as much as I highly respect the writings of St. John Paul II. He was after all a man –not Jesus. Just as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both erroneously taught and believed that the ensoulment of a human took place at the point of quickening JPII may not be the last word either. Note the substitution of the word “murder” for the word “kill” as it appears in the bible. (Mt 19:18) RSVCE. Murder in common usage is a legal term that implies malice and forethought. Perhaps the use of the proper term-kill-would have suggested inconsistency in the instance of war, capital punishment, deadly force etc. Similarly stealing and lying have easily demonstrable instances where they are justified and no sin is committed. Therefore, your premise that negative precepts of the moral commandments are absolutes is not sound.

Incidentally, paragraph 81 gives a laundry list of intrinsically evil acts and, guess what, contraception is not one of them. I don’t think it slipped JPII’s mind as he discusses it in the very next paragraph which is replete with “wiggle room” for contraception. This makes sense, after all, because you never hear of a prayer vigil outside of a drugstore that sells condoms.

Rather than using the “cut and paste” approach to reply to the arguments I have put forth I would like to hear your response the real argument I proposed:

The difference between NFP and some (not all) of other methods of timing the birth of children and limiting family size amounts to artificial subjective constructs such a perceived ‘naturalness’ and the false supposition that people who use a method other than NFP are not open to the possibility of life

And just to curb the desire to stuff more straw men let us restrict the comparison to NFP vs. male condom.

Okay Go!

Excellent response…I was about to make the same observation action re the 5th Commandment.

And of course NFP is not to be justified on Naturalness grounds but for other more difficult arguments.

I tend to agree that some contracepting is not intrinsically evil. The Congo Nuns for example.

 

[Rau]

…I tend to agree that some contracepting is not intrinsically evil. The Congo Nuns for example.

Only “tend to agree” Blue? Is there any doubt? Wearing a chastity belt is not contraception, nor other actions to resist a rape or its natural consequences be that by heaving the offender off the woman’s body prior to ejaculation, attending a hospital for post-rape treatment (designed to prevent conception) or taking a contraceptive drug (non-abortifacients, if such exists) for fear of rape. These acts are simply not the act about which the Church teaches, and a rape is not the conjugal act the Church is addressing.

In the US, the Bishops have made explicit the post-rape treatments permissible in Catholic hospitals. The following article references them.
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html

Blue, I believe our interlocutor here will surely agree, but note he rejects the entirety of Catholic teaching concerning contraception - his view is that contraception “generally” is a moral act.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Only “tend to agree” Blue? Is there any doubt? Wearing a chastity belt is not contraception, nor other actions to resist a rape or its natural consequences be that by heaving the offender off the woman’s body prior to ejaculation, attending a hospital for post-rape treatment (designed to prevent conception) or taking a contraceptive drug (non-abortifacients, if such exists) for fear of rape. These acts are simply not the act about which the Church teaches, and a rape is not the conjugal act the Church is addressing.

In the US, the Bishops have made explicit the post-rape treatments permissible in Catholic hospitals. The following article references them.
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html

Blue, I believe our interlocutor here will surely agree, but note he rejects the entirety of Catholic teaching concerning contraception - his view is that contraception “generally” is a moral act.

Yes I agree our interlocutor is mistaken in being unable to distinguish NFP from usual contracepting behaviour. But he does make some good counter arguments against the less than robust arguments made by loyal Catholics.

My intuition is that the difficulty is more a matter of vocabulary than serious theological differences though I may be mistaken.

For example, regardless of the intended end of the Congo Nuns…there can be no doubt the objective means they chose to reach that end is rightly called “contracepting”.

However was this a “contraceptive human act”… clearly not because approval for this came from the top … albeit off the record to avoid scandal to those unable to understand the complex theological principles involved.

Ultimately such disordered contracepting, I believe, can be justified in the same way that killing (also a gravely disordered action) in self defence can sometimes be justified. That is, it is indirectly willed only. It is the direct willing that is always a morally evil human act.

 

[Rau]

Yes I agree our interlocutor is mistaken in being unable to distinguish NFP from usual contracepting behaviour. But he does make some good counter arguments against the less than robust arguments made by loyal Catholics.

My intuition is that the difficulty is more a matter of vocabulary than serious theological differences though I may be mistaken.

For example, regardless of the intended end of the Congo Nuns…there can be no doubt the objective means they chose to reach that end is rightly called “contracepting”.

However was this a “contraceptive human act”… clearly not because approval for this came from the top … albeit off the record to avoid scandal to those unable to understand the complex theological principles involved.

Ultimately such disordered contracepting, I believe, can be justified in the same way that killing (also a gravely disordered action) in self defence can sometimes be justified. That is, it is indirectly willed only. It is the direct willing that is always a morally evil human act.

But Blue, there is in fact no (moral) disorder in these various acts. And it’s the indirection that changes the moral object, e.g. It moves the loss of life to the Consequences, and sees the moral nature of the act changed.

The physical action does not “make” the “human act” that moral theology addresses. God’s design of our sexuality incorporates its procreative nature and removing that from a (freely chosen) sexual act is wrong, but aggression and violence and lack of choice change what is happening entirely - we no longer choose use of our sexual faculty, rather suffer it’s violation, and no respect is due to continuation of that violence represented by the progress of the violator’s semen. And whether insemination is achieved through intercourse or whether semen is inserted via turkey baster makes no difference to what is happening or the licit responses.

But better not to derail a thread about basic principles by getting too esoteric.

 

[Rau]

It should be noted that the commandment does not forbid the taking of life. Nor does another commandment forbid the stating of untrue facts. The commandments forbid murder (unlawful killing) and lying.

“Thou shall’t not murder” reflects the meaning. Murder is an act with explicit moral meaning and “putting to death” is not. The expression of the commandment in Hebrew (ratsakh) makes the distinction explicit. Were we Hebrew speakers, this debate would not arise.

So yes, the negative precepts of the law, when properly understood, are absolutes, as John Paul II teaches (re-iterates) in Veritatis Splendor.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But Blue, there is in fact no (moral) disorder in these various acts. And it’s the indirection that changes the moral object, e.g. It moves the loss of life to the Consequences, and sees the moral nature of the act changed.

The physical action does not “make” the “human act” that moral theology addresses. God’s design of our sexuality incorporates its procreative nature and removing that from a (freely chosen) sexual act is wrong, but aggression and violence and lack of choice change what is happening entirely - we no longer choose use of our sexual faculty, rather suffer it’s violation, and no respect is due to continuation of that violence represented by the progress of the violator’s semen. And whether insemination is achieved through intercourse or whether semen is inserted via turkey baster makes no difference to what is happening or the licit responses.

But better not to derail a thread about basic principles by getting too esoteric.

Excellent moral theology analysis and I fully agree!

The problem is most contributors here will see no significant difference between “contracepting” (which while chosen may only be indirectly so) and what the Church calls “a human act of contraception”.

They can look exactly the same to the senses but be very different in terms of objective moral matter and so too even in the objective disorders involved or not.

I believe this unaverted distinction may be at the heart of the debate here and if our interlocutor understood this subtle distinction in Church moral theology he would not be so quick to morally conflate use of NFP with use of artificial forms of contraception.
Or I may be completely wrong in trying to use this approach to explain his mistaken notion.

It may come down to semantics over what it means to physically contracept?
Is there any sense in which NFP can be physically called contracepting?

Perhaps…we are using knowledge of biological functioning to make sure deposited semen does not fertilise a viable egg.

That sounds like objective physical contraception technique to me.
But why is it not morally evil to choose to do so?

I suggest that because there is no intent to block the implicit teleology of the sexual act itself the moral intention to hopfully contracept by means of known and likely biological limits…becomes indirect contracepting as outlined above.

So it’s like killing in some cases of self defence. We do choose to kill, which action is bad, but
the overall moral act is not bad because the killing is indirectly chosen and no longer forms the intended “matter” of the moral act but only its unfortunate consequences.

Of course I am not saying contracepting is killing or even as grave as killing. I am simply talking about the same double effect principle and indirect choosing.

And what is the equivalent direct intention here that justifies choosing indirectly to contracept (in killing it may be the higher proportionate good of self defence)?

Well, the usual serious reasons the Church requires even for use of NFP. Spacing of children until such time as to stable economic or parental conditions are ensured for new children etc etc.

Choosing to use NFP simply to ensure living a luxurious parental lifestyle would not be a proportionate reason and consequently such use would be immoral…just as killing an attacker when they could have been disabled is not a licit killing.

 

[MichaelP3]

Can anyone give me the logic why Catholicism considers contraception a sin. A well known Catholic on YouTube made sense with his argument on YouTube.

I just saw this thread now.

Well anyway, I cannot even start why I feel what I feel. Please forgive me, and seriously understand my point, when I say it is one of the most ridiculous teachings.

 

[Rau]

Excellent moral theology analysis and I fully agree!

The problem is most contributors here will see no significant difference between “contracepting” (which while chosen may only be indirectly so) and what the Church calls “a human act of contraception”.

They can look exactly the same to the senses but be very different in terms of objective moral matter and so too even in the objective disorders involved or not.

I believe this unaverted distinction may be at the heart of the debate here and if our interlocutor understood this subtle distinction in Church moral theology he would not be so quick to morally conflate use of NFP with use of artificial forms of contraception.
Or I may be completely wrong in trying to use this approach to explain his mistaken notion.

It may come down to semantics over what it means to physically contracept?
Is there any sense in which NFP can be physically called contracepting?

Perhaps…we are using knowledge of biological functioning to make sure deposited semen does not fertilise a viable egg.

That sounds like objective physical contraception technique to me.
But why is it not morally evil to choose to do so?

I suggest that because there is no intent to block the implicit teleology of the sexual act itself the moral intention to hopfully contracept by means of known and likely biological limits…becomes indirect contracepting as outlined above.

So it’s like killing in some cases of self defence. We do choose to kill, which action is bad, but
the overall moral act is not bad because the killing is indirectly chosen and no longer forms the intended “matter” of the moral act but only its unfortunate consequences.

Of course I am not saying contracepting is killing or even as grave as killing. I am simply talking about the same double effect principle and indirect choosing.

And what is the equivalent direct intention here that justifies choosing indirectly to contracept (in killing it may be the higher proportionate good of self defence)?

Well, the usual serious reasons the Church requires even for use of NFP. Spacing of children until such time as to stable economic or parental conditions are ensured for new children etc etc.

Choosing to use NFP simply to ensure living a luxurious parental lifestyle would not be a proportionate reason and consequently such use would be immoral…just as killing an attacker when they could have been disabled is not a licit killing.

I’d concur with a proportion of that (which is unsettling enough, eh? ).

But what moral wrong is it to - say - seek to pursue the avoidance of children by sexual abstinence in marriage in order to pursue pursuits other than the raising of children? I’m not sure it would be right to label the wrong as “contraception”, at least not in accordance with the meaning of that term adopted by the Church. It would seem that the immorality lies in an evil intention (first font) - to frustrate (or avoid) the ends of marriage by persistent avoidance of something, rather than the removal of something from conjugal acts.

NFP cannot separate the elements of a conjugal act, and as that is what distinguishes contraception, I don’t see how the word can be applied properly to persons adopting NFP to defer/avoid conception.

 

[mvercimak]

A condom changes the sexual act; mutual masturbation changes the sexual act, the pill changes the sexual act - all deprive it of its procreative aspect which is intrinsic to the nature of the act.

How does a condom change the sexual act? At the risk of becoming too graphic the male sex organ is used in the same way as if the condom was not present. The female counterpart also functions in the same way. The failure rate of condoms (around 18%) attests to the fact that it does not deprive the sexual act of the procreative function it simply makes it less likely that procreation will occur. The act of timing your sexual encounters to coincide with times in the female menstrual cycle when the uterine environment is hostile to the implantation of a fertilized ovum ,[using your terminology], also ‘deprives the sexual act of its procreative function’. In fact the case may be made that concentrating sexual intercourse in the periods when the uterine environment not conducive to implantation actually increases the likelihood that precocious or tardy egg will be fertilized and the resulting zygote/blastocyst will encounter a non receptive uterine lining and not be able to achieve implantation. Thus the effective use of NFP actually creates a situation more akin to an IUD or the so called ‘morning after’ pill in which a developing embryo [which the church tells us is a new human being complete with soul] cannot implant and is terminated. The condom, on the other hand, contains the sperm and prevents the loss of an embryo as described above. In this respect the condom is actually morally superior to NFP.

The contention that the use of a condom “changes the sexual act” or “deprives it of its procreative function” are terms that do not reflect reality but rather the preconceived bias of their author who believes his linguistic labels provide justification for his position.

 

[ralfyman]

In case it was not yet mentioned, several points are raised here:

“Birth Control”

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

with related entries in the side bar of the page.

 

[Vico]

How does a condom change the sexual act? At the risk of becoming too graphic the male sex organ is used in the same way as if the condom was not present. The female counterpart also functions in the same way. The failure rate of condoms (around 18%) attests to the fact that it does not deprive the sexual act of the procreative function it simply makes it less likely that procreation will occur. The act of timing your sexual encounters to coincide with times in the female menstrual cycle when the uterine environment is hostile to the implantation of a fertilized ovum ,[using your terminology], also ‘deprives the sexual act of its procreative function’. In fact the case may be made that concentrating sexual intercourse in the periods when the uterine environment not conducive to implantation actually increases the likelihood that precocious or tardy egg will be fertilized and the resulting zygote/blastocyst will encounter a non receptive uterine lining and not be able to achieve implantation. Thus the effective use of NFP actually creates a situation more akin to an IUD or the so called ‘morning after’ pill in which a developing embryo [which the church tells us is a new human being complete with soul] cannot implant and is terminated. The condom, on the other hand, contains the sperm and prevents the loss of an embryo as described above. In this respect the condom is actually morally superior to NFP.

The contention that the use of a condom “changes the sexual act” or “deprives it of its procreative function” are terms that do not reflect reality but rather the preconceived bias of their author who believes his linguistic labels provide justification for his position.

In 1930, Pius XI said in Casti Cannubii, “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.”

According to Pope Emeritus Benedict, the “fixation on the condom” implies a trivialization of sexuality, resulting in sexuality being no longer seen as “an expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.”

Using the condom makes the act like masturbation, there is no proper contact of skin, and no proper deposit of fluid.

 

[Rau]

How does a condom change the sexual act? At the risk of becoming too graphic the male sex organ is used in the same way as if the condom was not present. The female counterpart also functions in the same way. The failure rate of condoms (around 18%) attests to the fact that it does not deprive the sexual act of the procreative function it simply makes it less likely that procreation will occur. The act of timing your sexual encounters to coincide with times in the female menstrual cycle when the uterine environment is hostile to the implantation of a fertilized ovum ,[using your terminology], also ‘deprives the sexual act of its procreative function’. In fact the case may be made that concentrating sexual intercourse in the periods when the uterine environment not conducive to implantation actually increases the likelihood that precocious or tardy egg will be fertilized and the resulting zygote/blastocyst will encounter a non receptive uterine lining and not be able to achieve implantation. Thus the effective use of NFP actually creates a situation more akin to an IUD or the so called ‘morning after’ pill in which a developing embryo [which the church tells us is a new human being complete with soul] cannot implant and is terminated. The condom, on the other hand, contains the sperm and prevents the loss of an embryo as described above. In this respect the condom is actually morally superior to NFP.

The contention that the use of a condom “changes the sexual act” or “deprives it of its procreative function” are terms that do not reflect reality but rather the preconceived bias of their author who believes his linguistic labels provide justification for his position.

The sexual act is, by its nature, ordered to the delivery of sperm to the female. If you logically conclude that that remains so while wearing a condom, it is unlikely that you will acknowledge any further explanation I can offer. The occasional or permanent naturally occurring infertility of the couple changes nothing about the ordering of the act.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’d concur with a proportion of that (which is unsettling enough, eh? ).

But what moral wrong is it to - say - seek to pursue the avoidance of children by sexual abstinence in marriage in order to pursue pursuits other than the raising of children? I’m not sure it would be right to label the wrong as “contraception”, at least not in accordance with the meaning of that term adopted by the Church. It would seem that the immorality lies in an evil intention (first font) - to frustrate (or avoid) the ends of marriage by persistent avoidance of something, rather than the removal of something from conjugal acts.

NFP cannot separate the elements of a conjugal act, and as that is what distinguishes contraception, I don’t see how the word can be applied properly to persons adopting NFP to defer/avoid conception.

Yes, quite unsettling .
I believe you are correct re marriage and abstinence. This seems to be a perfect moral analogy with sex and contracepting. Marriage itself can be said to becoming one flesh.
It is an analogical contraception to enduringly abstain perhaps.
The moral wrong is therefore likely analogical. That is, if there is no proportionate reason for frustrating the intrinsic teleology of marriage then the frustration becomes a direct intention and hence illicit.
Joseph and Mary did not sin…but perhaps for a number of reasons independent of the above double effect rationale.

1. Both were likely willing to pay the debt if the other asked…but neither did. So the end is willed even if not bodily executed. (Aquinas)
2. The sexual act is not the only means of fulfilling the marriage end…rearing of at lest one child (possibly by adoption) is enough (Aquinas).
3. A unique proportionate reason may be to protect the honour of Mary and care for the child of God rather than put her away. Sort of like those irregular marriages which are tolerated for the sake of the children.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How does a condom change the sexual act? At the risk of becoming too graphic the male sex organ is used in the same way as if the condom was not present. The female counterpart also functions in the same way. The failure rate of condoms (around 18%) attests to the fact that it does not deprive the sexual act of the procreative function it simply makes it less likely that procreation will occur. The act of timing your sexual encounters to coincide with times in the female menstrual cycle when the uterine environment is hostile to the implantation of a fertilized ovum ,[using your terminology], also ‘deprives the sexual act of its procreative function’. In fact the case may be made that concentrating sexual intercourse in the periods when the uterine environment not conducive to implantation actually increases the likelihood that precocious or tardy egg will be fertilized and the resulting zygote/blastocyst will encounter a non receptive uterine lining and not be able to achieve implantation. Thus the effective use of NFP actually creates a situation more akin to an IUD or the so called ‘morning after’ pill in which a developing embryo [which the church tells us is a new human being complete with soul] cannot implant and is terminated. The condom, on the other hand, contains the sperm and prevents the loss of an embryo as described above. In this respect the condom is actually morally superior to NFP.

The contention that the use of a condom “changes the sexual act” or “deprives it of its procreative function” are terms that do not reflect reality but rather the preconceived bias of their author who believes his linguistic labels provide justification for his position.

For Catholics moral right or wrong is primarily about human intention not bodily acts as such.

Because we are composites of body and soul and not angels…intentionality is not unrelated to bodily acts. Depending on the gravity of the bodily act and circumstances there is a complicated interplay between the sort of physical acts you over emphasise and the hard to discern intention likely “anchored” in that chosen bodily act.

The Catholic Church sees a qualitative intention "anchoring"difference in sexual activity whose inherent teleology is not interfered with as opposed to activity whose inherent teleology is thwarted.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It should be noted that the commandment does not forbid the taking of life. Nor does another commandment forbid the stating of untrue facts. The commandments forbid murder (unlawful killing) and lying.

“Thou shall’t not murder” reflects the meaning. Murder is an act with explicit moral meaning and “putting to death” is not. The expression of the commandment in Hebrew (ratsakh) makes the distinction explicit. Were we Hebrew speakers, this debate would not arise.

So yes, the negative precepts of the law, when properly understood, are absolutes, as John Paul II teaches (re-iterates) in Veritatis Splendor.

I missed this.
I don’t fully agree with this theological assessment that the 5th only forbids murder.
The 5th Commandment is best translated as “though shall not kill” in all its ambiguity.
The Magisterium prefers this translation…even unto the current CCC.
It is far more complex than an easy “Though shall not murder” solution…which is also reflected in Church history and the passive resistance tradition.
It is also interesting to note that priests and consecrated persons may not kill.

Personally I believe one may never directly choose to kill.
Capital punishment and self defence are situations where it is judged prudentially possible to do so indirectly. In recent years Popes have continuously taught that current conditions are such as to render indirectly intended death in CP impossible.

 

[Rau]

I missed this.
I don’t fully agree with this theological assessment that the 5th only forbids murder.
The 5th Commandment is best translated as “though shall not kill” in all its ambiguity.
The Magisterium prefers this translation…even unto the current CCC.
It is far more complex than an easy “Though shall not murder” solution…which is also reflected in Church history and the passive resistance tradition.
It is also interesting to note that priests and consecrated persons may not kill.

Personally I believe one may never directly choose to kill.
Capital punishment and self defence are situations where it is judged prudentially possible to do so indirectly. In recent years Popes have continuously taught that current conditions are such as to render indirectly intended death in CP impossible.

Interested in any authoritative references you can quote. I view Capital punishment as direct killing - a putting to death - which the commandment does not forbid. The sought after ends of the act rely on actual death; the death is not incidental or unintended. But it is not murder (given proper authority involved).

The commandment forbids unlawful killing (yes, that is wider than murder) which sounds both circular and self-evident. But there you are.

In self defence, certainly no act should be pursued because it will kill, but an act that will (in one’s belief) kill may be chosen. That can be described as indirect killing (and licit) so long as it was reasonably necessary in the course of defending oneself. [Note: the death is actually not required.]

I don’t mind which translation is preferred. An issue with thou shall try not “kill” is that it is misunderstood as a statement forbidding all acts which cause death. And then when it is explained that that is not what it means, someone will assert that “Tho shall’t not” can mean whatever we want…and then a case for consequentialism / proportionalism (without using those words) is made.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Interested in any authoritative references you can quote. I view Capital punishment as direct killing - a putting to death - which the commandment does not forbid. The sought after ends of the act rely on actual death; the death is not incidental or unintended. But it is not murder (given proper authority involved).

The commandment forbids unlawful killing (yes, that is wider than murder) which sounds both circular and self-evident. But there you are.

In self defence, certainly no act should be pursued because it will kill, but an act that will (in one’s belief) kill may be chosen. That can be described as indirect killing (and licit) so long as it was reasonably necessary in the course of defending oneself. [Note: the death is actually not required.]

I don’t mind which translation is preferred. An issue with thou shall try not “kill” is that it is misunderstood as a statement forbidding all acts which cause death. And then when it is explained that that is not what it means, someone will assert that “Tho shall’t not” can mean whatever we want…and then a case for consequentialism / proportionalism (without using those words) is made.

I think you may be fudging the translation point. The Church’s clear preference is neither murder nor try not to kill but clearly an absolute prohibition on killing.

This is not irreconcilable with either self defence nor CP if we understand, like contracepting, there are certain rare cases where an indirect intention can be licitly posited.

The CCC clearly says this is the case with Self Defence.
With CP your view of the possible licitness of direct intention is I accept still permissable as the Magisterium has not clearly settled this long debated matter theologically as it has for self defence.

However the high tide of this Medieval approach to CP turned long ago. It is clear from my above observations that a contextual constistancy is solidifying towards a justification of CP based purely on indirect intention.

That is, the death of a criminal is willed only for the protection of society at large, a form of state self defence. The consistent prudential judgement of recent Popes is that States can now afford incarceration for life so CP can no longer be justified.
If that truly is the sole reason for making such a prudential judgement…then it is clear they are already holding to the theology I have outlined above rather than to the licitness of Medieval retribution/punishment theology which allows direct killing by the State in God’s place.
The final evolution of this teaching I foresee will not be long off.
It will eventually be explicitly Magisterialy stated that CP can only be licit on the basis of indirect intention…ie a proportionality basis similar to lethal SD.

Either way I accept CP can never be called murder. The criminal is not innocent.
That does not intrinsically mean he may therefore be directly killed by the State.

 

[Rau]

I think you may be fudging the translation point. The Church’s clear preference is neither murder nor try not to kill but clearly an absolute prohibition on killing.

This is not irreconcilable with either self defence nor CP if we understand, like contracepting, there are certain rare cases where an indirect intention can be licitly posited.

The CCC clearly says this is the case with Self Defence.
With CP your view of the possible licitness of direct intention is I accept still permissable as the Magisterium has not clearly settled this long debated matter theologically as it has for self defence.

However the high tide of this Medieval approach to CP turned long ago. It is clear from my above observations that a contextual constistancy is solidifying towards a justification of CP based purely on indirect intention.

That is, the death of a criminal is willed only for the protection of society at large, a form of state self defence. The consistent prudential judgement of recent Popes is that States can now afford incarceration for life so CP can no longer be justified.
If that truly is the sole reason for making such a prudential judgement…then it is clear they are already holding to the theology I have outlined above rather than to the licitness of Medieval retribution/punishment theology which allows direct killing by the State in God’s place.
The final evolution of this teaching I foresee will not be long off.
It will eventually be explicitly Magisterialy stated that CP can only be licit on the basis of indirect intention…ie a proportionality basis similar to lethal SD.

Either way I accept CP can never be called murder. The criminal is not innocent.
That does not intrinsically mean he may therefore be directly killed by the State.

I think we agree on self-defence.

You acknowledge that the death of the criminal is in fact willed in CP, and for a particular (good) intention. That would seem to rule out indirect intention and settle the debate.

The Church correctly argues that CP is not intrinsically evil, and that it is “modern day circumstances” that enable morally superior alternatives - superior by virtue of more good and less harm in the consequences. [All that is prudential judgement being exercised by Church leaders.]. If a “State” knows that CP is excessive, then the killing is “unlawful killing” and intrinsically evil. [Somewhat akin to Aquinas pointing out that excessive force in self-defence is not licit.]. Of course in the CP case, it may be difficult to figure out upon whose conscience that wrong rests.

We need to be careful to not equate immorality judged by a consideration of all the fonts with the intrinsic evil inherent in acting contrary to the negative precepts of the law.

Of course Blue, I do concede you may in fact be leading the Magisterium in these matters.

 

[Rau]

Blue, You mentioned contraception in your prior post. When you say it is OK in rare cases, this begs the question of what is meant by “contraception”. It is not taught that it is always wrong to (say) “disable sperm en route to the ovum”. Such an act is contraception by the dictionary, for the dictionary uses the word to describe “action” rather than the far more nuanced “human act” of theology. * Post-rape treatment is not contraception (the human act which is forbidden) but is dictionary contraception. Nor is it contraception for the rape victim who cannot escape to beg the rapist to don a condom, or withdraw prior to ejaculation. These are not “exceptions” to the rule forbidding (the human act of) contraception, these are a different act.

My mind goes back to the Zika debate. A woman beset upon by a man demanding sex when the great unwisdom (lack of charity) of that act is clear (complete with mosquito bites to prove it) may resist that force. Even when that man is her miserable excuse for a husband. But can two lovers agree to don a condom so that they may enjoy a sexual encounter now without risk of a Zika baby? No. Nor to avoid Down’s syndrome nor myriad other risks. Why? Because that act is contraception, and its good intention does not change this.*