AmericanPapist Comments
Say, regarding the "life does not begin at conception" line - I do think it's worth noting the details of what Martini said. According to the CNA article you linked, he went on to refer to "ovocites at the state of two pronucleus." In other words - after the sperm has penetrated the egg - but before the sperm nucleus has fused with the egg nucleus to produce an actual zygote.
I don't see a problem there - though it's also wholly unclear what the practical relevance of his distinction would be.
I would also be interested in seeing more details of some of the other points that he's said to have made.
It'd be nice to have his exact and full remarks before making a lot of comments on him.
well, from other comments he made, it seems that he is saying "since this is not yet human life one can take measures to stop it finishing fertilization."
Even St. Thomas would say that killing something what WOULD LATER become a human life is a grave culpa.
Now, while killing something that is not YET human life is not as bad as killing human life, it's still a grave wrong, especially when one probably could not have moral certainty that ensoulment occurs at the END of fertilization (the fusing of the nuclei) and not sometime during the process (since we don't have a pronouncement on that to my knowledge).
Thoughts?
I just did a GoogleNews search for "pope benedict" ... the results are clogged with "jesuits" and "condoms"....
Yeah, Cardinal Martini's remarks have been picked up by almost 250 news sources at this point:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=e...ini&sa=N&
tab=wn
AP: Well, if that's the practical conclusion he's trying to suggest, then, yeah, I'd say that's wrong, based on the Thomistic argument you note.
I'd still like to see a translation of the full text of the interview or whatever it was. Trying to do much theological analysis/critique based on fragmentary quotations in news articles is a pain in the neck, and is somewhat perilous.
I agree completely - I want to see the translated text as well.
In the meantime, however, I'm responding to what the news sources are CLAIMING he said - if they are uncorrect, I'll eat my words about Martini but stand by what I've been saying against the positions on condom use, conception, etc., that have been mentioned as coming from him.
upon further consideration, I would also agree that ALL Martini's comments are not per se completely wrong - in a nuanced way (that most people won't be able to do) some of his comments can be taken as less wrong... i.e., he's stating positions that haven't been formally condemned are still within the purvey of theological debate.
However, saying things of this source in a public setting is extremely pastorally unresponsible - it creates scandal and confusion among the Christian faithful, and supports people who are not trying to live the Church's sexual teaching (as we've witnessed)... and that's what I'm most trying to witness against.
I don't have anything against Martini, he has all the earmarks of a fellow who is too old to care anymore about getting censured or anything... but he can still do damage because of his profile, and I hate seeing that happen... especially on such difficult questions as these...
AP: Oh, I agree. I just don't like seeing a possible baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. For instance, I do think the debate about condoms/HIV is legit. Understand that I'm skeptical about Martini's position. At the very least, I think there are extremely strong prudential reasons not to ever suggest condom use. And the critics might be right that it doesn't even work in principle. But when two Opus Dei priest-theologians (Rhonheimer and Rodriguez Luno) think that a position could be doctrinally legit and theologically sensible, as I've said elsewhere, I'm not going to dismiss it as simply impossible. And as for what he says about what's often called "embryo adoption," "even" Germain Grisez agrees with him. I'm no big Grisez fan, but, again, if he thinks that a position is admissible, then I'm not going to dismiss it.
Oh, I will add this: I have pretty much zero patience with what seem to be his suggestions that laws prohibiting abortion aren't very important, and that we shouldn't be too hard on people who commit euthanasia. Those strike me as more problematic than the other stuff of his that you've been mentioning.
Taking your second point first (regarding abortion/euthanasia issues). For developed countries, I agree these are perhaps more important. However, for third world countriest - particularly Africa, the condom/aids/hiv question is EXTREMELY important and there is a battle between the abstinence only/some condom usage/all condom usage camps... also, the condom question for developed countries - where people can take the exception to be the rule (i.e., condom use is okay sometimes - why not more often?) I think is a very important matter as well.
JP2 said contraception was even more fundamentally a root of the culture of death than abortion, and I would agree. We really have to toe the line here if we want to effect change, and let's face it: africa is the future of the Church. Cardinal Wampala's remarks on condom usage deserve more attention. I think his is the perfect model for effecting true cultural and spiritual change there.
As to your first point - yes, this is still an "open" question. However, Rhonheimer himself admits that he would instantly withdraw his position should the vatican rule against him ... his tact is one of "the best argument seems to be X"... I don't agree with him personally. For one, he says he is NOT invoking the principle of double effect, and instead takes condom usage to be a "premoral" choice in this situation. I don't think you can choose condoms as "premoral" - they have an intrinsic nature against procreation and the unitive nature of sex which acting persons cannot ingore.... (that's the start of my reservations.)
I haven't analyzed the grisez question re: embryo adoption, so I'm not qualified to make a comment on that.
I agree. Condemning contraception has a primary place over condemning abortion. Contraception turns sex into the lie that needs to have the appropriate "undo" button in case you "accidentally" conceive.
But it looks like we really do not have to worry about this Cardinal at all because, as you can see from the magazine cover, he has been shrunk down to sub-microscopic size!
Seriously, what is the connection between the double helix and what his controversy?
hehe.
AP: Yes, I agree about the great importance of the condoms issue. My point was just that what he said about abortion/euthanasia struck me as more clearly at odds with the established teaching of the Church.
And I also agree that Rhonheimer's caution - that he'd withdraw his argument if the Church taught the contrary - is entirely correct.
I'm not sure that the "premoral" position can be neatly distinguished from a "double effect" argument. In other words, his view seems to be that "putting on a condom" isn't, per se, a human act - no one just "puts on a condom," absent some proximate intention ("to prevent pregnancy"; "to prevent HIV transmission"). But, precisely for that reason, even though one of the effects of the act will inevitably be the prevention of pregnancy, that effect might sometimes be praeter intentionem. Whereupon we come back to double-effect reasoning.
Put differently: Having a hysterectomy likewise has an "intrinsic nature against procreation." But a woman who has a hysterectomy because she has uterine cancer isn't doing something contraceptive. "Having a hysterectomy" isn't a human act - isn't a "moral object." R. seems to be saying that "putting on a condom" is analogous.
(Or, similarly, taking "the Pill" likewise has an "intrinsic nature against procreation" - but a woman taking it to deal with some medical problem like endometriosis isn't doing something contraceptive, etc.)
Of course, I understand that a lot of people are objecting that even if using a condom to prevent HIV transmission isn't "contraceptive," it's still wrong because it in some other (more basic) way is at odds with the meaning of the marital act. And that's entirely possible. But my point is just that one shouldn't rule out of bounds the argument that it isn't.
All that said, I would reiterate that I'm still very skeptical about the "pro-condom" view, especially because advising condom use strikes me as very imprudent, and in multiple ways.
Re-posting what I said over at "Open Book" - sorry about that:
I'm trying to understand the reasoning here in a succinct and correct manner.
So, here goes.
Contraception is wrong because it frustrates the procreative dimension of the marital act.
However, in a situation where one spouse has contracted HIV, the unitive dimension has *already* been somewhat frustrated by the presence of HIV, because of the possibility of transmitting a life-threatening disease.
So, the principle of double effect comes into play. The condom, in that situation, is there not to prevent pregnancy but to protect against the disease, but has the side effect of preventing pregnancy. Is that how it would break down, double-effect wise?
I know that was sloppy but I wanted to post before heading off to Mass...
I'm not sure what I think about all of this. I do agree with Kevin Miller that it was pastorally irresponsible to start talking about this before any official statement from Benedict himself.
I also don't see how this could possibly be stated as just applying in the case of HIV infection. It seems like this will open up a Pandora's box of "how serious do the symptoms of an STD have to be in order for condoms to be licit?" But, perhaps, as long as it is clarified that *pregnancy* is not to be treated as an STD, a consistent ethic that allows condom usage might be possible.
The principle of double effect, in this case, would seem to go more like this:
The couple wants to CHOOSE the GOOD of marital union and CHOOSE the good of saving the spouse from the danger of a life-threatening disease.
In choosing to protect the spouse by using a condom they accept the contraceptive side effects of using a condom.
However, I don't think this really holds up, because one must really choose the means to an act, and so the couple really are choosing to use a condom (even though it is part of a wider act - marital union and preventing disease).
It's like you can't save someone's life without amputating a leg sometimes. Yes, you can amputate that leg but you REALLY choose to amputate it (here it's part of a larger good - saving the life). You really can weigh a leg vs. the entire life.
However, I don't think you can dismiss the intrisic evil of a condom (because of its intrinsic disordered effects on the unitive/procreative nature of the human sexuala act) even if that condom is used to prevent the spread of disease.
As you say, it can open up a Pandora's box. But it's not only because of the "bad effects" that I think it is wrong.
Oh, and a final note: as I've mentioned elsewhere. Rhonheimer himself says that he is NOT invoking the principle of double effect for his arguments FOR condom use for married couples.
However, I don't think this really holds up, because one must really choose the means to an act, and so the couple really are choosing to use a condom (even though it is part of a wider act - marital union and preventing disease).
Well, of course they're choosing to use a condom. But, of course also, choosing to do x is not equivalent to choosing (in the fully morally relevant sense) all of the effect of x. That's what makes double-effect reasoning possible in general - some effects of an act can be praeter intentionem. And I think a case can be made that the "contraceptive" effect of condom use can be praeter intentionem.
The question then becomes whether it is in fact the case that condom use is somehow in itself at odds with the meaning of the marital act - even if/when it isn't "contraceptive" in an intentional sense.
but not only contraceptive - but contra-unitive. remember, the Church doesn't says each act has to be open to procreation... even if the woman isn't fertile, if the man is sterile, etc.
however, a condom is not only contraceptive, but also anti-unitive, because it witholds the man's semen ... that's another part of the condom's effects that I don't see being mentioned very often... william may makes this point in his letter I believe.
let me clarify something I said: "the Church doesn't says each act has to be open to procreation"
... that's not the right way to put that. each act must be open to procreation. however, we know that all sex isn't by nature capable of generating new life, nonetheless one may still "use the marital right" so to speak...
however, a condom is not only contraceptive, but also anti-unitive, because it witholds the man's semen
And that's the argument I was alluding to in the final paragraph of my previous comment. The question is whether the argument is correct. It's plausible, but it's - legitimately, I think - disputed.
okay, fair enough.
looks like we all get to play the waiting game now. :)
Right. "Documents and rumors of documents," as the old saying goes.
Hohum, anything to avoid having kids. What have we come to?
Shut this cardinal up--he's a nuisance and he may know philosophical distinctions but he obviously doesn't get that condoms fail. Often. There are thousands of folks around to prove it.
As much as I disagree with Martini's comments, he is a physically-failing (parkinsens) prince of the church who is retired and (for the most part) living quietly in Jerusalem.
Perhaps a bit more respect would be in order when talking about what he should do, yes?
No matter how much we disagree with someone, we should always do it with charity.
oh - that post was by me, btw, for some reason it didn't register my username.
Also you might want to consider that when you are amputating a leg to save somebody you have to make a choice (a life vs losing a limb) and there are no other way out. In the case of marital relations with a spouse that has HIV there isn't the same kind of dilemma. After all you can abstain and avoid the problem altogether so I don't see how you can justify using a condom. The condom argument might make sense if marital relations were obligatory and even a matter of life and death for a couple but that is not the case. There are people that lost their genitals due to some accident etc... And what solution do they have? The carry their cross, and so is it with people that have HIV. I guess the problem is today people don't want to sacrifice for the greater good (though I know this is not an easy choice).
Commenting by HaloScan
