Michael,
I hope you are wrong when you say "But I rather doubt he's going to take sides in this debate." There are certainly times when it is prudent for the Pope to let the arguments "grind against one another". But this is literally an issue of life and death for many people, where there is real honest disagreement between Catholic theologians and between Catholic bishops. Surely this is a case where the Pope has a duty to settle the question if ever there was one? It's not easy for him, but then it's not a pleasant job.
Michael:
I think you are probably correct in your prediction. My suspicion is that some, even within the Vatican, are "ginning this up" for their own purposes.
On this question, the facet that intrigues me is the exact moral questions involved in using (non-abortive) contraceptives outside the marital embrace. I.e., when the Church emphasizes keeping marital acts open to the transmission of life, how does this apply in the case of fornication?
The best answer I've gotten came from my classmate, Father Larry Gearhart, who argued that contraception, even in fornication, represented a further distortion and dehumanization of the act.
(Before I forget, I should advise you, I saw among your ads something promoting "Frances Kissling" and "Catholics for a Free Choice" -- I'm sure you don't want that.)
Thank you, Michael, for bringing raising this issue. I hope it will generate some substantive discussion. I'd like to see the arguments critically examined.
Clearly this is a difficult, complex issue that demands extensive debate. As George (above) says, lives are at stake.
"The issue is whether condom use for the sake of disease prevention within marriage is an instance of contraception,"
Isn't there also an issue as to whether intercourse with a condom even rises to the level of a marital act. Suppose a woman has had a total hysterectomy and the partners use a condom to "enhance" the experience. Here there is no question of contraceptive intent. I would contend that what they are doing is no more a marital act than mutual masturbation or anal intercourse. To put it another way, the use of a condom is not only anit-procreative it is also anti-unitive. The couple do not become one flesh in condomistic intercourse.
Doesn't this come down to the question of what sort of act consummates a marriage? Hasn't that been settled to be the ejaculation of semen into the vagina?
I wonder how important it is for the Vatican to pronounce a judgment on this issue. How many women are there whose husbands have AIDS and know it and insist on intercourse and are willing to wear a condom and have access to condoms and are practicing Catholics? Is it not better to deal with these situations pastorally? Aren't there established practices covering people who do not wish to contracept but whose spouses practice it or insist on practicing it?
George:
My hunch is that the Pope will merely set limits to pastoral practice on this topic, rather than altogether ruling out condoms for prophylaxis. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this—if you'll pardon the pun. 
Al:
Thank you for the support. I hope to see more of that debate.
Fr. Fox:
The Google ads are generated by a program called "AdSense," which combs the posts and seeks as far as possible to present ads relevant to the topics. Usually that presents no problem. But as long as I use AdSense I have no control over what it comes up with, and sometimes it comes up with stuff I disagree with. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the bottom of the ad column.
As for the theology cited in your comment, I do not agree with it. Since non-marital intercourse is already seriously immoral, one does not make it more so by trying to limit the damage.
Charles:
I agree with you.
Charles,
I agree with you too. I had almost been swayed by the counter- argument, but the pithy definition of "conjugal marital act" jarred me back to my senses. I owe you a great debt. The response you gave I make my own.
I wonder how important it is for the Vatican to pronounce a judgment on this issue.
I also wonder if sufficient ethical reflection has occurred to justify intervention by the Vatican. Clearly this is a matter that needs to be analyzed, discussed, and debated by Catholics around the world. Unless the issue is clear-cut---and if Mike is correct, it isn't---then there is something to be said about allowing local bishops and pastors to address the matter pastorally.
Anyone who defends the use of condoms for any reason is committed to saying the follwing statement is true:
"The ejaculation of semen into a womans vagina is not necessary for a morally licit sexual act"
That, to me, is the last word. The debate is over.
Michael, Charles:
I think there's an interesting question here, potentially very fruitful (pardon the pun).
Yes, no question, Church teaching in this area is generally (exclusively?) couched in terms of "marital" and "conjugal" acts, so by definition, fornication and adultery, not to mention sodomy of all types, are neither "marital" nor "conjugal."
Yes, but (and here my haste will hobble the refinement of my expression) . . .
No, not marital or conjugal because...their not: the parties aren't married to each other, or they aren't unitive/procreative acts (i.e., unnatural acts, for pleasure but with no proper completion).
But, in another sense, they are: that is, the proper orientation of the sexual drive, is marital/conjugal, and so the carrying out of sexual behavior triggers that "programming," as it were; ergo, the misuse of it is a misuse--and thus, gradually, a distortion--of that "programming." Also, the couple that copulates (how about that wordplay) performs acts that are in themselves, "marital" and "conjugal," even though the lack of marriage between them is, obviously, a "fatal error."
The point I'm making badly is that the sin of intercourse outside marriage doesn't vitiate the intrinsic qualities of the act per se, and the couple ends up experiencing, illicitly, some dimension of the goodness and reality of that act. Of course the act, to be what it is meant to be, requires they be married (to each other) and other proper intentions and circumstances, but the act in itself has a certain quality, regardless, which is conjugal/marital -- that quality isn't "supplied" by the parties, if you will.
And this is where contraception, even in these sinful, extramarital couplings, is a problem, because it represents a further distortion.
The example would be a couple engaging in pre-marital sex. Assume they will, ultimately, marry each other, and despite the harms caused by their sin prior to marriage, with the help of grace and repentance, they get on the right path in marriage. Would their using contraception in the pre-marital phase have no great significance -- specifically morally, and more generally, in how they understand and realize the meaning of the acts they are engaged in prematurely?
I haven't decided what I think of this argument, but I find it interesting. I hope my verbosity has been helpful and will stimulate thought.
(In the foregoing, I am simply sidestepping the abortifacient aspect of contraception, because I think we all know that's a non-starter in every way; the question is about non-baby-killing methods...)
Shulamite:
I think you're missing the point of the liberal argument.
Everybody who's posted here so far accepts the irreformable teaching of the Church that contraceptive acts are intrinsically immoral. But what, exactly, counts as a contraceptive act? As I understand the teaching, a contraceptive act is one that is either of an inherently non-procreative sort, such as sodomy or masturbation, or embodies an intention to block conception that might otherwise occur. The question then becomes: is vaginal intercourse with prophylactic condom use a contraceptive act by that definition?
I should say not—at least not necessarily. It is of course possible, and in some cases even likely, that a couple in which one party has AIDS would use condoms prophylactically while at the same time intending their contraceptive effect. Decent people, after all, don't want to transmit AIDS to potential children. If that is part of the couple's intention, then condom use is wrong for them even if also prophylactic. But if it is not, then such use isn't wrong for them. Or so I would say, following Martini and Rhonheimer. It might be wrong for some other reason, but that hasn't been discussed much.
Best,
Mike
Fr. Fox:
If a couple are copulating outside of marriage, then they are already telling a lie with their bodies. Theyi don't make the lie bigger by using condoms prophylactically, though they would be if they intended the contraceptive effect.
Best,
Mike
Mr Liccione,
You say I am missing the point. Maybe. I miss a whole lot of points. But is my argument wrong?
I'll put up a more formal account of my argument on my own blog. I can't avoid the need to be a bit graphic.
My initial reaction is that double effect does not apply to condom use even though the primary intention is to prevent a std. A spouse may intend to take medication or have surgery with the intent that the treatment will cure some condition while the treatment has the side effect of causing temporary or permanent sterility. That's classic double effect. The act itself, taking medicine or surgery is licit. However, the act of wearing a condom during sexual intercourse is illicit no matter what the intent is.
What if both partners have the HIV virus may they use a condom in order to prevent pregnancy because their intent is to prevent their possible child from contracting the disease?
Michael,
No matter how hard I try to understand the "liberal" side in this debate over condoms in AIDS cases, I just can't see how it is legitimate. Again, I have never seen an application of the principle of double effect in which both choices produced bad ends. In other words, they seem to be "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.
A typical application of the principle of double effect is defending oneself against an attacker, and perhaps in the process the victim kills the attacker. If the victim does not fight back, he dies; if he tries to defend himself, he risks killing the other person. Or, a pregnant woman gets cancer in the uterus, and needs to get it removed or she will die. However, removing the uterus will kill the baby. In both of these situations, the principle of double effect seems to apply: we have to make the best out of a bad situation.
However, does the principle of double effect apply if it is patently obvious if the victim can just walk away from his attacker, or if the mother can safely take her child to term before getting the cancer removed? If it is possible to get a good resolution to the problem without the unintended side effects, then why should we choose the lesser option?
The condom/AIDS situation seems no different that the situations I outlined in my previous paragraph: in this situation, there is only one option with bad consequences, and that is the severing of the marital act from procreation for the sake of protecting one's spouse. However, one can protect one's spouse just as easily by abstaining from sexual intercourse in the first place.
In addition, I get highly uneasy any time someone suggests that sex between spouses can somehow be separated from the production of children. Whether it is intended or not, the use of condoms to protect against AIDS prevents the conception of children. It seems to be like a catch 22: every marital act must at least be open to the production of children, and yet by its very nature all contraceptive sex prevents that very thing. No matter what the couples intentions regarding disease prevention are, it seems absurd to me that any sort of sex with a condom leaves the couple open to the possibility of children. If I am ever going to think about "coming around" to the so-called liberal position, someone is going to have to explain how contraceptive sex can ever be open to the possiblity of having children (a successful argument would be a necessary, not sufficient condition of me coming around).
Correction: in paragraph #1: I have never seen an application of the principle of double effect in which both choices DIDN'T produce bad ends. Yay for proofreading!
Michael L: "My hunch is that the Pope will merely set limits to pastoral practice on this topic, rather than altogether ruling out condoms for prophylaxis. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this—if you'll pardon the pun." Surely the people who plausibly maintain that it is in all circumstances wrong to choose to engage in sex with a condom when abstinence is also an option are either right or they are wrong? If they are right and this is not generally known, souls are put at risk; if they are wrong then lives are put at risk. Either way, it's important to know.
Charles Williams: "How many women are there whose husbands have AIDS and know it and insist on intercourse and are willing to wear a condom and have access to condoms and are practicing Catholics?" Rather a lot I suspect, given the high incidence of both AIDS and Catholicism in sub-Saharan Africa.
"Is it not better to deal with these situations pastorally?" Not if pastors are so divided that you might as well toss a coin.
"Aren't there established practices covering people who do not wish to contracept but whose spouses practice it or insist on practicing it?" Yes, and I think this is a situation where there is fairly wide agreement among orthodox priests, unlike what we are discussing.
Al Kimel: "I also wonder if sufficient ethical reflection has occurred to justify intervention by the Vatican." Certainly I wish there had been more ethical reflection. But sometimes I think the man in charge has just got to make a decision even though the circumstances are not ideal. In this case at least he can count on the help of the Holy Spirit.
Phil and Paul:
You're both assuming that condom use makes the conjugal act a contraceptive act, which begs the question because that is precisely what's at issue. Obviously, condom use has a contraceptive effect, whatever may actually be intended. But what would make the conjugal act in such a case a contraceptive act, as distinct from an act that has a foreseen but unintended contraceptive effect, would be the intention of contraception. I don't think that intent is present in the case I considered in my post.
Paul:
Your critique also assumes that abstinence for as long as AIDS threatens would not be a "bad" choice. Since you're in seminary and I've been married twice, let me assure you as gently as I can that most married people, including most faithful Catholic married people, would not see the matter as you do. Permanent or semi-permanent celibacy is desirable when consecrated as part of a special vocation; but it is undesirable as part of the ordinary sacrament of marriage. Circumstances sometimes arise in which a couple is morally obligated all the same to be celibate, even though that's not what people marry for; but whether that's so in this case is, again, precisely what's at issue.
Phil:
If the Pope does rule in the direction I predicted he won't, I think that would be because, for the reason you suggest, it's very difficult in practice for a couple using condoms for prophylaxis not to also intend it for contraception. He may just rule that, while it's conceivable to use condoms licitly for prophylaxis alone, in practice that's rarely what happens, so that condom use is to be avoided as a matter of pastoral realism. If that's the reasoning we end up seeing, I would have no problem accepting it.
Best,
Mike
Michael could you divulge further how sodomy and masturbation are inherently non-procreative, but using a condom may not? I can't get it through my head how the husband ejaculating into a condom which is inside his wife's vagina is in any way less contraceptive than the wife manually stimulating her husband to orgasm. Both cases are distortions of the marital act no matter the intention of the parties.
Ken:
Vaginal intercourse between spouses is the procreative sort of act; sodomy and masturbation are not. When the generative process is intentionally interrupted, vaginal intercourse is made non-procreative and thus the same sort of act, morally speaking, as sodomy or masturbation. The only question at issue here is whether prophylactic use of a condom puts vaginal intercourse on that moral level merely because it has a contraceptive effect. As I've said before, I would say not because the contraceptive effect is intended neither as an end nor as a means to the legitimate end.
We distinguish all the time between acts and their effects. But that line is elastic, and in some cases fairly arbitrary, unless the act itself be characterized in terms of the intention it embodies. That's all I'm doing here.
Best,
Mike
Mike, thanks for the discussion. Disclosure: I'm a Gormally-ite: my paper on this is on AmericanPapist.
Re. your reply to Ken above: "The only question at issue here is whether prophylactic use of a condom puts vaginal intercourse on that moral level merely because it has a contraceptive effect."
My response to this is: Prophylactic use of the condom certainly reduces vaginal intercourse to something other than the marital act. It's no longer "intercourse" or "sex" as the Church has always understood these terms canonically and theologically. And this is not because of the contraceptive effect. It's because [and this position has always been such] that for sex to occur, this must happen: the man must deposit something of his substance - genital fluid, fertile or not - in the due vessel of the woman by the natural means. The Church sees the sexual act in the context of gift giving and receiving. No gift, no sex. The condom removes the gift, so there is no donation or reception. So, condomistic intercourse may have climax, it may have ejaculation, it may have the organs in the right place. But what it lacks is the necessary element of deposition (or giving, to use a nicer word).
If condomistic intercourse were indeed sex, then what exactly is the definition of "sexual intercourse"? [A question I've never seen answered by Fr Rhonheimer.] Why would men who can achieve a climax in the vagina and yet can't express genital fluids be classed as impotent, as they always have been, and forbidden to marry? And why does this act have to occur in the vagina? What's wrong with artificial insemination by the husband? There you have a patently generative act: the husband, desperat to achieve conception masturbates, or ejaculates into a condom(or practices coitus interruptus) and then obtains and places the semen high up the woman's tract by artificial means. Isn't this a "generative" act? My response is yes, but not THE generative act required by the Church (and Natural Law) - the act which deposits from the substance of the male.
I think the whole contraceptive/procreative side of this debate is a little distracting. It's the unitive good which condoms always deny, even when they are used for non-contraceptive motives. They deny the union because by trapping the semen they prevent the spouses from truly expressing their union.
I'm also in disagreement about extra-marital sex and condoms. Fornicating couples sin against the sixth commandment as such. If HIV transmission is a threat, then the fifth commandment is also at stake. But, if the above analysis is correct, to use a condom even prophylactically is to turn an act of sexual intercourse that's forbidden in the circumstances into an even more grave violation of the sixth commandment - an unnatural act, an act of pseudo-sex. Such as sodomy, bestiality, etc - and, I submit, condomistic intercourse - are regarded by Aquinas (and traditional moral theologians) as more gr
grave violations of the sixth commandment than grave violations such as fornication or adultery. Traditional theology has never allowed that we may turn an already grave violation into an even grave one in order to stop the act being one which as it stands violates another commandment of the decalogue. [And translating this into the marital context mutatis mutandis: traditional theology would never permit the conversion of an act of genuine spousal intercourse into a species of lust of the most grave order so that the act is thereby no longer a violation of the fifth commandment.]
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Mike, I think you are conflating the "intentionalness of the thing you are doing and the further intention or accompanying intention"(Anscombe - "Contraception and Chastity"). Sexual intercourse in which one of the spouses uses a barrier is an intentional contraceptive act no matter what the couple's further or accompanying intention might be.
Mike: I'm pleased to see the lucid contribution from my old colleague Hugh.
To try to frame the whole discussion in terms of 'contraception', as you seem to have done, is a mistake. Sodomy and oral sex are not contraceptive acts, but they are acts which in virtue of their very behavioural pattern are inapt for the generation of offspring.
In my debate with Rhonheimer I readily agreed with him that it is possible for a married couple not to have a contraceptive intent if they engage in condomistic copulation (though for fertile couples there is likely also to be contraceptive intent). What I argued was that condomistic copulation was a form of unnatural vice, because in its intentional behavioural pattern it was per se inapt for generation. It is a basic requirement in the Church's teaching that for intercourse to be marital it must be the kind of act "which is suitable in itself for the procration of offspring" [Code of Canon Law, #1061.1] Condomistic copulation in the vagina is no more vaginal intercourse (as you seem to think) than sodomy is. Vaginal intercourse requires an ejaculate into the vagina not into a latex rubber sheath.
I'm amazed at you coming out in support of Martini, who recommends condomistic copulation as "the lesser evil". Since the Church has never allowed that one may recommend the choice of any morally evil course of action, are we to assume that he is in the proportionalist business of calculating 'pre-moral' evils? On that approach to moral choice see Veritatis Splendor.
Best wishes,
Luke Gormally.
Phil:
Your latest comment certainly indicates the core of our disagreement, but I think you've only stated your side of it rather than having presented an argument for it. If, as I maintain, there is no contraceptive intent at all here, then the question whether there's any further "intention with which" one has condomistic intercourse is irrelevant to the question whether the act itself is contraceptive.
Best,
Mike
Hugh and Luke:
Many thanks for contributing here! I hadn't expected such august company.
The line of argument you're pursuing here is indeed different from the one against which I had been defending Rhonheimer and Martini. I had taken the latter as the more important, but perhaps I was mistaken. It's certainly the one I more commonly encounter. But as I cannot do justice to yours in the combox, I shall create a new post for my reply.
Best,
Mike
Although the argument that "condomistic sex can never be justified by AIDS because it is equivalent to masturbation" seems to be about the most effective argument going against the use of condoms against AIDS, it also seems to me to be one of the most worrying. My understanding is that for the last few decades, orthodox priests have been advising Catholics married to someone who insists on using contraception to go along with this, if that's the only way of not endangering the marriage. If the contraceptive-sex-is-equivalent -to-masturbation argument is right, then these orthodox priests are wrong. (Since I really can't imagine masturbation being right in any circumstances).
This is all too complicated for my small brain. I really really want our brilliant Pope to come up with some answers.
Michael,
I have to admit I still don't understand the concept. As far as I can understand the Church teaches that the use of a condom is wrong for married couples. But, possibly because one partner is HIV+ it would be okay (or however you want to phrase it) to use a condom to prevent infection of the other partner. The intent of the use of the condom is to prevent infection, not contraception. My argument is that if this is okay, then why not manual stimulation for this same couple? Their intent is not contraception, but preventing the spread of a terrible disease. I would also argue that my example could probably be a safer alternative to the condom, hell pass out rubber gloves.
Michael Liccione is absolutely right. People with AIDS are exempt from the Moral Law. Nothing says I love you like a 99% chance I won't give you AIDS. That's an image of the Holy Trinity if I've ever seen one.
I think that Paul Hamilton already settled this matter properly. "Double-effect" only comes into play as an excuse (if you will) when there is no unquestionably morally licit means to the same effect. When it comes to HIV prevention, however, abstinence is even more effective than condoms, and entirely licit. It may well be unpleasant, but that is beside the point from the double-effect argument's standpoint. Dr. L's approach, as such, is a complete non-starter, however well it may play among those who really, really want the Church's teaching to be other than it is. Incidentally, I am a happily married man, never in seminary in my life, so it will not do to brush me aside with a "you celibate's just can't understand..."
Let me try to articulate the anti-condom poaition in another way:
1.) Sex needs certain things; e.g. it needs a woman.
2.) Sex completes when something comes out of a man.
Q.) Does what comes out need to go INTO any particular thing?
The pro-condom position is committed to saying "no". It can go into a woman or into a bag, but it need not go into any particular thing.
Michael,
Let me start off by saying that I simply do not buy any sort of "pastoral" argument as counting against my relatively hard stance on contraception. I am well aware that I am a naive, idealistic seminarian who has nearly no life experience, especially in marital or sexual issues. However, any sort of claim that the "liberal" position is somehow pastoral is begging the question. The only reason I am opposing contraception is for pastoral reasons: if I care for the souls of my future flock, I want to make sure that they go to heaven. If I am right about contraception, then I don't see how allowing contraception in the case of AIDS is pastoral at all. Therefore, I don't exactly see pastoral arguments as persuasive in this case.
Now, about the discussion at hand. I do not think I am begging the question about contraception. In order for a marital act to be in line with God's plan for sex, it is a necessary condition that the couple be open to new life. It is not begging the question to ask how placing a condom in between the spouses allows that condition. Whether it is directly intended or not, contraception is the effect.
I have been toying with a baseball analogy. Why? Because I like baseball. There are no outs, a runner on first, and it's the bottom of the ninth. I come to the plate, and my job is to get the runner over to second base. There are several good ways of doing the job, but my coach and I decide on a hit and run. Since I am right-handed, I am going to hit the ball to the right side of the field so that I will hit the second-baseman's side so that when he covers the bag on the stealing attempt, he will not be in position to cover his position.
Anyway, I get up to bat, and I bat with an open stance. The problem with an open stance is that it aims all balls to either left or center field. I hit the ball on the ground like I am suppose to do, but I am unable to hit to the right side because of the way my feet are positioned.
Do you think my coach is going to be happy with what I did? I don't think my coach is going to care what I was intending to do because no matter what my stated intentions were, my actions prevented me from doing the job I set out to do.
To relate this to this debate, I do not see how placing a condom between two spouses keeps the act open to life. I don't care if their primary and only explicit intention is to prevent AIDS from being passed on to their spouse: the means of acheiving the end of being open to new life have been directly compromised. To use a law analogy, I do not consider this an act of malice, but an act of gross negligence.
And I do not consider it question begging to say that condoms prevent new life from taking place. I am not talking about the intentions of the couple here: I am talking about a brute fact here. Condoms prevent conception. That's what they are made for, and they do a good job.
The library is closing now. I ha
Well, from medical history I know many situations when women in the "infertile" period, e.g. during menstruation are susceptible to urinary infections. In such cases married couples practice coitus interruptus equivalent to use of condoms not avoid conception, but infections caused by an additional nutrient-rich medium for bacteria. Theoretically, they should abstain at such times. Practically, if the couple doesn't want to have more children and tries to avoid infections, it should pretty much abstain for 3 out of 4 weeks in the cycle. Needless to say, that in such cases most catholic couples make their own judgement based on conscience rather than rigid rules.
website make money website make money website make money // motorcycle insurance online motorcycle insurance online motorcycle insurance online
Commenting by HaloScan
