Modern Heresies On Contraception

[kafka]

just finished reading this little article on Modern Heresies on Contraception, by Conte. Sort of timely in light of the controversy. Conte is an example of a good Catholic moral theologian:

the blog post:
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/jimmy-akin-heresy-contraception/

"I’ve now completed and posted a new article on moral theology, refuting certain heretical errors on the topic of contraception:

Modern Heresies on Contraception
A refutation of Jimmy Akin’s heretical errors on contraception and marriage
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/heresy-on-contraception.htm

Although many persons hold to these particular heretical errors, Jimmy Akin is prominent among those who not only hold, but also teach and promote these heresies."


the article is linked above after the title. I also recommend Conte's 700 plus page work, A Catechism of Catholic Ethics which I read cover to cover. There are four chapters in that book which are particularly relevent in light of the recent controversy the media fabricated from Pope Benedict's words and all the modern errors and heresies and misunderstandings being spread today concerning Catholic sexual ethics.

These are:

22. Abortion and Contraception
23. Assisted Reproductive Technology
24. Sexual Sins
25. Marital Sexual Ethics

http://www.catechism.cc/ethics/index.htm

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Akin says:
[quote]That's actually a fairly narrow statement. It doesn't even address all situations that may arise in marriages, because there may be situations in which the law of double effect would allow the toleration of a contraceptive effect as long as this is a side effect of the action rather than being intended as a means or an end.[/quote]
To give him the benefit of the doubt, could he be referring to the use of the pill for non-contraceptive uses (as it is often prescribed, for better or worse) or a hysterectomy in combating disease?

[Brother Adam]

Wrong Thread.

[kafka]

[quote name='thedude' timestamp='1290581239' post='2189006']
Akin says:

To give him the benefit of the doubt, could he be referring to the use of the pill for non-contraceptive uses (as it is often prescribed, for better or worse) or a hysterectomy in combating disease?
[/quote]
I'm not going to argue whether or not a person should be given the benefit of the doubt. Conte has Akin's article linked in his article so his readers can make a decision. I posted the article because it is a good primer for understanding the intrinsic evil of all contraception without exception.

I will use your two examples tonight and explain them in detail from an ethical standpoint as an exercise, for the benefit of all here including myself: use of the pill and hysterectomy. The law of double effect can never change the inherent order or direction of a deliberately chosen act, so Akin's use of contraceptive effect is an error.

Edited November 24, 2010 by kafka

[TeresaBenedicta]

Every time I read the name "Conte", I misread it as "Comte" and I wonder why he is being hailed by anyone who considers themselves Catholic.

Anyways. kafka, am I reading you correctly in saying that you hold that under no circumstances can a contraceptive be used (ie, using the pill for medical reasons)?

I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately and about the act itself- of using a condom or taking the pill. Is it always and everywhere inherently evil? For example, using a condom to blow up like balloons... inherently evil? No. Why not? Because it is not being used as a contraceptive. And the pill. If a young, unmarried and not sexually active, woman takes the pill for health reasons and there is no chance of it being a contraceptive (because there is no sexual act)... inherently evil? I'm not sure on that one, although I lean towards "No" (but I'd like to hear your reasoning on it).

It seems to me that the act of contraception is the inherently evil act... not the use of the pill or a condom. It is the use of either of those two in conjunction with the sexual act that creates the problem (lack of procreation).

Which makes me wonder... with male-to-male sexual intercourse... is the use of a condom inherently evil? (I don't mean in regards to the Pope's particular comments, I think he was very clear.) If the use of a condom is not inherently evil, but rather linked to the pro-creative aspect of the conjugal act, can its use in this scenario be inherently evil, considering there is no possibility for pro-creation anyways? Still, the use of a condom in any sexual act, even a homosexual one, creates a barrier for the flow... So that act is still serving as break to the pro-creative aspect of the sexual act (which is of course broken by the homosexual act as well). Hence still inherently evil.

Just thinking out loud here. I'm outta practice of thinking in precise moral theological terms.

[kafka]

[b]The Moral Sexual Act[/b]

Without assaulting this thread with a slew of Magisterial quotes, Catholic teaching is that each distinct sexual act, which is the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, to be moral must be unitive and procreative and marital. The only sexual act that is unitive and procreative and marital is natural marital relations open to life. Natural marital relations is inherently ordered toward a threefold moral object that is unitive, procreative and marital. Any knowlingly chosen sexual act that is deprived of any one or more of these three meanings is an intrinsically evil sexual act.

[b]Contraception [/b]

Contraception is any deliberately chosen act which renders the sexual act of unfruitful, or non-procreative. For this reason a non-procreative sexual act is intrinsically evil, due to the deprivation of the procreative meaning in the moral object of the deliberately chosen act. Any sexual act which is not directed toward life is inherently evil. Any sexual act which is not ordered toward procreation is immoral by its very nature.

[b]Contraceptive Acts[/b]

All contraceptive acts render the use of the genital sexual faculty non-procreative either in anticipation (contraceptive pill or barrier before relations), in the accomplishment (withdrawal methods or any other non-procreative sexual act) and in the development of its natural consequences (spermicides and pills which prevent ovulation, interferring with conception). The use of a contraceptive is intrinsically evil because it deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning. And this instrinsic evil holds true for usage as an end, to prevent conception, and as a means when the contraceptive is used as a means to another end, medical treatment, or to when barrier method (condom) to prevent disease transmission. JPII, Familiaris Consortio: "And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral "every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible." (n. 14 quoting Humanae Vitae)

[b]The Pill for Medical Purposes[/b]

So an unmarried single woman who is not engaged in pre-marital sexual relations may use a birth control pill in order to treat a medical condition. The deliberately chosen act is inherently directed toward the health of the woman. There are no chosen sexual acts in an unmarried state so there is no risk of that birth control pill being a means of rendering a sexual act non-procreative.

A married woman is sexually active, and she has a moral obligation to the marital debt. If she deliberately chooses to use the pill in order to treat a medical condition, this would be an intended end directed toward health and so moral. However if she engages in sexual relations, the pill would become a means of depriving the sexual act of its procreative meaning, or rendering the sexual faculty non-procreative in anticipation. So the new distinct and deliberately chosen sexual act would be intrinsically evil since it is not directed toward life, by means of the birth control pill, she by a previous choice intended as an end. Therefore she cannot engage in sexual relations while she is on the pill for medical treatment.

Furthermore, she has a grave moral obligation to the marital debt, so she would have to have a grave reason to use the birth control pill as to treat the medical condition, or in other words the consequence or effect of her choosing to use the pill as an end of treating the condition, would have to outweigh the bad consequence or effect of her abstaining from sexual relations. The two effects are in the third font called circumstance in moral theology and these consequences/effects have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the chosen act. So the effects of her deliberately choosing to use the pill which is directed toward healing the condition cannot override or cancel out the non-procreative meaning, of a distinct and new deliberately chosen sexual act, while on the same treatment. The pill renders the sexual faculty non-procreative, she knows this, and so if she deliberately chooses to engage in sexual relations, she chooses a sexual act not directed toward life which is intrinsically evil. Hence the the pill becomes an intended immoral means.

Edited November 25, 2010 by kafka