The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

[TJ in Oregon]

But, doesn't giving the go ahead to use condoms while practicing fornication cause a moral contradiction?  Might was well say it is ok to wear a mask while robbing a bank.

That's basically what he said, which is also why the entire story was pretty much a bunch of nothing. He just said, if you have AIDs and are going to have sex anyway it would be better to wear a condom. It boils down to saying fornication and contraception is less wrong than fornication and murder. The pope never said contraception wasn't wrong, as many in the media have protrayed the statement.

This is in part a clarification of St. Thomas Aquinas's teaching (which is neither held as definitively true or definitively false) that contraception is a worse sin than fornication itself.

[TJ in Oregon]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

[TJ in Oregon]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

Yes but not while using artificial contraceptives, which are a sin against nature by destroying the telos of the sex act itself. It comes down to the same argument as to whether or not condoms are permitted normally between married men and women. Also, notice the name given to the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church: Holy Matrimony. Matrimony is motherhood; ie. the two cannot be separated from one another.

[TJ in Oregon]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

Yes but not while using artificial contraceptives, which are a sin against nature by destroying the telos of the sex act itself. It comes down to the same argument as to whether or not condoms are permitted normally between married men and women. Also, notice the name given to the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church: Holy Matrimony. Matrimony is motherhood; ie. the two cannot be separated from one another.

But does not marriage have a multifaceted telos?  Otherwise, sex between an infertile couple would be sinful since it could not result in a child, as would sex timed so as to avoid conception as realisticidealist mentioned.

There is, but it still has to be open to the conception. In the infertility case, openness to conception doesn't take much since they aren't able to have children (though I know several people who have been born to "infertile" parents).

As for NFP, basically the Church says it's okay because it does not involve undertaking some artificial action to prevent pregnancy; since pregnancy is naturally impossible for some period of time. St. Thomas Aquinas taught contraception was a sin against nature. Since the method realisticidealist discussed is natural it is permitted. However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

[TJ in Oregon]

However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

TJ, I've never been entirely clear on what the "same act" means. From what I've read, the same act basically means that once sexual activities commence, the husband should make sure to finish during vaginal intercourse to preserve openness to life, but otherwise other forms of stimulation are acceptable prior to this and after this, but I've never asked anyone in person as it's a bit awkward to talk about. It's not something I've personally had to deal with yet of course, though that time may be coming sooner rather than later, so I was wondering if you knew any more about this.

I'm not sure about that one and don't seem to be close to needing to know the answer. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else that awkward question...

[TJ in Oregon]

If the primary criteria is openness to conception rather than what is natural in the usual sense, then timing sex with the purpose of avoiding conception should be worse than the contraception that is incidental to condom use.  (I'm tempted to agree here with an argument by Erasmus that celibacy and contraception are morally equivalent. )

Maybe Thomas Aquinas didn't envision certain scenarios when developing his moral system.  Haven't the Jesuits developed an approach that allows for moral principles to be weighed  differently depending on the circumstances?

Aquinas did not understand NFP as practiced today since ovulation wasn't understood until the 20th Century, so when he called contraception a sin against nature, he was clearly referring to an unnatural method, which today would be similar to taking a pill or wearing a ring or condom. Think about what each means doing in a sex act: for an artificial method you have to wear something over the genitalia or take some sort of medicine. You're clearly doing something in a positive sense to have sex and not procreate. For NFP, you aren't doing something, you're not doing something. You're practicing abstinence during the fruitful periods. Otherwise, it would be a sin to have sex outside of that 72 hour period, which would also be problematic conclusion. The difference isn't something you can determine by looking at studies of the effectiveness of each in the same manner as one considers a subsidy in the political world, but rather the intrinsic nature of the act in question.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about the Jesuits, but there may be some system either I am not familiar with or am used to hearing it identified differently.

[TJ in Oregon]

If the primary criteria is openness to conception rather than what is natural in the usual sense, then timing sex with the purpose of avoiding conception should be worse than the contraception that is incidental to condom use.  (I'm tempted to agree here with an argument by Erasmus that celibacy and contraception are morally equivalent. )

Maybe Thomas Aquinas didn't envision certain scenarios when developing his moral system.  Haven't the Jesuits developed an approach that allows for moral principles to be weighed  differently depending on the circumstances?

Aquinas did not understand NFP as practiced today since ovulation wasn't understood until the 20th Century, so when he called contraception a sin against nature, he was clearly referring to an unnatural method, which today would be similar to taking a pill or wearing a ring or condom. Think about what each means doing in a sex act: for an artificial method you have to wear something over the genitalia or take some sort of medicine. You're clearly doing something in a positive sense to have sex and not procreate. For NFP, you aren't doing something, you're not doing something. You're practicing abstinence during the fruitful periods. Otherwise, it would be a sin to have sex outside of that 72 hour period, which would also be problematic conclusion. The difference isn't something you can determine by looking at studies of the effectiveness of each in the same manner as one considers a subsidy in the political world, but rather the intrinsic nature of the act in question.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about the Jesuits, but there may be some system either I am not familiar with or am used to hearing it identified differently.

Regarding the Jesuits, I was thinking of casuist morality.

Aquinas bases his argument against contraception on the assertion that procreation is the natural end of sex.  Allowance for NFP must at the very least contradict this understanding of the nature of sex, since it allows that there can be some instances of sex which do not have procreation as its proper natural end.

Procreation is the natural end of sex in general. However, there are naturally occurring circumstances where an identical sex act does not result in procreation by nature alone. Thus under those circumstances (a period of infertility) the natural end of a sex act would not be procreation, unlike the natural end of sex acts as a whole in general. St. Thomas Aquinas never addressed the idea of when sex naturally does not lead to procreation one way or another (NFP was not around in Aquinas's day but it was already known that procreation does not occur on a women's period), but he did teach that the natural law is the non-violation of natural ends. Interestingly, St. Augustine taught exactly as you say, that all sex no matter what else may be true can only be morally acceptable if it is expecting to result in procreation.

The idea of the natural end of human sexuality being procreation is a very old belief of the Church. St. Clement of Alexandria wrote against contraceptives in the 2nd Century by interpreting the Old Testament passage of Onan to say that a man's seed cannot be used in vain. Perhaps the most pointed denunciation of artificial contraceptives was St. John Chrysostym who said:

[quote]
Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?... Yet such turpitude... the matter still seems indifferent to many men; even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks. The procreation of children in marriage is the 'heritage' and 'reward' of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into 'one flesh' (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the 'sacrament of love.'