Pope says condoms are ok in some cases
(12-12-2010, 11:04 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I figure you're ignoring me because you know you're caught between a rock and a hard place if forced to answer honestly.   I don't like people who avoid questions and criticism and just rant.  That's what blogs are for, not discussion forums.  If you want to rant, get a blog.  If you want a discussion, start ponying up some answers.

The first one would be:  do you understand what "double effect" means?  If so, let me know what you think it means, and we can see if it aligns with what St. Thomas says it means.

If you aren't willing to address my questions, I'll just ban you.  This is a forum for discussion, not your blog where you can pontificate and not have your opinions held up to inspection and criticism.

Capice?
Again, I apologize for not responding as I am not always on the internet and I have been busy with work.
Yes, I am aware of the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)
Its Criterion are:

   1. The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
   2. The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
   3. The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
   4. The proportionality condition The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

Other than the possibility of condition #3, how are all 4 conditions met in the case of heterosexuals as pertaining to this discussion?
e.g. in article 1:  The use of a condom in a heterosexual relationship or marriage is intrinsically evil.
And article #4, the proportionality effect, is even more unlikely to hold here when considering condom use under the rubric of the DDE.

From what I have read on supporters of the DDE (in its use supporting the pope's comments), their stance is in opposition to the position in article #4:

The good result, preventing a disease transmission (or potentially preventing...), is a far lesser good than that of the creation of a life, a life which is a Great Gift from the Father Almighty. This life will have the inherent capacity to worship, praise, and glorify GOD forever. The disease, and its mere possibility of transmission,  is infinitesimally small in time duration and  comparatively  insignificant.


May GOD+ Bless you and your family during this Christ+Mas celebration.
Yours in Christ+.
Reply
Thank you for replying.

Quote:1. The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
  2. The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
  3. The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
  4. The proportionality condition The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

Other than the possibility of condition #3, how are all 4 conditions met in the case of heterosexuals as pertaining to this discussion?
e.g. in article 1:  The use of a condom in a heterosexual relationship or marriage is intrinsically evil.
And article #4, the proportionality effect, is even more unlikely to hold here when considering condom use under the rubric of the DDE.

1) I believe that the wearing of a condom, which is the action in question,  is indifferent.  In other words, if you want to wear one to watch TV just cause, there is nothing wrong with that.

2) The bad effect is inhibiting pro-creation, the good effect the prohibition of disease.  Clearly, the bad effect is not the means by which one achieves the good effect.

3) The right intention here is questionable.  However, in the case of homosexuals, the bad effect is not intended at all since there is no pro-creation to inhibit.  In the case of heterosexuals engaging in a natural act, the intention is in the internal forum.  It could be the person is on birth control already and there is no intention except disease control.

4) To say that protecting human life from what is pretty much a death sentence is not equivalent in importance to the bad effect is to engage in valuing the life of the unborn (the uncreated in this case) over the born, and that goes against Catholic teaching where the unborn and born are due equal respect in that regard.

Now, if you want to carry on the discussion on this topic, I'll be happy to.

God bless you and yours as well!
Reply
(12-18-2010, 02:46 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 1) I believe that the wearing of a condom, which is the action in question,  is indifferent.  In other words, if you want to wear one... there is nothing wrong with that.

Hello.  I am going to start several threads about your scandalous support of contraception and its effects on the Church.  Jayne, I hope you weren't planning on sleeping any time soon.

:ciao:
Reply
I'll happily delete my joking post if nobody finds it humorous.
Reply
(12-18-2010, 11:24 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: I'll happily delete my joking post if nobody finds it humorous.

Well I didn't LOL, but my lips twitched.  ;D
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)