This raises the question: is condomized intercourse wrong only because it is contraceptive in intent? I think it can be argued that it is wrong also because it is not normal marital intercourse.
An analogy. Let's say a man anally copulates with his wife. This is his preferred and completed act of intercourse. The evil here is not just that it is sterile intercourse (maybe that point does not even apply because she's already past the age of fertility) but that it is not a normal completed act of marital intecourse. The mere fact that they are married does not make ejaculation into her rectum marital intercourse. This is not the act that consummates or signifies marriage.
(Sorry to bring up such repellent images.)
The same may be true of condomized intercourse in marriage. The act itself is wrong because it has been altered to negate its natural procreative and unitive significance.
It's a little complicated, but do you see what I'm getting at>
Incodientally, I once read a comment by a feminist lesbian thast she occasionally had sex with men, ut she always did it with a condom because it signified to her that she wasn't really aiming for or signifying union with this man: she was maintaining her "separatism." Honest to God, that's what she said.
I don't think that you are disagreeing with anything that I actually said, merely going into explanation of aspects that I did not raise.
In fact, Thomistic ethics, in a comprehensive analysis, always considers secondary factors (circumstances), it is just that usually the circumstances are only aggravating or mitigating, which are of lesser importance than the nature of the act itself.
One can sufficiently demonstrate that the anti-Thomists on this thread do not know Thomas without wandering into the issues surrounding double effect, or raising the point that mortal sins may differ in degree while remaining the same in kind, and prefer to keep things simple.
While Thomas does lay down the basic principles regarding double effect in II-II q. 64 art. 7, and I happily side with Thomas, some people lift Thomas’ term but not all of reasoning, and the area is a swamp into which I prefer to stay out and do not want to discuss at length. I will happily agree with the people who think that they are disagreeing with Thomas that there are some people who claim to teach Catholic Moral theology who are wrong-—Fr. Curran for example—and they bandy the term about incorectly, muddying the waters. I would think that such people would be better off if they had had dates with millstones earlier in their lives.
I am a theologian but really do not care for modern moral theology, and would rather watch paint dry than participate in many discussions of moral theology. With that said, I think that your analysis of Double Effect is sound. If I remember correctly, contraceptive intercourse does not consummate, as it excludes one of the ends of marriage, which indicates that it is not normal intercourse per se. That said, the condom does seem to add an additional level of weirdness, as the condomized action, on further examination, involves two people simultaneously masturbating while employing the same sex toy in their actions. It shares most of the accidents of true marital relations, but is corrupt at its core.