Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o
I'm not sure your analysis of Thomistic ethics is entirely correct. It is not true that “Thomistic ethics does not [ever?] consider secondary factors or secondary consequences” if the act itself is intrinsically wrong.

The stuff above the line in post 43 is not my thought, but that of Nosterrex, from post 9, which I was responding to.

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.

52 posted on 11/21/2010 9:21:10 AM PST by Hieronymus (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: Hieronymus
Thanks. Hieronymus. I think we're on the same page here.

I'm an Abscombe fan, myself. My hero. If you'll personal-message me your actual e-mail address, I'd be glad to send you a manuscript of a talk I just gave about her. (Don't worry, no spamming.)

56 posted on 11/21/2010 9:59:52 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (What does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson