Some Big Change from the Pope on Condom Use? (In a word, no!)

Lisa Graas ^ | 11/20/2010 | Lisa Graas

[Nosterrex]

If the Pope is following the Thomistic view that condoms are allowed because it is not for birth control, then I can at least follow his logic although I may not agree with it. The condom would be used for the prevention of disease, which in of itself is a good thing, although the homosexual act is in of itself a perversion of nature. The problem is that by allowing condom use for homosexual intercourse some may see this as a tacit approval of homosexuality and condom usage. If gays can use condoms, why not heterosexuals? Not everyone understands the philosophical differences.

[Sun]

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, you might want to start with reading the Catechism. You really have no excuse, dear, if you truly want the truth. If you’re terribly busy, you can read two pages of the Catechism once a week, until you are done.

Or you can pick what appeals to you most, here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

But for purposes of THIS topic, don’t let LMSM deceive you, as they are always trying to make it sound as if the Pope changed his mind, and take things out of context.

You can plainly see in the OP that they left out that the Pope said: “But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”

[Hieronymus]

If the Pope is following the Thomistic view that condoms are allowed because it is not for birth control, then I can at least follow his logic . . . Not everyone understands the philosophical differences.

---

The Pope is not following the "Thomistic view", as you term it, but what you present is not the Thomistic view. Thanks for responding to post 45, but it was an after thought, with post 43 being the main event. If you can demonstrate that Thomas holds that condoms are allowed, I will eat one of my Summas. You do not understand Thomas, as post 43 demonstrates.

The pope is not allowing condom use for homosexual intercourse, anymore than he would be allowing kidnapping by stating that a kidnapper who dumps his hostage out of a moving vehicle after receiving his ransom is in some ways less depraved than one who beheads his hostage after receiving his ransom. Both situations are depraved, one happens to have a few minor advantages on the other.

[Hieronymus]

45 was something of an afterthought following on 43, where I think I sufficiently demonstrated that what is being pawned off here as “Thomistic” is no such thing.

I’m not sure that ny way is more elegant. My analogy might help, and the Thomistic analysis helps insofar as putting forward how Thomas is relevant, but you have a clean, straightforward way of putting it that has a “noble simplicity” about it.

[Hieronymus]

The statements made by RnMomof7 about the Catholic Church do not reveal someone raised in and educated by the Church.

---

Lots of Catholic schools are awful. If she were Canadian, I could virtually guarantee that she had been through the Catholic system. Maybe she went to Catholic U and had the benefit of Fr. Curran before he was stripped of the title of Catholic Theologian. Maybe she went to ND and benefitted from McBrien. Maybe she was educated by the Jesuits. If she claimed to have attended TAC or Christendom, I would be suspicious. A poorly educated Catholic is a prime candidate for going off of the rails.

[Judith Anne]

A poorly educated Catholic is a prime candidate for going off of the rails.

Agreed, LOL!

[Nosterrex]

Let me try one more time. Are you familiar with the Law of Double Effect? Thomastic ethics does not recognize such a law in making ethical decisions. Let me give you an example. Using birth control pills for the prevention of conception is contrary to divine law; however, a woman can use birth control pills in order to control painful menstruation. The secondary effect, i.e. the prevention of conception is not taken into consideration since the original intention is not to prevent pregnancy. The use of a condom for the purpose of the prevention of disease is permissible; however, the secondary effect that it is used for homosexual intercourse is not taken into consideration. If this is not based upon Thomistic ethics, then all the books on ethics are in error.

[Hieronymus]

Are you familiar with the Law of Double Effect? Thomastic ethics does not recognize such a law in making ethical decisions.

---

Thomists generally refer to it as the Principle of Double Effect. Far from not recognizing such a principle, Thomistic ethics, if truly Thomistic, must accept it with the qualifications articulated by Thomas.

He articulates these in the respondeo of the seventh article of the 64 question of the Secunda Secundae (II-II, 64, a. 7):

hing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm

Thus, as Thomas lays it out, for two effects to be considered, the good effect must be willed, the second effect must not be willed of itself, and the second effect must stand in relation to the first that due proportion is not violated.

Sodomy is not a good, so double effect doesn’t apply, according to Thomistic principles. Neither is sex outside of marriage, and thus in the followup question the Pope indicates that even to prevent disease in the case cited the condom “is not a real or moral solution.”
(see the last line from the Pope in the body of the article in this thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2631433/posts )

I have no idea where you picked up a distorted view of Thomism, but it certainly wasn’t from a close reading of Thomas, or through imbibing the teachings of one who understood Thomas. If you want to discuss double effect outside of the context of Thomas, I would be happy to do so if you can provide a theological writing on the subject antedating Thomas. Otherwise, he coined the term so he defines the beginning of the discussion.

If you want to discuss Thomas, it would be good if you could actually quote him, or failing that, at least respond to the quotations provided by others.

Lastly, a comment on your final comment:
“If this is not based upon Thomistic ethics, then all the books on ethics are in error.” I am a bit unclear as to what the antecedent to “this” is: is it your whole line of argument or your last sentence? You seem to be stating that if you have not properly understood Thomistic ethics, then all ethical books are erroneous. I do think that many books on ethics are erroneous—I suspect that you have encountered some—but I do not think that your reasoning process is the cause. Maybe I am missing something, if you would care to clarify, though, to be honest, I am more curious as to where you picked up the idea that you know something of Thomistic ethics.