tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post1790782956077642068..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Jimmy Akin, Pope Benedict and the MagisteriumUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-42346153128217782992010-11-29T11:14:47.173-06:002010-11-29T11:14:47.173-06:00You know, Father, although I answered "probab...You know, Father, although I answered "probably" in the article, I'm still moving back and forth on this point.<br /><br />It is the case that the use of the condom in a heterosexual act is intrinsically evil. That means the use is damnable regardless of the intention. <br /><br />Now, given that there is an inherent intention to frustrate conception bound up in the heterosexual use of the condom, to what extent does the stated intention - the desire to reduce disease transmission - to what extent does THAT intention ameliorate the evil?<br /><br />It could very easily be argued that the very intention to do a proximate and temporary good (stop disease transmission) blinds us to the much greater permanent evil that we are inflicting (the desire we are supposed to have for children). <br /><br />Aquinas argued that sin is choosing a lesser, temporal good over a greater more permanent good, choosing the good instead of the best. Isn't that exactly what is happening here? <br /><br />Isn't it the case that heterosexual condom use, even with the "good" intent, is NOT actually ameliorated by that good intent, because that "good" intent acts as a lie we tell ourselves in order to hide the great evil we are doing? <br /><br />In other words, can it not be argued that we are "doing good"<br />so that evil may come of it?<br /><br />I think that is a fair argument, which is why I'm still not sure the Pope is correct when it comes to heterosexual condom use.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-65015336488487579852010-11-25T11:15:58.739-06:002010-11-25T11:15:58.739-06:00Steve
Many thanks for this well researched articl...Steve<br /><br />Many thanks for this well researched article. I have had people contacting me over this very point. I always held that the use of contraception aggravates the sinfulness of the sexual act between unmarried people. I am not a moral theologian and the recent statements have caused me to doubt my position. Thank you for reinforcing it. I shall refer questioners to your article.Father John Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-3280832869391923792010-11-25T08:29:47.637-06:002010-11-25T08:29:47.637-06:00Very nice work Steve.
And kudos for striving to r...Very nice work Steve.<br /><br />And kudos for striving to research it even deeper.<br /><br />I for the most part (as you know), didn't see the problem doctrinally, even if i did see it prudentially.<br /><br />That being said, I was dismayed to see Akin and the Catholic intellegista thrown Catholic teaching under the bus, simply because they <i> thought </i> a Pope said something he really didn't. (i.e. Benedict was not limiting the Churches teaching on contraception to the marital act in its strictest sense)<br /><br />Akin did this awhile back with the "Ossuary of James." Not sure if anyone remembers that. Apparently, there was an Ossuary that said "James, the brother of the Lord." The secular media had a feast with this, saying it proved the Churches teaching was wrong about Mary's pereptual virginity.<br /><br />Akin, while correctly pointing out the varying schools of thought on the question (that they were cousins or half-brothers from a previous marriage Joseph had) immediately switched his view (despite strongly arguing for the view beforehand that they were cousins/kin) on the matter.<br /><br />Within one month, the Ossuary had been determined to be a complete fraud.Kevin Tierneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09772355448244959559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-63915006900077305392010-11-24T19:49:25.295-06:002010-11-24T19:49:25.295-06:00Thank Matthew Cox.
He's the one who prodded me...Thank Matthew Cox.<br />He's the one who prodded me to respond to the Akin post. It took me a little while to find the flaw - almost a full day.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-54984385203887886202010-11-24T19:03:05.320-06:002010-11-24T19:03:05.320-06:00By the way, somebody posted at Jimmy Akin's we...By the way, somebody posted at Jimmy Akin's weblog the following quote from an unnamed 1874 document of the Holy Office:<br /><br />"[C]ondomistic copulation [is] a thing intrinsically evil."<br /><br />Apparently it wasn't referring only to marital intercourse.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-48062365115603651372010-11-24T18:56:02.428-06:002010-11-24T18:56:02.428-06:00Not just Jimmy Akin, but also Jeff Mirus at Cathol...Not just Jimmy Akin, but also Jeff Mirus at Catholic World News has dropped the ball on the doctrine of pre-marital or extra-marital contraception. Thanks for correcting them. Apart from that serious lapse, I've found Akin and Mirus to be helpful in explaining and analysing the pope's imprudent and almost-impossible-not-to-misunderstand comments. Father Fessio, one of the pope's former students, and Cardinal Burke also have been helpful. Father Lombardi, not so much.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.com