REDENTOR DE LA ROSA posted in Debate Unlimited Forum:
Development from Jimmy Akin: Church’s teaching on contraception is only within marriage.
This
development occurred after discussions have been made concerning Pope
Benedict XVI’ statement on condoms. I am posting this, not because I
consider Akin an authority on this matter, but because Filipino
apologists respected him. I also believe that he had read some of my
blog posts regarding the Pope’s statements.
MY COMMENTS:
Three
points I want to share here. Firstly, the use of the sexual faculty
outside of marriage [premarital and extra-marital] has always been
condemned by the Church as immoral. Secondly, the use of contraception
is considered by the Church as intrinsically evil and therefore whether
is it practiced within or outside the marriage state it is still
immoral. Thirdly, there is no statement by Pope Benedict XVI wherein he
allows the use of condom in any circumstances whatsoever. Some people
wanted to think so but this is nothing but a misapprehension of what the
Pope wrote.
REDENTOR DE LA ROSA RESPONDS:
Point
1 is correct. Point 2 needs to be qualified. The meaning of “Intrinsic
evil” is highly specific. What is intrinsically evil is “the use of
contraceptives which has an effect of separating the unitive and
procreative meaning of sex”. But the procreative and unitive meanings
of sex are not present or are irrelevant in sexual intercourse outside
marriage. Rape, for instance has no unitive and procreative meaning;
hence, the use of contraceptives in rape cases does not fall on that act
which the Church considers to be intrinsically evil. Point 3 is
debatable. Pope Benedict said that use of condoms in order to prevent
HIV infection among prostitutes is a responsible act. The CDF
clarification had confirmed the Pope’s words.
HERE IS MY DETAILED COMMENTS:
RDR said:
Point
2 needs to be qualified. The meaning of “Intrinsic evil” is highly
specific. What is intrinsically evil is “the use of contraceptives which
has an effect of separating the unitive and procreative meaning of
sex”. But the procreative and unitive meanings of sex are not present or
are irrelevant in sexual intercourse outside marriage. Rape, for
instance has no unitive and procreative meaning; hence, the use of
contraceptives in rape cases does not fall on that act which the Church
considers to be intrinsically evil.”
MY REPLY:
CCC
2356 says “Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of
another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply
wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity to which
every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the
victim for life. IT IS ALWAYS AN INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACT.” Rape violates
both the unitive and procreative purpose in the use of the sexual
faculties. It violates the unitive purpose since in this case the free
consent of another person is being violated and sex is engaged for the
purpose of selfish motives and not in total self-giving and irrevocable
commitment which can be guaranteed only within marriage. It violates the
procreative meaning since God willed that a new life should be brought
into this world as a fruit of the loving embrace between man and wife.
Intrinsically evil acts are acts which are evil [i.e., contrary to the
moral law] in themselves, regardless of the intention or circumstances
although the surrounding circumstances may lessen or increase the
gravity of the offense. These are acts which may not be directly willed
either as an end or as a means [such as direct abortion, killing of an
innocent person, rape, use of contraception] and the circumstances or
the intention will not change the nature of such acts. Thus even in rape
cases, the use of contraception, either as a means or as an end may not
be directly willed.
RDR says:
“Point
3 is debatable. Pope Benedict said that use of condoms in order to
prevent HIV infection among prostitutes is a responsible act. The CDF
clarification had confirmed the Pope’s words.”
MY REPLY:
RDR
is correct in saying that indeed the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith has already issued a clarification of the controversial words
of the Pope. The document is titled: “On the Trivialization of
Sexuality: Regarding Certain Interpretations of ‘Light of the World.’”
Pope Benedict XVI is a very learned theologian and in his writings there
are many parts which are difficult to understand “that the unwise and
the unlearned twist to their destruction” (2 Peter 3:16) to use the
words of St Peter in regard the writings of St Paul. This is precisely
what happened in regard the Pope’s statement as CDF put forward in the
opening paragraph: “The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly
manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the
meaning of his words.” If we proceed to the alleged permissibility
of the use of condom in the prevention of the spread of HIV, CDF has
this to say: “In this situation, THE HOLY FATHER CLEARLY AFFIRMS THAT
THE PROVISION OF CONDOMS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ‘THE REAL OR MORAL
SOLUTION’ TO THE PROBLEM OF AIDS.” Finally, on the words in questions CDF explains: “In
this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a
condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is
intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity.
In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom “with
the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in
a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living
sexuality.” Thus, what the Holy Father wanted to point out is that
those people who though engaging in promiscuous activities and regard
other people as objects of pleasure to satisfy their lusts, if they use
condom in order to reduce the risk posed to the other, in a sense they
still adhere to a certain good in them [that in respecting the life of
another] and this can be the starting point towards realizing the true
worth and dignity of the human person. In this situation, the person
performing the act is aware of the evil of his actions but only wanted
to lessen its gravity however this does not change the intrinsic evil in
the nature of such acts and therefore cannot be directly willed.
