God Bless Janet Smith, and I do not mean to trivialize her work and the impact she has had in defending the Church in America, but it seems like she is willing to oversimplify this issue (although not as much as the mainstream media), and in doing so, trivializes a point that the pope is trying to make here.
The problem is that many well-intentioned people try to make moral arguments based on physical behaviors that they claim are always and everywhere wrong: in this case the argument is that it is always wrong to perform the physical behavior of using a condom during sexual intercourse, because it violates the “natural end” of sex, which is the deposition of semen in the correct place. This is Dr. Smith’s argument elsewhere.
Thus, a problem arises for her when the pope says that the use of a condom (i.e. the physical behavior) can be justified in certain cases. This is why Dr. Smith is so quick to assert the importance of the fact that the hypothetical prostitute is engaged in homosexual actions (which don’t have even a remote possibility of deposition of semen in the uterus). The condom therefore does not prevent the physical/natural end that Dr. Smith holds is inviolable in the sexual act.
The problem with all this is that people are not simply physical beings. The difference between humans and other animals, in classical philosophical terms, is the use of reason, which includes having a free will. Therefore, properly human acts are those proceeding from reason and our free will. The measure of morality is not physical nature but rather right reason – ultimately God’s reason according to Catholicism (although we cannot know God’s reason definitively in every individual case so we must use our own reason as a proximate measure, which is what we call a properly formed conscience).
The Church’s moral teaching is not based exclusively on following laws, but rather on living virtuously. Therefore all the Church’s laws and rules (e.g. 10 commandments, or even Canon law) are directed toward guiding individuals toward virtuous action. The pope is saying in this interview that the physical behavior of using a condom can indeed be a virtuous act, because the intention of the prostitute is not contraception, but prevention of disease, which is a good thing to will. Now the act as a whole is still wrong (as is any sex outside of marriage), but the use of the condom in itself is actually right, if the person is going to do the act anyway. This is where Dr. Smith’s “bank robber” analogy is actually quite helpful. By condoning the condom use in this case, the pope does not mean to condone prostitution.
Why is all this important to PWPL? Because the Church has never taught that the physical behavior of wearing a condom during sexual intercourse is always and everywhere wrong, but rather that willed contraception is wrong. In other words it is never according to right reason — it is never virtuous — to act in such a way as to intentionally prevent the possibility of procreation in a willed conjugal act (this is more or less the definition given by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae). Therefore, the Church is teaching that sex and children go together. This is an integral and necessary part of the pro-life position. The Church is not anti-condoms, but pro-life. That is the point of Pope Benedict’s comment.
Obviously, Dr. Smith’s assessment is far closer to reality than the average mainstream media hysteria. But in order to achieve a truly just society for all, there needs to be willingness to have very precise and rational moral discussion. Trying to take an easy way out or find a least common denominator — whether from the secularizing side or from the Catholic side — will not suffice for the type of reasoning that will help us best promote the common good.
N.B. I do not claim to speak for the Church and anyone who thinks Dr. Smith’s position is closer to Catholicism than mine is welcome to say so.
billy d says
God Bless Janet Smith, and I do not mean to trivialize her work and the impact she has had in defending the Church in America, but it seems like she is willing to oversimplify this issue (although not as much as the mainstream media), and in doing so, trivializes a point that the pope is trying to make here.
The problem is that many well-intentioned people try to make moral arguments based on physical behaviors that they claim are always and everywhere wrong: in this case the argument is that it is always wrong to perform the physical behavior of using a condom during sexual intercourse, because it violates the “natural end” of sex, which is the deposition of semen in the correct place. This is Dr. Smith’s argument elsewhere.
Thus, a problem arises for her when the pope says that the use of a condom (i.e. the physical behavior) can be justified in certain cases. This is why Dr. Smith is so quick to assert the importance of the fact that the hypothetical prostitute is engaged in homosexual actions (which don’t have even a remote possibility of deposition of semen in the uterus). The condom therefore does not prevent the physical/natural end that Dr. Smith holds is inviolable in the sexual act.
continued below …
billy d says
continued from above …
The problem with all this is that people are not simply physical beings. The difference between humans and other animals, in classical philosophical terms, is the use of reason, which includes having a free will. Therefore, properly human acts are those proceeding from reason and our free will. The measure of morality is not physical nature but rather right reason – ultimately God’s reason according to Catholicism (although we cannot know God’s reason definitively in every individual case so we must use our own reason as a proximate measure, which is what we call a properly formed conscience).
The Church’s moral teaching is not based exclusively on following laws, but rather on living virtuously. Therefore all the Church’s laws and rules (e.g. 10 commandments, or even Canon law) are directed toward guiding individuals toward virtuous action. The pope is saying in this interview that the physical behavior of using a condom can indeed be a virtuous act, because the intention of the prostitute is not contraception, but prevention of disease, which is a good thing to will. Now the act as a whole is still wrong (as is any sex outside of marriage), but the use of the condom in itself is actually right, if the person is going to do the act anyway. This is where Dr. Smith’s “bank robber” analogy is actually quite helpful. By condoning the condom use in this case, the pope does not mean to condone prostitution.
continued below …
billy d says
… continued from above
Why is all this important to PWPL? Because the Church has never taught that the physical behavior of wearing a condom during sexual intercourse is always and everywhere wrong, but rather that willed contraception is wrong. In other words it is never according to right reason — it is never virtuous — to act in such a way as to intentionally prevent the possibility of procreation in a willed conjugal act (this is more or less the definition given by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae). Therefore, the Church is teaching that sex and children go together. This is an integral and necessary part of the pro-life position. The Church is not anti-condoms, but pro-life. That is the point of Pope Benedict’s comment.
Obviously, Dr. Smith’s assessment is far closer to reality than the average mainstream media hysteria. But in order to achieve a truly just society for all, there needs to be willingness to have very precise and rational moral discussion. Trying to take an easy way out or find a least common denominator — whether from the secularizing side or from the Catholic side — will not suffice for the type of reasoning that will help us best promote the common good.
N.B. I do not claim to speak for the Church and anyone who thinks Dr. Smith’s position is closer to Catholicism than mine is welcome to say so.