Non-contracepted sexual intercourse during the infertile period shares the same secondary end as contracepted sex, i.e. avoiding pregnancy. It is not that shared secondary end but the difference in means that makes contracepted sex disordered and unethical. The contracepting couple deliberately sterilize otherwise fertile intercourse; the NFP practicing couple do not do so. Rather, they deliberately abstain from fertile intercourse. Deliberately abstaining from fertile intercourse is not per se immoral; deliberately sterilizing the marital act is immoral, for the reason explained in the quotation fromHumanae Vitae. The use of calendars and thermometers in determining when to abstain does not make abstinence per se immoral, because abstinence by its very nature is not per se disordered. The use of contraceptives, by contrast, directly sterilizes the marital act and thus disorders it, which is why this sort of act is unethical. For this reason, the use of contraceptives is not ethically equivalent to the use of calendars and thermometers.
Regarding Stephen’s second point, the morality of an action is not determined solely by its intention. The contracepting couple and the NFP practicing couple might have the same intention in mind, namely, to avoid pregnancy. But because the morality of an action does not depend solely on its intention, but also includes the object of the act, there is a difference (as just explained above) between the morality of using contraceptives, and the morality of practicing periodic abstinence for the sake of regulating births. (cf.CCC 1750)
No comments:
Post a Comment