Is it moral to advise condom use?

The use of condoms in natural intercourse is contraceptive, and contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Advising someone that they should consider committing an intrinsically evil act is explicit formal cooperation with that evil, and is itself an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act. Good intentions and dire circumstances cannot justify an intrinsically evil act.

The use of condoms in unnatural sexual acts is not contraceptive; its moral object is the prevention of disease. However, an act can have more than one moral object. This particular ‘use’ of condoms necessarily always implies the commission of a sexual act that has an evil moral object. So one and the same act has the good moral object to prevent disease, in that a condom is used, and an evil moral object in the deprivation of the unitive meaning (as well as of the marital meaning, since we are discussing extra-marital acts). So the act remains intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Again, advising someone that they should consider committing an intrinsically evil act is explicit formal cooperation with that evil, and is itself an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act. Good intentions and dire circumstances cannot justify an act that is evil, in and of itself, by the very nature of the act.

What one can morally do is to accurately explain all that is good and all that is evil in any particular type of act. The intention to prevent disease is a good intention, and there are some good consequences in disease prevention, but this does not justify an act that is intrinsically evil because it is non-marital or non-unitive or non-procreative.

Also, whenever there is more moral disorder in the three fonts of any act, there is greater sin. And whenever there is less moral disorder, there is less sin. But no type or degree of goodness in any of the fonts can justify an act that is intrinsically evil, nor reduce that act from a grave sin to a venial sin.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in ethics, theology of the body. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Is it moral to advise condom use?

  1. jonolan says:

    Question –

    These unnatural sexual acts are inherently immoral, or do they only take on immorality in certain circumstance? E.g., if my wife is already pregnant and we engage in sodomy is that still immoral even though we’re heterosexual, married, and the sodomy did not interfere with attempts to impregnate her?

    • ronconte says:

      Unnatural sexual acts are inherently immoral (intrinsically evil) because they lack the unitive and procreative meanings in the moral object. So even in a heterosexual relationship, and even within marriage, the acts remain always gravely immoral. The presence of the marital meaning does not substitute for the lack of the unitive and procreative meanings in this type of act.

      To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative.

      When a woman is already pregnant, or is infertile due to illness, injury, or old age, the natural sexual act still retains is procreative meaning because the act is inherently ordered toward procreation, even if procreation is not, or cannot be, attained. An act is intrinsically evil when it is ordered toward an evil moral object, even if it does not achieve that end. And an act is intrinsically good when it is ordered toward a good moral object, even if it does not achieve that end. It is the ordering of the act itself, by its very nature, toward the moral object that makes the act good in itself or evil in itself, not the attainment of that moral object.

      Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

Comments are closed.