Category: Moral Theology

Yesterday Ed Peters, Mark Brumley, I, and another had an e-mail conversation about the situation of a Catholic school in Orange County, California that has admitted the children of two homosexual "fathers" to its kindergarten. This prompted outrage parents to demand that the situation be recitifed. The school has refused, and the parents are appealing to the Vatican. School officials, as well as William Donohue of the Catholic League have defended the school’s position, arguing that taking a different one would lead to not allowing children into the school whose parents are divorced or contracepting.

GET THE STORY.

ED HAS NOW BLOGGED HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS ON THE SITUATION.

UPDATE: MARK BRUMLEY HAS ALSO PUT UP HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS.

Here are my thoughts (edited from our e-mail conversation):

• Though I have been unable to verify this online, part of my memory is

  telling me that the school has allowed one of the "fathers" to have a

  role caring for the kindergarten class. I don’t know if that’s the case,

  but it’s a situation that may arise in some school, so let’s consider it

  for theoretical purposes.

• As Ed points out, there seems to be a spectrum of progressively more

  disordered situations here. I would construct the spectrum along the

  following lines:

1. Children of normal parents living in accord with Church teaching.
2. Children of parents who formerly did not live according to Church

   teaching but who presently are.

3. Children of parents who are divorced and not remarried.
4. Children of parents who are secretly contracepting.
5. Children of parents who make no secret of the fact that they are

   contracepting or that they hold other opinions at variance with Church

   teaching.

6. Children of parents who are divorced and invalidly remarried.
7. Children of parents who are not married.
8. Children of parents who are divorced and now cohabiting with another.
9. Children of homosexual "parents."
10. Children of homosexual "parents" whose "parents" take a public role

    in the life of the class.

• The primary purpose of a Catholic school is to provide a quality

  Catholic education for all of its students collectively. This means

  that there would be rational grounds, even in the absence of a mandate

  from the Vatican, for the school to establish policies against anything

  that would substantially interfere with the ability of the school to

  fulfill its primary purpose.

• A quality Catholic education will involve not only imparting

  information to students but also shielding them from certain realities

  of life until they are cognitively and morally prepared to come to terms

  with them. This includes preserving the sexual innocence of young children and

  shielding them from knowledge of same-sex unions.

• Though in no case is the disordered situation of his parents the fault of the child, some of the situations on the spectrum above would clearly seem to

  pose a challenge to the school’s ability to provide a quality Catholic

  education for all its students. Somewhere between item #1 and item #10

  on the spectrum, a line must be drawn.

• Where this line is to be drawn, in the absence of a mandate from the

  Vatican, would seem to be a prudential decision best made by those in

  charge of the school (including the bishop, especially if it is a

  diocesan school) in consultation with the parents whose children will be

  affected by the impact of the decision.

• It would seem that there are several places where the line could

  rationally be drawn:

a) Since items #1-#3 do not involve situations in which parents are

violating Church teaching, they seem to all be permissible situations in which to admit the children to the school.

b) With item #4, an occult sin is introduced but, since it is occult, it

would not seem to pose any impediment to the school being able to

fulfill its mission.

c) With item #5, a rational case could be made if a school wished to

adopt a strict line to protect the children it serves, as the parents’

open dissent could pose an impediment to the school’s ability to

fulfill its mission. However, prudence makes one wonder the extent to

which the children of the school would even be aware of the parents’

dissent. Unless they are unusually obnoxious public activists, their

dissent is more likely to be known to other parents but not to the

children of the school.

d) Lines also could be drawn with even greater basis anywhere among

items #6-#8, as each of these involves a more obviously disordered

situation. However, the question must still be raised of the extent to

which the children of the school–apart from the children of the parents

in question–would be aware of the situation. The condition of the

parents might not be sufficiently known among the student body to

impeding the school in fulfillings its mission. Especially in schools

with young students, parents in these conditions might be perceived by

the children simply as the mommy and daddy of a student and presumed to

be married in accord with Church teaching.

e) A line most emphatically could be drawn before item #9, as the

introduction of a student who has "two mommies" or "two daddies" is

almost certainly to come to the attention of the children and create a

significant impediment to the school fulfilling its mission.

f) A line absolutely must be drawn before item #10. The introduction of

one or both of the homosexual "parents" into the life of the class is certain to fixate the

attention of the students on the situation and dramatically amplify the

impediment to the school’s mission.

Yesterday Ed Peters, Mark Brumley, I, and another had an e-mail conversation about the situation of a Catholic school in Orange County, California that has admitted the children of two homosexual "fathers" to its kindergarten. This prompted outrage parents to demand that the situation be recitifed. The school has refused, and the parents are appealing to the Vatican. School officials, as well as William Donohue of the Catholic League have defended the school’s position, arguing that taking a different one would lead to not allowing children into the school whose parents are divorced or contracepting.

GET THE STORY.

ED HAS NOW BLOGGED HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS ON THE SITUATION.

UPDATE: MARK BRUMLEY HAS ALSO PUT UP HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS.

Here are my thoughts (edited from our e-mail conversation):

• Though I have been unable to verify this online, part of my memory is
  telling me that the school has allowed one of the "fathers" to have a
  role caring for the kindergarten class. I don’t know if that’s the case,
  but it’s a situation that may arise in some school, so let’s consider it
  for theoretical purposes.
• As Ed points out, there seems to be a spectrum of progressively more
  disordered situations here. I would construct the spectrum along the
  following lines:

1. Children of normal parents living in accord with Church teaching.
2. Children of parents who formerly did not live according to Church
   teaching but who presently are.
3. Children of parents who are divorced and not remarried.
4. Children of parents who are secretly contracepting.
5. Children of parents who make no secret of the fact that they are
   contracepting or that they hold other opinions at variance with Church
   teaching.
6. Children of parents who are divorced and invalidly remarried.
7. Children of parents who are not married.
8. Children of parents who are divorced and now cohabiting with another.
9. Children of homosexual "parents."
10. Children of homosexual "parents" whose "parents" take a public role
    in the life of the class.

• The primary purpose of a Catholic school is to provide a quality
  Catholic education for all of its students collectively. This means
  that there would be rational grounds, even in the absence of a mandate
  from the Vatican, for the school to establish policies against anything
  that would substantially interfere with the ability of the school to
  fulfill its primary purpose.
• A quality Catholic education will involve not only imparting
  information to students but also shielding them from certain realities
  of life until they are cognitively and morally prepared to come to terms
  with them. This includes preserving the sexual innocence of young children and
  shielding them from knowledge of same-sex unions.
• Though in no case is the disordered situation of his parents the fault of the child, some of the situations on the spectrum above would clearly seem to
  pose a challenge to the school’s ability to provide a quality Catholic
  education for all its students. Somewhere between item #1 and item #10
  on the spectrum, a line must be drawn.
• Where this line is to be drawn, in the absence of a mandate from the
  Vatican, would seem to be a prudential decision best made by those in
  charge of the school (including the bishop, especially if it is a
  diocesan school) in consultation with the parents whose children will be
  affected by the impact of the decision.
• It would seem that there are several places where the line could
  rationally be drawn:

a) Since items #1-#3 do not involve situations in which parents are
violating Church teaching, they seem to all be permissible situations in which to admit the children to the school.

b) With item #4, an occult sin is introduced but, since it is occult, it
would not seem to pose any impediment to the school being able to
fulfill its mission.

c) With item #5, a rational case could be made if a school wished to
adopt a strict line to protect the children it serves, as the parents’
open dissent could pose an impediment to the school’s ability to
fulfill its mission. However, prudence makes one wonder the extent to
which the children of the school would even be aware of the parents’
dissent. Unless they are unusually obnoxious public activists, their
dissent is more likely to be known to other parents but not to the
children of the school.

d) Lines also could be drawn with even greater basis anywhere among
items #6-#8, as each of these involves a more obviously disordered
situation. However, the question must still be raised of the extent to
which the children of the school–apart from the children of the parents
in question–would be aware of the situation. The condition of the
parents might not be sufficiently known among the student body to
impeding the school in fulfillings its mission. Especially in schools
with young students, parents in these conditions might be perceived by
the children simply as the mommy and daddy of a student and presumed to
be married in accord with Church teaching.

e) A line most emphatically could be drawn before item #9, as the
introduction of a student who has "two mommies" or "two daddies" is
almost certainly to come to the attention of the children and create a
significant impediment to the school fulfilling its mission.

f) A line absolutely must be drawn before item #10. The introduction of
one or both of the homosexual "parents" into the life of the class is certain to fixate the
attention of the students on the situation and dramatically amplify the
impediment to the school’s mission.

Down yonder, a reader asks:

Wouldn’t posing as a child trafficker constitute the sin of lying?

It depends on whether you actually lie. It would be possible to use mental reservations to get through the situation. As another reader suggests:

IMO, this would fall under not lying. His interest is literally to

purchase children. His intent is for that purchase to be an act of

charity. By stating his interest he is not lying.

The Catechism would seem to offer support for this:

CCC 2489

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request

for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for

privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what

ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid

scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth

to someone who does not have the right to know it.

Rescuing children from sexual slavery would constitute "the good and safety of others" needed to justified "making use of a discreet language"–i.e., mentally reserving the fact that you are really an undercover operative trying to shut down the child slavery ring and otherwise seeking to purchase the children.

Of course, since the individuals at International Justice Mission are Evangelicals, they may well be unacquainted with the idea of mental reservation and may simply lie. I don’t know that they do, but it’s a possibility, especially when they get into situations where they don’t have a mental reservation handy and can’t risk exposure (which would likely imperil their lives). In such circumstances, though, the morality of their act would not only be ameliorated because of the grave fear of exposure and by their Evangelical formation but also because:

CCC 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms,

the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by

its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes

mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

Trying to rescue kids from sexual slavery and bust up a ring of sex slave criminals is going to severely mitigate the culpability of the lie, just as in the case of the Hebrew midwives who lied to protect the baby boys in Exodus 1.

(And don’t be distracted by the harm suffered by the sex slave criminals who are then locked-up as a result. That isn’t "harm" in the sense of an unjust injury inflicted on the innocent. It’s getting them at least a fraction of what they deserve and thus not "harm." In the sense intended by this passage, "harm" means something bad that happens to an innocent person, not the avoidance of legitimate punishment.)

Unfortunately, even for one who is aware of the idea of mental reservation, doing this kind of work would put one in the proximate occasion of sin as one would be regularly tempted to lie to avoid exposure. However, given the relative gravity of the lies one would be tempted to tell and the gravity of what will happen to these kids if they are not rescued, it would seem that the assumption of this risk would be warranted for those able to stomach the work.

Down yonder, a reader asks:

Wouldn’t posing as a child trafficker constitute the sin of lying?

It depends on whether you actually lie. It would be possible to use mental reservations to get through the situation. As another reader suggests:

IMO, this would fall under not lying. His interest is literally to
purchase children. His intent is for that purchase to be an act of
charity. By stating his interest he is not lying.

The Catechism would seem to offer support for this:

CCC 2489
Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request
for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for
privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what
ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid
scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth
to someone who does not have the right to know it.

Rescuing children from sexual slavery would constitute "the good and safety of others" needed to justified "making use of a discreet language"–i.e., mentally reserving the fact that you are really an undercover operative trying to shut down the child slavery ring and otherwise seeking to purchase the children.

Of course, since the individuals at International Justice Mission are Evangelicals, they may well be unacquainted with the idea of mental reservation and may simply lie. I don’t know that they do, but it’s a possibility, especially when they get into situations where they don’t have a mental reservation handy and can’t risk exposure (which would likely imperil their lives). In such circumstances, though, the morality of their act would not only be ameliorated because of the grave fear of exposure and by their Evangelical formation but also because:

CCC 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms,
the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by
its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes
mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

Trying to rescue kids from sexual slavery and bust up a ring of sex slave criminals is going to severely mitigate the culpability of the lie, just as in the case of the Hebrew midwives who lied to protect the baby boys in Exodus 1.

(And don’t be distracted by the harm suffered by the sex slave criminals who are then locked-up as a result. That isn’t "harm" in the sense of an unjust injury inflicted on the innocent. It’s getting them at least a fraction of what they deserve and thus not "harm." In the sense intended by this passage, "harm" means something bad that happens to an innocent person, not the avoidance of legitimate punishment.)

Unfortunately, even for one who is aware of the idea of mental reservation, doing this kind of work would put one in the proximate occasion of sin as one would be regularly tempted to lie to avoid exposure. However, given the relative gravity of the lies one would be tempted to tell and the gravity of what will happen to these kids if they are not rescued, it would seem that the assumption of this risk would be warranted for those able to stomach the work.

This is no joke.

The U.K.’s present not-as-great-as-advertised administration is working a physician-assisted suicide bill through Parliament.

It is true that many religious groups vehemently
oppose the Joffe Bill, but they are not the only ones. They unite with
medical representatives and disabled groups, who fear that doctors’
judgements about ‘quality of life’ may imply that their own lives are
not worth living.

This is no abstract fear voiced by philosophers such as Baroness Warnock, as Jane Campbell, writing recently in The Times
(London), discovered. Campbell, who suffers from spinal muscular
atrophy, a muscle-wasting illness that means she cannot lift her head
from her pillow unaided, was hospitalised for a case of pneumonia. The
consultant treating her said that he assumed she would not want to be
resuscitated should she go into respiratory failure. When she protested
that she would like to be resuscitated, she was visited by a more
senior consultant who said that he assumed she would not want to be put
on a ventilator. According to the Disability Rights Commission, this
was not was not an isolated incident. As Campbell says, these incidents
‘reflect society’s view that people such as myself live flawed and
unsustainable lives and that death is preferable to living with a
severe impairment’ [SOURCE.].

The kind of experience Mrs. Campbell had is not rare. There is a profound ambivalence on the part of many in the medical community about keeping patients alive.

I know.

I’ve seen it.

When my wife was dying at age 27, the doctors and nurses and hospital administrators all put pressure on us to try to get her to agree not to insist on all the life-sustaining measures that were available. When she adamantly did insist on them (her specific words were "I. Want. To. Live."), they were dismayed and did a lot of grumbling and head shaking and eye rolling out of her presence (but not out of mine).

The medical community is in such danger of forgetting the Hippocratic Oath (which they no longer take)’s requirement to do no harm to the patient that we do not need the doorway of death opened any wider than it already is.

Too many doctors are already trying to shove patients through it out of false compassion–NOT because it will help the patient but because the doctors and nurses and administrators are wanting to keep costs down and because THEY are simply tired of having to take care of the patient and watch her suffer.

This obviously doesn’t apply to every doctor or nurse or administrator. Many still have their hearts in the right place. But many do not.

Too many.

Regarding Britain’s upcoming bill, THOUGHTFUL ATHEIST WRITES THOUGHTFUL ARTICLE AGAINST ASSISTED SUICIDE.

Down yonder, a reader asks:

Jimmy,

Do you think one could argue that cigars and cigarettes are immoral?
The Catechism states that Tobacco, used in moderation, is morally
licit. However, cigarettes and cigars aren’t just tobacco, but tobacco
laced with poison (literally).

For the record, let’s quote the Catechism on this matter:

CCC 2290
The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse
of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by
drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the
road, at sea, or in the air.

This passage relates appears to recognize that the moderate use of tobacco (like the moderate use of the co-named items food, alcohol, or medicine) is morally licit under the virtue of temperance. (Certainly the Church has never suggested a general anti-tobacco policy to its members, despite hundreds of years of its common use in Christian circles.) The conclusion one would draw from the Catechism seems further confirmed by the fact that, regardless of the claims made regarding "addiction" and cigarettes, many people only occasionally smoke pipes and cigars and with no apparent ill effects (some even smoke cigarettes only occasionally).

It may not be politically correct to point this out, but it seems to be true.

Recognizing that, what about the claim that commercially-available tobaccos are "laced with poison."

To be blunt, this particular claim seems to be propaganda of the anti-smoking industry.

Whether or not something is a poison depends on the amount in which it is received. If you eat a pound of salt at one sitting, it will turn out to be quite toxic to your system. But salt itself is essential for life. Similarly, drink five gallons of alcohol in one sitting and you will most certainly die. But drink alcohol in moderate amounts and it actually improves health.

Quantity thus is everything. Any substance administered in sufficiently small quantities would seem to count–in those quantities–as a non-poison. No substance I know of would kill a person if present only in a single molecule.

If (per supposition, though recognizing that matters here are likely way over-inflated due to political correctness and bad science) contemporary tobacco products are "laced with [substances that in sufficient quantities become] poisons," this would mean that the amount of such products whose use would be moderate would grow smaller (but not vanish in an instant).

It therefore seems to me that the presence of chemicals in contemporary tobacco products that increases their potential toxicity thereby limits the amount of such products which can be moderately consumed, but it does not eliminate it.

In addition, I am quite suspicious about claims made in such regards. We have already seen that the claims regarding "second-hand smoke" are highly problematic, and so are many other clearly propagandistic communiques in this regard.

Here in California, for example, the anti-smoking industry aired TV commercials advertising the "fact" that cigarettes release X-number of "chemicals" into the air, as if cooking popcorn did not release a similar number of "chemicals" into the environment.

A correspondent writes:

I recently ended a relationship with a good friend because of the issues surrounding his wedding plans. I feel that this wasn’t the only reason, it was an ending waiting to happen but my question is this. He had invited me to his wedding as a witness and as a practicing Catholic I declined to go because the ceremony is Pagan… or his "Version" of Paganism I’m unsure because I know nothing about the Pagan belief system.

I said that his marriage was invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church and therefore before God and I could not, as a Catholic give witness to the wedding. A fight broke out, I was called a number of things and the friendship is now over, but, did I say something wrong? Did I say something about the validity of marriage which would go against Church teaching?

Frankly, his weird Pagan beliefs scare me because they have such a dark tone to them and so I not only wanted to remain loyal to Rome but I wanted to protect my own soul as well. Can you help me sort this out? I’m confused as to which marriages are considered valid outside of the Catholic Church because I know some are IE. Protestants getting married in their own church and the like.

There is some good news and some bad news here.

First, the bad news: Unless there was some other factor (like a divorce or membership in the Catholic Church) affecting the situation, the mere fact that it was pagan would not affect his marriage’s validity. Those who are members of the Catholic Church are bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage, but people who have never been Catholic and those who have formally left the Catholic Church are not. Thus if two pagans get married to each other, the marriage will be presumed valid.

Now the good news: I still wouldn’t recommend that you attend the wedding. It is possible in principle to attend a non-Catholic marriage that will be presumed valid, but there are limits. If two Protestants are getting validly married in a church, fine. If two Jews are getting validly married in a synagogue, fine. In both of these cases, people who worship the true God are getting married in a venue where the true God’s blessings will be invoked upon their union.

Now let’s extend further: If two Protestants or two Jews (or some mixture of the two) are getting validly married in a courthouse, fine. Even though God’s blessings (presumably) won’t be involved on their union by the official, at least nothing is being done that disses the true God.

One more step: Suppose two atheists or two pagans are getting validly married in a courthouse. Again, I’d say that attending the marriage is fine, though this is where we are at the line. These people don’t believe in the true God, but at least they’re getting married in a ceremony where the true God won’t be dissed.

Now let’s take a step over the line: Two pagans get validly married in a pagan ceremony. Not fine, in my opinion. Their marriage may be valid, but the ceremony will (presumably) involve the invocation of the blessings of false gods (or false spirits or falsely personified nature forces, or what have you).

I would not attend such a wedding. In our culture, at least, attendance at a wedding represents a form of endorsement of and participation in the rite that is being enacted. For me to attend such a wedding would represent my endorsement of and participation in a sacrilegious rite, and that is something I will not do.

The fact he not only asked you to be present but also to be a witness means that your cooperation would be all the more problematic.

So I would say that your instincts were right. You may not have articulated the problem with the ceremony quite right, but you sensed that there was something gravely wrong here and you made the right choice.

If your friend can’t understand that your faith might require you not to attend a service of his faith then he is a friend you don’t need to have.

Now for some even better news: I would say that you did him a great spiritual kindness by refusing to go. Out of a juvenile sense of rebellion, the neo-pagans in our society are game-playing false religions despite having a cultural (and likely familial and even personal) heritage of the true faith. By holding fast and refusing to attend one of his rituals, you have done something that may help wake him up to the fact that one’s religious beliefs are important, that one can’t play with pagan rites and expect everything to go your way, and that there is a fundamental incompatibility between paganism and Christianity. All of these are things he needs to be aware of, and they may play a role in his future conversion (or reversion) to Christ.

PARENTAL WARNING: This post is going to involve a discussion of marital relations in their moral aspect. I intend to keep the discussion delicate, but parents should be aware of the particular nature of this post.

I figured that I’d need to do a follow-up post or two after yesterday’s NFP vs. contraception post, but I had no idea that so many ideas would be surfaced in the comments box. Let’s see what we can do to clarify matters:

1) Repentance following an act of sterilization.

There is no sin in having marital congress when one is infertile. Infertility is not the issue.

Period.

This is a settled point of Catholic moral theology. It does not matter what the source of the infertility is, whether it is due to age, accident, disease, surgery, or chemicals. Neither does it matter whether it is temporary or permanent.

If somebody sneaks up on you (e.g., when you are sick in a hospital) and sterilizes you against your will, the fact that you are now infertile does not mean that you can never again engage in marital congress.

The act of sterilizing you was a sin, and if you consented to the act then that was a sin, but having marital relations in a condition of sterility is not a sin. Therefore, once one repents of having solicited a sterilization one is morally in the same condition as one who is infertile through some other means. One has corrected the misuse of will that was sinful. The remaining infertility is a biological defect but not a moral one. Its historical origin is rooted in a moral defect, but the infertility itself is not a continuing sin. Neither is having marital congress in this state.

To suppose that there is continuing sin in having marital relations after being sterilized and then repenting involves committing the genetic fallacy (no pun intended).

Under no circumstances is it permissible to tell couples that are infertile due to sterilization that they cannot have marital relations. The Church has never made this requirement of them, and it would be regarded as gravely pastorally damaging.

2) Non-obligation to reverse sterilization.

The Church has not required couples that have been sterilized to have the procedure reversed. Reversal often is not possible, it entails risks, it frequently (especially in the case of men) can cause permanent side-effects (e.g., pain), and it involves expense that may exceed what a couple can prudentially afford.

That being said, it can be praiseworthy to reverse sterilization if it is possible and responsible for a couple to do so, but the Church has not required this of those who are penitent any more than it has required reparatory surgeries of those who have culpably mutiliated their bodies in other ways. At the present state of medical knowledge, it the risks and expenses involved in reparatory surgery often exceed what is reasonable for a person or a couple to undertake.

Suggestions, such as Kippley’s, that couples employ NFP or otherwise refrain from having intercourse for a certain period each month might be voluntarily undertaken by couples by mutual consent but also are non-obligatory.

Further, I could not recommend that such penances are undertaken without the continuing counsel of a competent spiritual director, as it is not pastorally prudent for individuals to engage in any long-term or weighty penances without such direction. The risk of a penitent being spiritually harmed by keeping his own counsel on such matters is too great. Everybody needs a spiritually mature outsider to keep tabs on their situation and make sure that such penances are helping rather than harming one.

3) "Non-coital" relations.

This one is particularly difficult to answer in a delicate manner, but I want to keep the blog (particularly its main page entries) discreet. I will therefore have to rely on the reader to understand what I am talking about here.

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as marital relations that are completely independent of coitus. While other, related activities may be associated with coitus, they cannot be pursued independently of it and without reference to it. If a couple is engaging in relations that in no way involve coitus then they are doing something immoral. One can do things to prepare for,  assist, and augment coitus, but one cannot replace it with something else. To do so involves replacing God’s design for marital relations with a fundamentally alien construction. Every genuine exercise of marital relations must, therefore, involve coitus (barring, for example, cases where the marital relations are interrupted apart from the couple’s will).

If you need more specificity on this, e-mail me privately.

4) When NFP is illicit.

The Church has not given a detailed treatment of this topic and a range of opinion is permitted. However, those who convey the impression that NFP can be used only in the most extreme circumstances are putting a greater burden on couples than the Church does. The Catechism speaks of NFP being licit for "just reasons" (CCC 2368) rather than the "grave reasons" some have urged as necessary. "Just reasons" and "grave reasons" are two different orders of magnitude in ecclesiastical language, and as a matter of professional ethics I seek to ensure that the language I use matches the language the Church uses in its current documents on the subject. In the future the Church may clarify this subject further, but for now it speaks of a "just reasons" test for the use of NFP, and thus so do I.

5) Condoms.

Contrary to what one commenter was told by a priests, condoms are not okay "if one is open to life at all times." Condoms represent a deliberate closing of the sexual act to life and thus are not okay. What the priest told the commenter was clearly erroneous and would be regarded as such by every faithful Catholic moral theologian.

6) Homosexuality & Infertility.

The reason that homosexuality is wrong is not that it involves infertile relations. The fact that infertile relations are not intrinsicaly sinful is something I have been trying to drive home in this discussion. A married but infertile couple is not sinning by having relations.

God designed human sexuality (and, indeed, all sexuality) to be oriented to procreation. In the case of humans (as opposed to sea angels) this means a man and a woman having coitus. Any time you have a man and a woman having coitus and not doing anything to impede the act, you have an act oriented to procreation. For a variety of causes, the act may not produce offspring. Indeed, it may be impossible in a given case for the act to produce offspring (e.g., because the man and the woman are too old), but the act nevertheless retains the orientation that God gave it.

It therefore thwarts God’s design for human sexuality if you have (a) two men or (b) two women or (c) a man and a woman doing something other than coitus or (d) a man and a woman having coitus but in some manner seeking to block its procreative potential. Cases (a)-(d) destroy the orientation to procreation that the act has and that even an infertile act has. The fact that cases (a)-(d) are all infertile (or intended to be infertile) is not the issue. God designed us so that many acts of coitus are by nature infertile. His design includes room for infertile acts; it is the deliberate rejection of his design (one man, one woman, having coitus, without deliberately blocking its procreative potential) that is what is wrong.

7) Intent.

A point that is often the source of confusion in this discussion and that came up in the comments box was the question of a couple’s intent. Consider the following two intents:

a) "I intend to have marital relations and yet not have a baby."

b) "I intend to have marital relations and do something to myself or to the act itself in order to destroy its procreative potential."

The first intention is not sinful. Couples have this intention all the time. Indeed, sooner or later, every married couple (that stays together and keeps having marital relations) eventually reaches a point in life where the partners have intention (a). This intention is compatible with God’s design for human sexuality since it is not God’s will that we have a baby each time we have marital relations. A person who merely has intention (a) is not doing anything to thwart God’s plan.

Intention (b) is sinful. Unlike intention (a), intention (b) deliberately intereferes with God’s design for human sexuality and so is sinful.

The intent of having marital relations yet not having a baby thus is not intrinsically sinful. The intent of interfering with a marital act so that it won’t produce a baby is.

8) "Artificial Contraception."

Everybody, please avoid using the term "artificial contraception." This term is intrinsically misleading as it suggests that there is such a thing as "natural contraception." There ain’t. No such critter. All contraception is artificial. It is thus dangerously misleading to tell people that the Church opposes "artificial contraception" as it suggests to them that there may be forms of "natural contraception" that are okay (e.g., coitus interruptus). This is not the case. The Church opposes contraception. Please use this language.

(Incidentally, I should have caught that the initial questioner used this language and clarified at that point, but I didn’t. My bad.)

Hoooooooooo-kay! Y’all got all that now?

Good. Now run along and play outside. I gots work ta do.