An amateur stab at moral reasoning

Today I was asked point-blank whether the use of artificial methods of contraception by married couples is intrinsically evil. For something to be intrinsically evil it must be wrong always and everywhere, regardless of intentions and/or circumstances. It does seem to me that Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae teaches that use of artificial methods of contraception is intrinsically evil because it is a violation of both the natural law, derived from reason, as well as the divine law, derived from revelation, that is, from Scripture and tradition, the constant and unbroken teaching of the church, a teaching that is of apostolic origin.

Working on the assumption that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, circumstances cannot exempt one from adhering to the binding moral precepts derived from natural and divine law. So, even in cases in which one spouse is infected with HIV, the use of a condom is not morally licit. In cases in which a woman is prescribed birth control pills for therapeutic reasons, abstinence is also the moral answer.

I believe that the application of the principle of double effect has been rejected when some have sought to apply it to cases in which one of the spouses is infected with HIV. It is my understanding that in order for double effect to be legitimately applied, all of the following four conditions must be met:

 the nature of the act is itself good
 the intention is for the good effect and not the bad;
 the good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect
 the good effect does not go through the bad effect

This is where another aspect of morality comes into play, namely that which constitutes a grave sin. As it pertains to the church's constant teaching with regard to contraception, it is quite clear that very small minority of Catholics in the U.S., estimated to be somewhere around 3% of couples married in the church, follow the clear and constant, if difficult, teaching of the church. I think this can be largely chalked up to consciences not being properly formed with regard to sexuality in general and marital sexuality in particular. Many couples are told, sometimes even encouraged, by some charged with teaching and pastoring to ignore this teaching. It helps to understand a very crucial distinction; that between sin and wrongdoing. So, while doing something intrinsically evil is always wrong, it is not always sinful. How so?

Looking to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is clearly taught that a grave, or mortal, sin is committed "when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent" (par. 395). Deliberate consent presupposes full knowledge. So, for most Catholics who ignore what the church teaches regarding contraception, while there is grave matter involved (i.e., that which is intrinsically evil), there is rarely full knowledge and, hence, rarely full consent. As with marriage in general, the fault can be laid largely on the church's inability to clearly and persuasively articulate the truth, but the truth remains the truth regardless of our inability to articulate, understand, or live it, which is why God's mercy, given us in Christ Jesus, as Paul teaches us, is so important. This is not helped by the fact that we live in an over-sexed age in which pregnancy is normally viewed as something that goes wrong when two people engage in sexual intercourse.

While we're on the subject of sexual confusion, Laura Bramon Good has posted Elliot Spitzer Makes a Porno, Part II.