Another Response to Eduardo

My understanding of the controversy has been greatly clarified by reading some pieces that co-blogger Richard Myers has kindly called to my attention.

The principal problem with Eduardo's argument, for those who affirm the teaching of Humanae Vitae, is Eduardo's first premise, that "the act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent."  For the position that condomistic sexual intercourse is always morally bad--in particular, that it is morally bad even when ex hypothesi the wife and husband who engage in such sexual intercourse do so without any intent to prevent conception--see, e.g., William E. May, "Using Condoms to Prevent HIV," The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Winter 2004, at 667-68;  Benedict Guevin, OSB, "On the Use of Condoms to Prevent Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome," The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Spring 2005, at 37-39.

For the position that condomistic sexual intercourse is not always morally bad--in particular, that it is not morally bad when ex hypothesi the wife and husband who engage in such sexual intercourse do so without any intent to prevent conception--see especially Martin Rhonheimer,   "On the Use of Condoms to Prevent Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome," The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Spring 2005, at 40-48.  Significantly, Father Rhonheimer is a priest of Opus Dei.  He does not dissent from the teaching of Humanae Vitae but afirms it; but he understands the teaching differently from the way that Father Guevin and many others understand it.

Note that if Rhonheimer is correct, the Vatican can change its position on the morality of the use of condoms by a married couple for the purpose of preventing the transmission of HIV without compromising the teaching of Humane Vitae.

[Not that anyone is interested in my position, but just for the record:  I do not affirm the teaching of Humane Vitae.  With John Noonan and Charles Curran (among others), I dissent from that teaching.]
_______________
mp