|
|
|

|
|
by E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil, Senior Fellow in Ethics
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 28, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on
bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the
Culture of Life Foundation.
Q: Does a contraceptive act of sexual intercourse fulfill the Canon Law
requirements for Consummation? Regards, SG. A. -- Cape Town, South
Africa
E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
07/29/2010
|
|
by E. Christian Brugger, D. Phil, Senior Fellow in Ethics and William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 14, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.
Q: Can you tell us what is the latest Church teaching about couples
seeking a Catholic marriage, wherein one or both of the spouses are
impeded from having children by a tubal ligation and/or vasectomy? Can a
priest assist at such a marriage, if he were to know about the
situation? Or is it enough that he ask them to consider a reversal?
Seems like these cases are becoming an epidemic, and every priest seems
to be handling this question differently. -- Fr. I.S. Belleville, New
Jersey, USA
E. Christian Brugger and William E. May offer the following response:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
07/16/2010
|
|
by E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil., Senior Fellow in Ethics
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 16, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on
bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the
Culture of Life Foundation.
Q: Are there any conditions to follow Natural Family Planning (NFP) by a
married couple, or is there blanket approval by Catholic Church?
Wouldn't NFP be against life if the intention of the couple involved in
sexual act is just pleasure and not life, provided they don't have any
valid reason to postpone pregnancy? In this case, can NFP be also
considered similar to using condoms? Thanks and Regards -- D.R.P,
Bangalore, India.
E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
06/17/2010
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
|
In 2006, Cardinal Carlo Martini, retired archbishop of Milan and a
respected biblical scholar, expressed his opinion that it was morally
permissible and prudent for married couples to use condoms when engaging
in genital intercourse to prevent transmission of HIV. In doing so, he
made his own the view of Dominican Cardinal Georges Cottier, the former
theologian of the Pontifical Household, and a number of bishops.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
04/01/2010
|
|
by E. Christian Brugger, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Ethics
|
|
“I want to have children with you.” These are the opening words of the
U.S. Bishops’ new document on reproductive technology, Life-Giving Love
in an Age of Technology,
issued on November 17
(www.usccb.org/LifeGivingLove/lifegivinglovedocument.pdf ). The
document is addressed specifically to married couples suffering from
infertility and considering their options. It attempts to balance a
sincere empathy for their bitter experience of loss with clear guidance
on ethically legitimate alternatives: “The Church has compassion for
couples suffering from infertility and wants to be of real
help to them.” The text acknowledges the temptation they can
experience to cut a ‘faustian bargain’ in order to secure the object of
their desperate desires. And it encourages them to hope in God even in
the face of human disappointment. Specifically, it asks whether
certain forms of assisted reproduction are consistent with the
flourishing of marriage and with the duties we owe to nascent human
life. In the words of the statement: “Some solutions offer real hope
for restoring a couple’s natural, healthy ability to have children.
Others pose serious moral problems by failing to respect the dignity of
the couple’s marital relationship, of their sexuality, or of the child.”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
12/01/2009
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
|
When God made man, he did not make a conscious subject aware of
itself as a self to which he then added a body as an afterthought.
Rather, when he made man, "male and female he created them," and he
blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply" (Gen 1:27-28).
In other words, when God created man he created a bodily being,
made in his own image and likeness and thus endowed with the gifts of
intelligence and free choice, sexually differentiated into male and
female. And he loves specific, individual human persons, male and
female, and not humanity in general. He made them to be the kind of
beings they are (human in nature), namely, bodily persons sexually
differentiated into male and female, precisely so that they could
freely receive from him the gift of his own divine life (grace) so long
as they freely choose, with his help, to give themselves away in
love--in a sincere gift of self--and thus form a communion of persons,
ultimately the communion of saints living fully the life of the Triune
God.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
04/30/2009
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
Introduction
Long ago St. Augustine distinguished three cardinal goods of marriage:
the good of offspring (bonum prolis) who are to be begotten lovingly,
nurtured humanely, and educated religiously; the good of steadfast
fidelity (bonum fidei) between husband and wife; and the good of the
sacrament (bonum sacramenti), which entails both the holy bond of
indissoluble unity (sacrum vinculum) and sacramental sign (sacramentum
signum), the good of the sacrament in the strict sense as the good
pointing to and inwardly participating in Christ’s bridal union with
his spouse, the Church (St. Augustine developed his teaching on the
threefold good of marriage principally in On the Good of Marriage (De
bono coniugali),On Marriage and Concupiscence ( De nuptiis et
concupiscentia),and The Literal Meaning of Genesis ( De genesi ad
litteram). Subsequent Catholic tradition made these goods its own,
constantly affirming them; in fact, Pope Pius XI structured his 1930
encyclical On Chaste Marriage (Casti connubii) around these three
Augustinian goods..
|
|
Read more...
|
|
03/31/2009
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
A major and most important difference between the culture of life and the culture of death is the different ways in which they understand the meaning of human acts. The culture of death understands human acts primarily in terms of what our acts get done in the external world, i.e., it assesses and evaluates human acts in terms of their consequences or states of affairs that they bring about, whereas the culture of life, while recognizing that human acts get things done in the external world, assesses and evaluates them primarily in terms of what they have to say about ourselves, about what they do to us as persons who make ourselves to be the kind of persons we are in and through the acts we freely choose to do every day of our lives.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
01/29/2009
|
|
by William E. May
|
|
The use of condoms to prevent transmission of a disease is intrinsically evil because the object freely chosen that specifies the moral nature of the act is not the marital act, an act in which husband wife give and receive one another and become literally “one flesh,” but a different kind of act, one that in no way unites them but rather changes utterly the “language of the body.” by William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
|
|
Read more...
|
|
11/13/2007
|
|
by Joe Capizzi, Ph.D.
|
|
Conservative Protestants are beginning to join faithful Catholics in recognizing the harm done to society by widespread contraception.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
05/09/2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Visit our Bioethics
and
Order Dr. May's latest publication
Receive Culture of Life Briefs
bi-weekly in your e-mail!
|
|
|
|
|
|