Such considerations do not demonstrate, apodictically, that condomistic intercourse is not conjugal intercourse. They do, however, show that condomistic intercourse in the sort of case under consideration tends toward the same results as acts that the Church has always and clearly taught are intrinsically evil. Thus, such considerations provide evidence that Gormally's key premise is correct. And I can find no other difficulty with his argument. In conjunction with the argument from authority, that result leaves Catholics no justifiable alternative to concluding that condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil and thus "grave matter" for sin regardless of further intent. I don't like having to admit that, but the facts on the ground as well as the past teaching of the Church are on the critics' side.Perhaps I should, too? Much thought will be given to this, I suppose, in the coming weeks, but I'm too busy thinking about monastic spontaneous autoerotism right now to worry about the marital act1. I'll have to be careful, however, not to fall in love with chastity2 while reading Cassian, because Cassian's idea of chastity - at least as described in his Conlationes, which are addressed to a monastic audience and thus perhaps the consideration only accidentally is such - excludes the possibility of any sexual activity. Anyways, my own response will have to be based on the exact nature of the appeals to authority, as I am not Catholic and thus don't necessarily subscribe to the views promoted in those documents4. But, as I said, later!
Also for the future: Foucault. I keep bumping into him while doing Cassian and he intrigues me.
Should I be disturbed that I've been thinking about sex in a philosophical context a lot in the past year? I really had not investigated it thoroughly or been willing to discuss it until rather recently. I can't think of any particular events which may have brought this interest to the surface. I also don't think my investigations into it have changed my opinions much from what I was raised to think5, except to make me believe Anscombe's arguments about contraception rather than continue in the typical Protestant unreflective acceptance of contraception, but this wasn't a particularly recent move on my part. It happened, rather, several years ago.
And that's all the news that's fit to print.
1 That didn't stop me from reading a comprehensive 31pp article about what a Muslim must do if he touches his penis.
2 That is what one does in Cassian.
3 ie, the marital act, and I for one think it would be rather swell to be married. Hence, just say no to Iohannes Cassianus.
4 I may very well do so anyway, but scientific research needs to be done.
5 I don't recall any particular instruction from my parents on the issue, actually, but we all knew what was up. Whether I've always done what I know is right, however, is another question for another day.