... does the principle of double effect actually apply here? As you quoted: "The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from--provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever." Here the talk is about (1) "therapeutic means necessary to cure", and (2) "forseeable impediment to procreation" (3) "provided [it] is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever". It seems to me none of these applies to "profylactic use of condom" in marital act. (1) It is not meant to cure neither husband nor wife from any disease; (2) it is not some forseeable, but direct impediment to procreation. Actually the profylactic works insofar only as it prevents semen entering vagina; therefore (3) contraceptive use of condom is direct means for profylactic and cannot be unintended "for any motive whatsoever".Ootan huviga tema vastust.
... Mida ei tulnudki :(