Luke Gormally a dirigé The Linacre Centre (centre catholique anglais de bioéthique) de 1981 à 2000, y est resté comme chercheur senior ensuite, a été également professeur chercheur à l'université Ave Maria au Michigan.

C'est une étude extrêmement approfondie, rédigée suite à un échange de courrier avec Rhonheimer.

Elle cherche à définir les conditions pour qu'un acte soit apte à la génération.

Je ne suis pas apte pour juger, mais cela me semble plus catholique comme position que celle de Rhonheimer.

Voici deux courts extraits.

Merci aux prêtres de donner leur avis.

Marriage and the Prophylactic use of Condoms

Luke Gormally FAITH Magazine March-April 2006
.................
In the email exchange two points emerged as crucial. The first is the requirement that for an act of sexual intercourse to be marital it should be a generative or procreative type of act, an act which of its kind is apt for generation. The most fundamental disagreement between Rhonheimer and me is about what is necessary for an act to be of the generative kind. This disagreement underlies the disagreement which arose between us on the second crucial point.

That point is that there are two ways in which a sexual act may embody an intention to act in a manner per se inapt for generation. One may do so by deliberately choosing a behavioural pattern or, secondly, by deliberately producing ‘physical circumstances’ which render inapt for generation a behavioural pattern which otherwise would be per se apt for generation (as happens when women take oral contraceptives to render infertile an act which otherwise might have been fertile).

Is the Prophylactic Condom Incidental to the Act?

In the email debate I argued that condomistic intercourse exhibits a behavioural pattern which is per se inapt for generation. Rhonheimer argued that the behavioural pattern exhibited is that of normal sexual intercourse, and that the use of a latex rubber sheath by the husband is merely a ‘physical circumstance’ which happens to render the act inapt for generation. But since the condom in the scenario envisaged is not adopted with a contraceptive purpose, use of it does not embody an intention to act in a manner inapt for generation, and so there can be no objection to condomistic intercourse within a marriage on the basis of the type of act it is.

I have no difficulty over agreeing with the claim that in the scenario envisaged by Rhonheimer the husband is not aiming to prevent conception. So his behaviour is not to be faulted on the grounds that, in acting as he does, he has the intention of preventing conception by creating a ‘physical circumstance’ in virtue of which a generative pattern of behaviour is rendered inapt for generation. On my view his behaviour is to be faulted because of the non-generative behavioural pattern it exhibits.

...........

Circumstantial and Active Infertility Contrasted as Acts

In Question 15, article 2 of his Disputed Questions on Evil, a question about “Whether every act of lust is a mortal sin?”, St Thomas Aquinas considers an objection which seeks to infer from the permissibility of intercourse in marriage with a sterile wife, the permissibility of a range of non-generative sexual activities. To which he replies:that act is said to be contrary to nature in the genus of lust from which, according to the general character [‘species’] of the act generation cannot follow, but not that act from which it cannot follow because of some particular incidental [‘accidens’] circumstance such as old age or infirmity.

This may sound obscure. What is meant, I think, is that while the character of your performance can ensure that generation cannot follow, if what you do is the normal kind of sexual intercourse your happening to be sterile does not alter the character of the act as the kind of performance which, in its behavioural pattern, is apt for generation.

What has all this to do with my argument with Fr Rhonheimer? Well, if a husband ejaculates into a condom his wife is not receiving his ejaculate in her reproductive tract. His chosen act has therefore the character of an act from which generation cannot follow. That generation cannot follow is not a per accidens feature of the act, arising from biological characteristics of the spouses which are extrinsic to the character of the performance as such.

On the contrary, it is an essential feature of the chosen character of the performance that generation cannot follow from it; it is essentially a type of act inapt for generation.

.........

L'article en entier ici.

Linacre centre