Linacre Q. 2016 Aug;83(3):330-345. doi: 10.1080/00243639.2016.1209401.

"Validity" and "liceity" in conjugal acts: A reply to Stephen Napier on the HIV-condom debate.

The Linacre quarterly

Joseph Arias

PMID: 27833210 PMCID: PMC5102196 DOI: 10.1080/00243639.2016.1209401

Abstract

Stephen Napier has argued against the soundness of what he calls the "Canon-Law argument" against the moral permissibility of a couple employing a condom for the sake of one spouse avoiding the contraction of HIV from the other spouse. Without an attempt to provide a full defense of the Canon-Law argument per se, this paper argues that Napier has not shown that argument to be inadequate. Napier's critique of that argument suffers from unsubstantiated counterexamples and from a failure to take into account analogous senses of "procreative end" in reference to the conjugal act. Using magisterial documents and canonical sources, this paper suggests that the distinction between validity and liceity can be usefully applied to conjugal acts.

Keywords: Condom; Conjugal act; Consummation; Contraception; HIV; Liceity; Marriage; Validity

References

1. Linacre Q. 2011 Nov;78(4):401-414 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article