A Fornicator and the use of Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaMaMaXiMuS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joan M:
Wrong! Just as there are different levels in Heaven (those who gain more merit - by their holiness - are capable of more happiness in Heaven), there are also different levels in Hell - more horrible punishment.
I’ve never heard of this outside of fiction. Can you point to some Church teaching on these different levels, e.g., the Catechism? Thanks!
 
For all those who think or suspect I told my friend, “Well if your going to do it anyway, at least use a condom.”, that is NOT what I told him. I thought I said pretty clear that, “I didn’t tell him nothing of the kind, but it just made me think.” So there’s no cause for alarm in that regards.

Next, this is no hypothetical situation, it is a real life situation. So hopefully no one thinks I just conjured up this scenerio because I’m trying to sympathize with fornicators and condom users, because nothing could be farther from the truth.

I asked what I asked out of a genuine concern for my friend, but with an eye towards God as well. Which is why I told him he has to repent and stop fornicating and why I told him about journey in Catholicism.

But anyway, my whole purpose to even post this matter on these boards was to hopefully receive spiritual advice on the matter. I know of the pitfalls of counseling with yourself as opposed to seeking counsel from others who would be unbiased.

For the most part I feel like I have received sound advice on how to proceed with my friend.

Thanks to all you for contributing to my dilemma. Be assured that whenever I see ro speak with my friend I will relate to him the good advice and insight I’ve received here.

Special thanks to LittleDeb. I felt like your testimony helped immensely.

God Bless you All,

Nelson
 
As a note, I do believe I have seen it written that a woman who has been raped has every right to try to reduce the possibility of conception, assuming that those means don’t have an abortifacient risk. The rapist has no right to a woman’s body.

I wonder if this has any bearing on other forms of sexual behavior outside of marriage.

My personal contention is that it is similar in the case of fornication. While it may resemble marital union in its physical aspects, the act is occurring entirely outside the context of the life-giving love of the marital union.

Thus, the use of a contraceptive in such a situation is in no way disturbing the sanctity of anything, for that union is completely illicit, and has no right to exist at all.

In fact, if this is the case, I would find it an interesting witness to the fact that there is a difference in nature between sexual intercourse in marriage and that outside of marriage:

Contraceptives are immoral in marriage and not immoral outside of marriage, because it is only in marriage that sex has any holy significance.

That’s just my opinion.
 
Prometheum_x

Interesting scenario. Although I did not think of the scenario you thought of, I will say that your last words, “Contraceptives are immoral in marriage and not immoral outside of marriage, because it is only in marriage that sex has any holy significance.” is what I pondered to wheter it is right of wrong. I guess you summed up in much less words what I wanted advice on in my first post.

But Prometheum_x how could a raped women reduce the possibility of conception, and at the same time make sure that those means don’t have an abortifacient risk?

I would have never thought that possible.

Nelson
 
This reminds me of something that happened years ago on our street.

At the time, we lived on a one way street. A guy started dating a girl who lived next door to us. To pick her up, he’d back up a block to her door, it being quicker than going around to approach it in the direction traffic was mandated.

Sure enough, he did it one day when a policeman was there to see it. I could overhear the conversation between him and the policeman. The guy pointed out that he backed up because he couldn’t go forward in the direction he wanted because the street was one way. The policeman pointed out that he was getting a ticket for two infractions: Going the wrong way on a one way street, and backing into traffic.

One sin never cancels, or diminishes, another.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Quote: “As a note, I do believe I have seen it written that a woman who has been raped has every right to try to reduce the possibility of conception, assuming that those means don’t have an abortifacient risk.”

This is an interesting comment. But, I thought the reason contraception is forbidden is that it is against natural law; thus, if a raped woman can do non-abortifacient things to reduce the possibility of conception, then a married woman should be able to do the same things. These non-abortifacient things sound contraceptive.

I have never seen the ban on contraception related to the holiness of sex within marriage. It’s my understanding that extramarital sex without contraception is morally “preferable” (not a great word) to extramarital sex with contraception.
 
proudnifi,

How could it be that extramarital sex (fornication) iwithout contraception (condoms, in this topic being discussed) is more preferable?
 
I would give him a book (like this one I just saw on Amazon) with graphic displays of sexually transmitted diseases. Ones that are close up and really tell it like it is when you get AIDS or chlamydia or herpes. Maybe ask him over to dinner with an AIDS activist who can tell his story of how he was a bright young man destined for greatness, but now lives with HIV every day of his life.

We all “know” about the dangers of unprotected sex, but they aren’t “real” to most of us. Do you know what chlamydia does to your body? What herpes does? Probably not really. Neither does he. He is able to brush it aside without knowing. He needs to face what it is he is gambling with.

By doing this, you are being honest. You do not have to wonder or worry if you made the right choice. And you actually have a pretty good chance of getting through to him.

We all know the “use a condom” line. You don’t need to tell him. You need to make him see what he is playing around with (pun appropriate, but not intended) when he does this. If he is scared enough, he might stop all-together. If he is scared some, he will conclude that at the least, he’d better use a condom or talk to his doctor about it. He’ll come to the conclusion on his own, you are not implicated, and the real issue is addressed. Sounds like a better approach to me.
 
40.png
DaMaMaXiMuS:
proudnifi,

How could it be that extramarital sex (fornication) iwithout contraception (condoms, in this topic being discussed) is more preferable?
I agree the word “preferable” is a poor wording choice. I couldn’t/can’t think of a better word.

It’s my understanding that the Church says that each action - 1. extramarital sex (not in rape context) and 2. contraception - is sinful. So, I would assume that having extramarital sex with contraception is more sinful than extramarital sex without contraception because it’s sin # 1 vs sins # 1 and #2.

Would it then follow that “only” engaging in sin #1 is preferable to engaging in both sin #1 and #2? In my other post, I was assuming that only these two choices were available as I was reflecting on the contraception issue more than the extramarital sex issue (I think contraception is a question independent of the context of the sexual act; that is, it doesn’t matter if the person is married or not, contraception is not allowed).

If I confused the issue further, I apologize. Don’t worry, I don’t claim to be a theologian and I could very well be wrong.
 
My personal theory is that the morality of condom use outside of marriage depends on the nature of the fornication.

For those in invalid civil marriages, their situation is most similar to conjugal relations inside marriage, and thus the use of contraception is sinful above and beyond the fornication involved.

At the other extreme, for extremely promiscuous individuals who are required by law to use condoms, I would say that not using a condom is sinful above and beyond the fornication involved. (Such cases include legal prostitution and individuals with AIDS looking for one-night-stands with partners who are unaware of their disease.)

For situations in between, e.g., “shacking up” in a committed relationship vs. occasional “hooking up” with friends vs. promiscuity between disease-free individuals, I would say that the morality of condom use also varies between the two extemes that I have outlined above.

But this is just my personal musing. I will gladly defer to whatever the Church decides to teach in the future.

And the most important point is that the fornication involved is clearly sinful in its own right, regardless of whether condoms are used.
 
40.png
proudnifi:
Quote: “As a note, I do believe I have seen it written that a woman who has been raped has every right to try to reduce the possibility of conception, assuming that those means don’t have an abortifacient risk.”

This is an interesting comment. But, I thought the reason contraception is forbidden is that it is against natural law; thus,** if a raped woman can do non-abortifacient things to reduce the possibility of conception, then a married woman should be able to do the same things**. These non-abortifacient things sound contraceptive.

I have never seen the ban on contraception related to the holiness of sex within marriage. It’s my understanding that extramarital sex without contraception is morally “preferable” (not a great word) to extramarital sex with contraception.
Those are two totally different situations. One is an act of love within the context of marriage, the other is a violation and attack on a woman. In one, you’d be blocking the fruitfulness of marriage, in the other you’d be blocking the rapist from intruding further in the victim.

I would agree with the rest of the posters who say that condoms should not be recommended for the friend. I’d just keep telling him that fornication is a sin and not to do it. Don’t give him an easy out by encouraging that sinful behavior.

see this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50054&highlight=rape

God bless you.
 
40.png
EsclavoDeCristo:
Argh, seems that the posters went 'round on 'round there, too. I will have to read a few translations of HV. I have been under the impression that contraception is intrinsically evil as it separates the sex act from its natural end (potential for conception). This has nothing to do with intent of the participants (love each other, hate each other).

It seems compassionate to allow contraception to spare the rape survivor from an unwanted pregnancy, but if contraception is inherently evil, contraception would not be allowed as we are forbidden from doing evil even it would bring about a good end. Maybe some of the post-rape treatment would be primarily to protect against disease and would have the side effect of rendering conception more difficult.

What a difficult question for a difficult situation. I guess my next step is to research whether contraception is intrinsically evil. Thanks for the posting link; it was an interesting discussion.
 
40.png
proudnifi:
Argh, seems that the posters went 'round on 'round there, too.
In cases where the Magisterium has spoken, it really doesn’t matter how many times the posters here on CA go 'round and 'round.
40.png
proudnifi:
It seems compassionate to allow contraception to spare the rape survivor from an unwanted pregnancy, but if contraception is inherently evil, contraception would not be allowed as we are forbidden from doing evil even it would bring about a good end.
The USCCB has explicitly stated that contraception is allowed in this case.
40.png
proudnifi:
Maybe some of the post-rape treatment would be primarily to protect against disease and would have the side effect of rendering conception more difficult.
I don’t think the USCCB statement can be read in this way: “A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”
 
The contraception in cases of rape is for another thread.

This thread is about using condoms during sex he shouldn’t be having.

So it is essentially asking, well, if I’m going to sin, which would be the least sinful way to do so. Don’t sin!

Lets apply this mentality to other sins. Well I’m going to kill someone, should I do it when his children arn’t looking as to spare them the years of emotional pain and therapy?

I’m going to cheat on my wife. Could I use a hooker rather than a friend that way her feelings wouldn’t be so hurt?

I’m going to steal money from some folks. Should I do by credit card fraud so they get reimbursed?

See the problem in the logic?
 
Ack! This thread is meandering in some interesting ways! Thank you I_A_ for trying to get it on track again.

As someone who has personal experience with nearly every thing mentioned here I will hopefully lay a few confusing points to rest. While I too agree the rape question is for another thread I will post a brief reply as I did not get to reply in the quoted thread.

Rape is not an act of sex it is an act of assult. A rape victim may use a cleaning agent containing spermicide post rape. The reason is as stated before, intent. If my intent is to cleanse my body of foriegn (wow I can’t spell tonight!) matter then I may do so. If some of my husband’s sperm are accidentally killed then I am not at fault. Similarly to when I clean a gash wound, I am just ridding my body of the assult. My intention is not to thwart the plan of God but to take care of the body he gave me. Now anything that would cause an abortion is not allowed because it kills a person. As I have told many when they know my story, “There are worse things you can get from a rape than a baby.”

So on the original topic. As stated previously it is because contraception is intrinsically evil that it cannot be seen as an option. This thread is about the sex act. The sins are compounded by adding contraception. Fornication is a sin. Contraception is a sin. What we are dealing with in this instance (and in many others) is that the person in question (OP’s friend) might believe fornication is a sin but because of differing beliefs does not believe contraception is too.

The question really boils down to asking it from the other side. If the OP’s friend said “I’m fornicating and I understand that you Catholics think contraception is a sin. So do you believe I shouldn’t use contraception while fornicating because I am committing 2 sins that way?” (Don’t laugh I have been asked this question) One of the only proper answers to this question is, “Stop fornicating.” The other is just bait.

If we really think about it, contraception is just that, bait. It baits us to do evil. Don’t get hooked in!
 
40.png
LittleDeb:
Rape is not an act of sex it is an act of assult. A rape victim may use a cleaning agent containing spermicide post rape. The reason is as stated before, intent. If my intent is to cleanse my body of foriegn (wow I can’t spell tonight!) matter then I may do so. If some of my husband’s sperm are accidentally killed then I am not at fault. Similarly to when I clean a gash wound, I am just ridding my body of the assult. My intention is not to thwart the plan of God but to take care of the body he gave me. Now anything that would cause an abortion is not allowed because it kills a person. As I have told many when they know my story, “There are worse things you can get from a rape than a baby.”

So on the original topic. As stated previously it is because contraception is intrinsically evil that it cannot be seen as an option. This thread is about the sex act. The sins are compounded by adding contraception. Fornication is a sin. Contraception is a sin. What we are dealing with in this instance (and in many others) is that the person in question (OP’s friend) might believe fornication is a sin but because of differing beliefs does not believe contraception is too.

The question really boils down to asking it from the other side. If the OP’s friend said “I’m fornicating and I understand that you Catholics think contraception is a sin. So do you believe I shouldn’t use contraception while fornicating because I am committing 2 sins that way?” (Don’t laugh I have been asked this question) One of the only proper answers to this question is, “Stop fornicating.” The other is just bait.

If we really think about it, contraception is just that, bait. It baits us to do evil. Don’t get hooked in!
I would certainly agree that, *practically speaking, *it is not an option to advise people to “use contraception if you’re going to fornicate anyway.”

However, while rape is clearly an act of assault, I fail to see how it is not an act of sex. It fits the biological description, and it has all the same biological effects. In fact, while it does not have this definition in societal terms, I would contend that fornication is a mutual act of assault on the other. When we sin against another we are causing damage of some sort to them. Neither party has a right to use the body of the other in that way, and it is not a right that can be created simply by consent. Any and all sexual relations outside of marriage violates the other and is at the very least an assault on their dignity as a human person.
 
I remember several years ago here in New York there was a case where some Lunatic who knew he was HIV positive purposely went around sleeping with women he would pickup, trying to infect them. I believe by the time he confessed and the authorities were able to track down most of the people he slept with, several of them came up positive. Then there was the worry of a chain reaction effect, where the authorities had to then track down everyone these infected people (who didn’t know they were infected) slept with. It was a very sordid situation.

A perfect example of what people put themselves at risk of when they fall into the premiscious lifestyle, Fornication.

I’m just mentioning this because of the points being made about assualt. Rape is definately assault, but this situation I’ve just mentioned has to fall into the same catergory. As a matter of fact the person was tried for attempted murder, if I’m not mistaken.

But anway…I did want to say something to member I_A_,

I don’t agree that, “The contraception in cases of rape is for another thread.” If this were true then we would have to also say the samething about the different scenarios you listed when you said let’s look at this mentality to other sins.

The following is addressed to the general audience on this thread.

Let’s forget about the situation involving my friend and just look at the issue stated another way.

People who are into having premiscious sex (one night stands, etc) and are not going to stop. Some of these people are disease free, some of these people are not.

Now as a Catholic, if I know of such people personally I should be trying to show them the error of their ways and try to get them to stop fornicating. Now for those who don’t take heed, whom we’re not able to get throught to and who are using condoms in their premiscious lifestyle, should I be getting them to stop using condoms although their not going to stop their promiscuity?

And I’m speaking only of condoms because I don’t know of any other form of contraceptive that claims provide some level of protection against contracting disease. Because this is not just about these individuals catching a disease, but also spreading disease. And trust I’m fully aware of the fact that condoms do not provide 100% protection against contracting or transmitting diseases, but neither is their effectiveness ZERO either.

I think the best thing to do is to try to get people like this to 1ST STOP fornicating, which if by the mercy of God we’re able to, then the condom or contraception issue will follow suit. Someone earlier in this tread pointed out the core of the problem is the FORNICATION. And I agree.

What I have a hard time making sense of is what good does it do to encourage someone who is NOT willing to stop sleeping around, to stop using condoms when they haven’t stopped sleeping around, fornicating. Wouldn’t this be like that saying, “We’re putting the carriage before the horse.”?

And I could see the argument made by some that it would be encouraging these people to continue sinning, if we were just telling them “Use a Condom”. But that’s not the case. We should be telling to “STOP FORNICATING 1ST AND FOREMOST.” So then I don’t see how it would be encouraging them to continue sinning by not discouraging them from using condoms.

Does the church speak about this specifically?
 
**

"The morality of using contraception within versus outside marriage needs to be considered differently."

Contraception is only a minor part of the entire question of sexuality and marriage. Strictly speaking, there can be no discussion of the morality of contraception outside marriage because there should be no occasion of conception outside marriage. Clearly that does not reflect what happens in the world, but it raises the issue, it is not licit to do something evil so that something good might result. “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

If contraception is wrong within marriage, which should be a mutually supportive, respectful, stable, life-long commitment, then how much more wrong must it be in relationships which are transitory, impermanent, uncommitted or unstable, which are based on physical delights.

Teenage pregnancy is certainly a problem that cannot be shied away from. It may seem to be supportive and caring to say, “Well, if you can’t be good, be safe.” But it is false charity. How loving is it to deny someone the truth and encourage them to continue to live lives that are destructive of themselves and those around them. “Chastity training” in the United States has had enormous impact. Virginity until marriage is encouraged and embraced in a way that is inconceivable here where the mere thought of not having “tried before you buy” is considered abnormal. But we owe people nothing less.

Then, of course, there is the question of AIDS and other (albeit non-fatal) sexually transmitted diseases. All hail the Almighty Condom! “Safe sex” should really be called “safe-ish sex”, and even that’s being too generous. If the condom is only 75% effective (when used properly!) to prevent pregnancy which can only result from intercourse in a 2-5 day window during the month, why on earth are we lying to people by telling them it will prevent them from contracting HIV which doesn’t care what time of the month it is?!

If someone were robbing a bank, we wouldn’t teach them how to hold the gun safely. Why then do we give in with chastity and say, you’re not going to be able to be good, so here’s how to protect yourself from getting pregnant. Responsible care and use of our bodies and sexuality requires a lot of maturity and self-respect. Offering contraceptives to teenagers does nothing but diminish any chance they ever had of respecting themselves and their bodies in the way God intended. Not developing a sense of respect for their bodies and the dignity of the gift of sexuality in our children will place them in the most dangerous and precarious situations, and leave them very ill-equipped to cope.

Contraception, of course, is the easy “solution” to the problem. It’s easier to give a teenager a condom or a prescription for the Pill than it is to address the reasons it is so hard to be chaste in today’s world. But easy solutions are rarely the right ones. And this solution in particular is only compounding the problem so that it gets harder with each new generation of teenagers to deal with the problems.

In addition, a couple who is committed to marriage but decides to be sexually active during their engagement or beforehand and decides to use contraceptives until they are married are hardly likely to suddenly embrace NFP when they walk down the aisle. The point is that contraception develops a mentality that is ruining the Western World. That might seem a bit extreme, but I have no doubt that it is true, and Pope Paul VI predicted as much in Humanæ Vitæ. Allowing that mentality to develop outside of marriage can only have the most destructive influence on marriage itself.

In natural law terms, marriage has certain fundamental “goods” that are inherent in its nature: fecundity, fidelity and indissolubility. Any attack on one of these goods naturally leads to the weakening of the others. There is no doubt whatsoever that contraception and a contraceptive mentality has grave consequences on conjugal fidelity and the permanence of the marriage. The widespread problem of divorce in modern society can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the contraceptive mentality and the warped view of self, sexuality and married love that it entails. Proof of this can be seen in the extremely low divorce rates among couples who do not use contraception.

catholic-pages.com/morality/contraception.asp**
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
As a note, I do believe I have seen it written that a woman who has been raped has every right to try to reduce the possibility of conception, assuming that those means don’t have an abortifacient risk. The rapist has no right to a woman’s body.

I wonder if this has any bearing on other forms of sexual behavior outside of marriage.

My personal contention is that it is similar in the case of fornication. While it may resemble marital union in its physical aspects, the act is occurring entirely outside the context of the life-giving love of the marital union.

Thus, the use of a contraceptive in such a situation is in no way disturbing the sanctity of anything, for that union is completely illicit, and has no right to exist at all.

In fact, if this is the case, I would find it an interesting witness to the fact that there is a difference in nature between sexual intercourse in marriage and that outside of marriage:

Contraceptives are immoral in marriage and not immoral outside of marriage, because it is only in marriage that sex has any holy significance.

That’s just my opinion.
The last statement is in error. Contraception is not just a sin against marriage nor is it just a sin again “holy sex” 😉 … Contraception goes against natural law. It frustrates the intended purpose of man and woman coming together… whether in marriage or outside of it.
 
Earlier today I had a phone conversation with one of the Catholic Answers Apologist on the topic of this thread. Here’s what they said as best as I can remember it.

They explained that condoms or for that matter any form of contrception is intrinsically evil in all situations, whether in sanctified marriage or in some illicit sexual relation.

They also said that if a person were in the midst of mortal sin such as committing fornication with no desire to stop and repent, their use of condoms or again any other form of contraceptive to avoid catching a disease, or transmitting a disease, or to avoid pregnancy will not alleviate or compound the sin that they’re already engulfed in, fornication. Furthermore, none of this changes the fact that contraceptives are intrinsically evil always.

They then gave me an example that I really never thought of. Assuming this was something that was discovered after being married. They said if there were a married couple, where one spouse had say herpes, they could still not use a contraceptive. It would still be immoral. Their only solution would be abstinence to avoid infecting the other spouse.

I never really thought of this, which in some ways made things click a little more clearer for me.

I feel more at ease after speaking with the apologist.

Nelson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top