Allergic to semen... Condoms okay?

[SanctaMommy]

My God-daughter and niece confides in me quite a bit, and recently told me that she and her husband have resorted to using condoms because she is allergic to his semen. Apparently, she was getting a very bad inflammatory response to his ejaculate, and her allergy was diagnosed by an allergist and obgyn. She is 27 and has been married 7 months.the allergist told her to use condoms when being intimate with her husband. Apparently, when they want to have children, she can take a high dose of antihistamine and have sperm injected into her falopian tubes (or something.) I am worried that the use of condoms in this situation is still illicit, and that the whole situation makes it too easy to “plan” a family around one’s convenience. Ideas?

 

[Debora123]

You are correct, this would technically be “illicit” according to the letter of the law.

…And the correct “answer” would be that your niece and her new husband would have to live as brother and sister.

 

[faithfully]

Read this:

allergycases.org/2008/07/semen-allergy-diagnosis-and-treatment.html

Her treatment plan is common. HOWEVER, if you keep reading, there are options. I would look for SKILLED doctors. Not just ones that can read the chapter from their medical book printed the year before they graduated.

I personally would look into that! Way before I’d be looking into a sexless marriage.

And if they didn’t work, I’d probably consider a condom, no spermicide with a tiny hole. Allowing sperm to pass! But not ALL of it. It just takes 1! Remaining open to life, NOT open to pain.

 

[twoangels]

I think the anti-contraceptive teaching of the Catholic Church is based upon the goodness of the procreative aspect of the sexual act and the unity between the unitive and procreative meanings of sexuality. It is not based upon arbitary rules which must be followed as if every reason and argument we have for why contraceptives are immoral are just a manner of backwards thinking to defend the key principal. Certainly as Catholic lay people, our understanding of the “why” can be limited. We are taught the faith in a simplified form when we first learn. We’re told the basics. Its like a child who is taught how to subtract and is simply told to pretend that 2 minus 5 is impossible because the child is not ready to learn about negative numbers.

I think the key to understand though is the value of natural sexual intercourse. It should not be satisfactory to have to use a condom when you have sex. I would think this is a case where alternative treatment should be sought after and explored. But if all other measures are exhausted, from what I know of Church teaching, the claim that the couple would have to live as brother and sister to avoid the allergy rather than use a condom seems based not on the moral teachings that the Church’s prohibition against contraceptives is based upon, but on the fact that “The church says condoms are immoral and reaffirms this over and over even when people bring up ‘what about aids?’ and what not, so this rule must be held regardless of the circumstances.”

Its very easy to get caught up in situations where the the issues addressed by the Church deal with issues of normal human experience.

I would suggest having her bring up the issue in the confessional to her regular confessor and seeking guidence as she tries to see what she is able to do. I think the preference would be to find ways to treat the allergy and overcome it rather than to use a condom. Certainly the manner in which she’d seek to become pregnant is immoral. It should be understood that it is a sad thing not to be able to engage in the act naturally and to have that procreative aspect thwarted by things you cannot control.

But this is a hard circumstance and I think if you start lecturing her in a manner of “You’re in terrible sin and going to Hell” seems to depict God as some monster waiting for you to fail so that he can condemn you to Hell rather than the reality of His mercy and justice. Like it or not, the moral path is not always clear because every path before you seems immoral. Certainly denying the goodness and importance of the marital embrace is not a moral good! St. Paul tells us not to deny each other except by mutual consent and only for a time. It must be understood that this is a very difficult situation to go through. She needs to discern this path very carefully, striving to do what is right when what is right is unclear. She will have to make choices with uncertainty as she is still investigating and discerning. I don’t believe being in such a situation truly expresses a willful rejection of God so long as she seeks greater understanding and is willing to adjust her path as the right path becomes more clear.

 

[Debora123]

I think the anti-contraceptive teaching of the Catholic Church is based upon the goodness of the procreative aspect of the sexual act and the unity between the unitive and procreative meanings of sexuality. It is not based upon arbitary rules which must be followed as if every reason and argument we have for why contraceptives are immoral are just a manner of backwards thinking to defend the key principal. Certainly as Catholic lay people, our understanding of the “why” can be limited. We are taught the faith in a simplified form when we first learn. We’re told the basics. Its like a child who is taught how to subtract and is simply told to pretend that 2 minus 5 is impossible because the child is not ready to learn about negative numbers.

I think the key to understand though is the value of natural sexual intercourse. It should not be satisfactory to have to use a condom when you have sex. I would think this is a case where alternative treatment should be sought after and explored. But if all other measures are exhausted, from what I know of Church teaching, the claim that the couple would have to live as brother and sister to avoid the allergy rather than use a condom seems based not on the moral teachings that the Church’s prohibition against contraceptives is based upon, but on the fact that “The church says condoms are immoral and reaffirms this over and over even when people bring up ‘what about aids?’ and what not, so this rule must be held regardless of the circumstances.”

Its very easy to get caught up in situations where the the issues addressed by the Church deal with issues of normal human experience.

I would suggest having her bring up the issue in the confessional to her regular confessor and seeking guidence as she tries to see what she is able to do. I think the preference would be to find ways to treat the allergy and overcome it rather than to use a condom. Certainly the manner in which she’d seek to become pregnant is immoral. It should be understood that it is a sad thing not to be able to engage in the act naturally and to have that procreative aspect thwarted by things you cannot control.

But this is a hard circumstance and I think if you start lecturing her in a manner of “You’re in terrible sin and going to Hell” seems to depict God as some monster waiting for you to fail so that he can condemn you to Hell rather than the reality of His mercy and justice. Like it or not, the moral path is not always clear because every path before you seems immoral. Certainly denying the goodness and importance of the marital embrace is not a moral good! St. Paul tells us not to deny each other except by mutual consent and only for a time. It must be understood that this is a very difficult situation to go through. She needs to discern this path very carefully, striving to do what is right when what is right is unclear. She will have to make choices with uncertainty as she is still investigating and discerning. I don’t believe being in such a situation truly expresses a willful rejection of God so long as she seeks greater understanding and is willing to adjust her path as the right path becomes more clear.

Even in a case where the husband has HIV and the wife has already gone through menopause or has had a hysterectomy, condom use would still be considered illicit. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s totally silly and don’t agree with it, but that IS what the Church teaches.

 

[twoangels]

Even in a case where the husband has HIV and the wife has already gone through menopause or has had a hysterectomy, condom use would still be considered illicit. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s totally silly and don’t agree with it, but that IS what the Church teaches.

Every time I’ve heard the HIV issue brought up, my impression is that the Catholic Church is being careful with her wording. What they reaffirm over and over is that contraceptives are immoral and that hard situations like this do not change that fact. They do this because even when the Pope stated that if a male prostitute with HIV decided to use a condom to prevent someone from dying, and then alluding to it being some sort of step toward morality, people freaked out. Catholics were thinking maybe the Pope was going against Church teaching. People not paying attention to the Catholic organizations clarifying what the Pope said, started thinking “Oh the Pope said its ok to use condoms.” When this was denied, than people started thinking “Oh so condoms are only ok for gay male prostitutes.”

And I’m not saying its about manipulation either. They’re not secretly approving of condom usage. Its that the moral walk is about the will and not about behavior. Behavior is an expression of the will. We cannot judge the hearts of individuals. A person who was born in the faith may actually be drawing closer to God as they leave the Catholic faith only to later return back to the Catholic faith as their faith continues to develop. A person with HIV who chooses to use a condom over exposing a person to HIV is taking a step towards morality. That person is taking a step towards God, yet the condom itself is still immoral. Concern for the life of others is better than disregard.

But the Church has to reaffirm the truths that don’t just get us that little distance. She has to teach the full truth with a vision of human holiness. We are called not to be merely good enough, but to be saints. Being a saint does not mean taking the Catholic a list of rules and regulations and following them to the t. Its converting our hearts and working toward the path of holiness through the guidence of the Church. So you walk the path knowing what of morality you know, you follow it as best you can. You do find yourself in situations where you feel forced into sin because you don’t know what the good action is. You’re like a little child who is being told “no, no, no, no” but given no good alternative of what to do. You are going to choose one of the no’s. If you’re wise you’ll look at God, seek guidence, make a choice and let Him guide you. You’ll probably still get a “No, that’s wrong” but eventually you walk that path and the right path will seem more clear. Just because a person is taking a path into a wrong where they don’t know what other right action they could take doesn’t mean they’re actually turning away from God. They could be discerning and in a state of confusion. We don’t know.

It is not going to sit here and tell someone “Ok the obvious path must therefore be no sexual activity of any kind.” There is no obvious path here. She needs the Church’s basic principals, she needs spiritual guidence, she needs prayer and she needs grace. She needs all the help to figure out where Christ’s voice is calling her to in this situation.

 

[twoangels]

OK, your HIV comment got me thinking about what I didn’t know for sure. So I looked it up. Apparently the in the 80’s the USCCB was suggesting that condoms may be appropriate for us in the prevention of HIV. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger came out with this document: newadvent.org/library/docs_df88ai.htm

Well, now isn’t that funny. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pretty much guides the Church away from promoting condom use to solve the HIV crisis. Then when has that book interview where they address AIDs in Africa everyone freaks out when he seems to indicate that any step towards morality (or however he put it) gets people “Is he speaking against the Church teaching? How can the Pope do that?”

As my husband says, while theology of the body is a great development in our understanding of sexual morality, the Church’s teaching on it may not be as developed as we think it is. And by development, I mean our understanding of it. I’m not talking at all about it developing away condemning contraceptives. Its that when it comes to the specifics, especially when its not about the desire to thwart the procreative aspect, there seems this vague ideas where we affirm partial things, but leave a whole lot of details unanswered.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t want to get technical, but as far as I know, the semen must get there and if there is something similar to what you describe, it could be, if antecedent (= started before wedding) and permanent (=incurable, won’t go away), the impediment of impotence, in which case it would be subjective impotence (meaning invalid marriage due to inability to marry). Obviously consult with a real canon lawyer before taking steps or pronouncing opinions.

OK, your HIV comment got me thinking about what I didn’t know for sure. So I looked it up. Apparently the in the 80’s the USCCB was suggesting that condoms may be appropriate for us in the prevention of HIV. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger came out with this document: newadvent.org/library/docs_df88ai.htm

Well, now isn’t that funny. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pretty much guides the Church away from promoting condom use to solve the HIV crisis. Then when has that book interview where they address AIDs in Africa everyone freaks out when he seems to indicate that any step towards morality (or however he put it) gets people “Is he speaking against the Church teaching? How can the Pope do that?”

In that interview, the Pope was speculating. He simply produced a hypothetical in which the use of a condom was connected with a concern for others in something that was already an immoral act, male prostitution. The hypothetical male prostitute used a condom while he wasn’t about to stop. Starting to care not to spread the disease to his customers was a step towards morality. This doesn’t mean it’s necessarily okay to use condoms for HIV prevention. Condom use is different from pill use in that it poses a mechanical block and prevents the semen from being deposited, which basically makes the act incomplete, not suitable for the generation of offspring by itself (which is different from e.g. the intercourse of an infertile couple where no physical block is introduced).

 

[StJudePray4Me]

My God-daughter and niece confides in me quite a bit, and recently told me that she and her husband have resorted to using condoms because she is allergic to his semen. Apparently, she was getting a very bad inflammatory response to his ejaculate, and her allergy was diagnosed by an allergist and obgyn. She is 27 and has been married 7 months.the allergist told her to use condoms when being intimate with her husband. Apparently, when they want to have children, she can take a high dose of antihistamine and have sperm injected into her falopian tubes (or something.) I am worried that the use of condoms in this situation is still illicit, and that the whole situation makes it too easy to “plan” a family around one’s convenience. Ideas?

Does your God-daughter have an objection to using the condoms? Did she tell her doctors? I wonder if there are any other steps which could be taken…but if the doctors think she is ok with using the condoms, they would not necessarily take the issue any further.

If she has objections that she hasn’t expressed, she should consult with her doctors again, and also seek second opinions.

 

[twoangels]

A semen allergy is not impotence. What you are stating is completely offensive. Going by Catholic principals, if there are no other options, this would seem to follow under the principal of double effect. A piece of latex is not objectively immoral. Intentionally objectively thwarting the reproductive function of the marital act is. IOW, contraceptives are immoral. “the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;”

Humanae Vitae covers the principal of double effect:

On the other hand, 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.

"In 1987, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a document suggesting that education on the use of condoms could be an acceptable part of an anti-AIDS program. Cardinal Ratzinger responded:

" In the first place, and on a more general level, one must keep in mind the problem posed by the worldwide reaction which accompanies certain documents issued by various episcopal conferences. "

In other words, its like women wearing head covers during Mass. The Church never got rid of it. News outlets misconstrued what we being conveyed by the Church and told Catholics that women would no longer be required to wear headcoverings in Mass. The Church today has simply decided the issue is not important enough to address. The important thing to recognize is that when the Church clarifies a moral teaching publically, the media take it, miscontrue it and the faithful get the wrong message. The contraceptive issue and the issue of HIV is an issue that needs clarity beyond some soundbite or short paragraph a newspaper would offer. The Church needs to be careful because the teaching against contraceptives needs to be emphasized.

He then quotes the Vatican Newspaper: "To seek a solution to the problem of infection by promoting the use of prophylactics would be to embark on a way not only insufficiently reliable from the technical point of view, but also and above all, unacceptable from the moral aspect. Such a proposal for ‘safe’ or at least ‘safer’ sex – as they say – ignores the real cause of the problem, namely, the permissiveness which, in the area of sex as in that related to other abuses, corrodes the moral fiber of the people. " Ratzinger adds: "In a society which seems increasingly to downgrade the value of chastity, conjugal fidelity and temperance, and to be preoccupied sometimes almost exclusively with physical health and temporal well-being, the church’s responsibility is to give that kind of witness which is proper to her, namely an unequivocal witness of effective and unreserved solidarity with those who are suffering and, at the same time, a witness of defense of the dignity of human sexuality which can only be realized within the context of moral law. It is likewise crucial to note, as the board statement does, that the only medically safe means of preventing AIDS are those very types of behavior which conform to God’s law and to the truth about man which the church has always taught and today is still called courageously to teach. "

In other words, the problem with condoms and aids prevention is that condoms do not sufficiently protect people from the HIV virus to fit under the principal of double effect. Its safer sex, not safe sex. The promotion of condoms encourages that unchaste behavior that fuels the continual spread of the virus. Especially in Africa, one of the primary problems with the spread of HIV is the post-partem sex taboo. There are superstitions that if husband and wife have sex within (I’ve heard it can be as long as 2 years, but it depends on who you talk to) a certain time frame, something bad will happen to the baby. As such, marital infidelity is a huge problem. The culture in fact relies a lot upon marital infidelity to follow this post partem sex taboo. The women can actually be faced with “Its unrealistic for my husband to be expected to abstain. He will have sex with other women and I will continue to refuse him sexually if he asks during the tabooed period because I don’t want it to harm our baby.” Of course the promiscuity and infidelty is what is actually harming Africans. A condom isn’t going to solve the larger issues going on.

 

[lizaanne]

Please have her contact: popepaulvi.com/

They are very skilled at addressing issues like this, and staying well within the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

~Liza

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Does your God-daughter have an objection to using the condoms? Did she tell her doctors? I wonder if there are any other steps which could be taken…but if the doctors think she is ok with using the condoms, they would not necessarily take the issue any further.

If she has objections that she hasn’t expressed, she should consult with her doctors again, and also seek second opinions.

This makes sense.

Also try contacting

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=404

or popepaulvi.com/ncfwh_Home.htm

or onemoresoul.com/

The semen allergy is the problem. Use of the condom would be contraceptive and not cure the problem, just alleviate the symptoms so I’m not sure it would fall under “double effect”.

Also, according to this article there seems to be a treatment for it that would allow for uncontracepted sex.

psychologytoday.com/blog/you-it/200911/everything-you-never-wanted-know-about-semen-allergies

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Please have her contact: popepaulvi.com/

They are very skilled at addressing issues like this, and staying well within the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

~Liza

We think alike

 

[twoangels]

Do not confuse my statements with a defense on the use of condoms. My point is morally complex situations do exist. But, it should not take being an advanced doctor of medicine who has their phD to morally evaluate a particularly complex moral situation. Certainly someone like that would give great advice (though that advise could never be given universally as its likely to be misunderstood by the masses. He’s like a teacher giving you the answer to a specific question. He’s not giving you the tools to answer a completely separate but somewhat related morally complex subject)

Due to the simple lack of availability in relying on such experts, a person who desires to follow God’s will must simply take the steps needed to follow Christ’s voice as best she can. It is an area where even a person who seeks to develop their conscience well enough for the moral criteria may in fact find their conscience in error and make the wrong choices. But the will itself being oriented toward God and discerning His will most certainly will not be punished for an error in conscience.

Condom use is different from pill use in that it poses a mechanical block and prevents the semen from being deposited, which basically makes the act incomplete, not suitable for the generation of offspring by itself (which is different from e.g. the intercourse of an infertile couple where no physical block is introduced).

Ok the stupidity of stating that a physical barrier is more immoral than hormones that not only block ovulation but can increase the chances of an early miscarriage, or worse yet chemo therapy while pregnant which can harm the fetus and potentially kill the developing child completely boggles my mind. I don’t even know how to respond in a manner that doesn’t make fun of such claims so I’ll refrain and just say this.

I’m not saying that “oh definitely” the couple can just go ahead and use the condom. Its the same with a pill. A woman should not just go ahead and go on birth control for menstrual problems. She should look for alternative treatments. But telling a couple who is most definitely not impotent, have a consummated marriage that they should go to their parish priest and figure out what paperwork they need to fill out to dissolve the marriage due to impotence encourages the evil of adultery. You have no right to tell someone their marriage is invalid. And telling a person that the answer is simple and that they must simply remain sexually inactive for the rest of their marriage 1. Denies the existence of conjugal rights, 2. Ignores the risk of marital infidelity and masturbation 3. Deprives them of the sacramental graces of the marital act. 4. Gives the impression that the marital embrace is merely morally neutral rather than a moral good

It ignores so many evils. This is a complex moral situation. Perhaps the couple will discern that they need to give up sex entirely, but that is for them to discern. So long as they are seeking to grow in understanding and seeking to follow and discern God’s will, their will is not in opposition to God. I mean we aren’t taught that a mortal sin is completely turning your will against God. You can’t judge if someone is actually doing that part of the sin. Certainly you can point out that a particular action is grave and that a person has to care that is is grave and embrace the teachings of the Catholic faith. But when morally complicated situations come up and the person is having trouble discerning what possible good choice is available to them, pretending such situations exists only reveals that you do not recognize the moral dangers and evils in the choices that you are advocating.

 

[twoangels]

I think the advice about contacting the Pope Paul VI institute is good. Its just in my experience with figuring out the morality of the vaginismus treatment and my questions about the morality of using vaginal dialators and the treatment program I was being offered with no one offering me an alternative. My experience was that they didn’t respond. Maybe its just that they primarily deal with questions about treatments for infertility rather than struggles with the sexual embrace. Struggling with the marital embrace is certainly more time sensitive than infertility, so maybe they would have gotten back to me eventually. She can try but she can’t be made to feel like if they don’t respond that their lack of answer is forcing her closer and closer to mortal sin. She has to do what she can to educate her conscience and seek our a moral solution.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Twoangels, as a lay person with no medical background at all, I spent about 5 minutes and found that yes there are treament options that do not involve barrier methods of contraception or giving up sex completely.

Please do not call people “stupid” when you do not agree with them. Even subtly.

A condom is a contraceptive, not a medicine.

Hormonal therapy is a “medicine” to treat a disorder. Often, unfortunately they come in the form of oral contraceptive. The primary purpose is to treat the disorder. Chemotherapy’s primary purpose is to treat cancer.

The condom is not treating the allergy, it is being used to alleviate the symptoms. The allergy remains untreated.

 

[twoangels]

Twoangels, as a lay person with no medical background at all, I spent about 5 minutes and found that yes there are treament options that do not involve barrier methods of contraception or giving up sex completely.

There may be but even with other treatment options, the effectiveness of treatment varies from individual to individual. So yes she should explore her options and try alternative treatments first, just a woman with menstrual issues should try alternative treatments for menstrual problems. The fact remains, that there is a possibility of exhausting treatment measures. For instance, just because the Napro Technology exists does not mean that a couple struggling with infertility problems will not continue to struggle with infertility problems. Luckily, there is no moral mandate within the Catholic Church to have your own biological children. It is perfectly legitimate to adopt and it is perfectly legitimate to live your marriage without children. What is understood though is that infertility is not something desirable which we should be seeking after as if it were a good, even if it would permit us to engage in sex more spontaneously while still spacing our children.

Please do not call people “stupid” when you do not agree with them. Even subtly.

Pointing out that a bunch of random lay people on a message board the same as the general public of having primarily 8 grade reading comprehension levels and that this is universal among college students and graduate students is not the same thing as calling them stupid. I’m not saying anyone has no ability to learn how to read well. This doesn’t make you stupid. Ignorant maybe and ignorant of your ignorance, but not stupid. On the other hand what I’m saying is that yes the Church condoms the usage of the condom, but the Church also teaches many other things that play into this morally challenging situation. There are many other immoral temptations playing at here than just the temptation to use a condom, and the Church has never directly spoken about this issue. Moreover the Church’s primary teaching is about the goodness of the procreative function of sex and our disordered desire to get rid of it to satisfy our lusts. Before Humanae Vitae, the Church was not very clear on whether or not the use of NFP was morally legimate. There are saints who condemned it, and many people sincerely did believe that the Church taught that any method of family planning was immoral. Humanae Vitae was the first document to actually clearly say “NFP is ok.” which is why traditionalists see it as a illegimate compromise with the secular culture. I know this not because I’ve been looking for arguments to discredit the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraceptives, but because my husband and I love and prefer the Latin Mass over the ordinary form of the Mass. I know the arguments against NFP because I’ve considered the arguments seriously.

My point was that we need to be humble about what we actually do understand about what the Catholic Church teaches rather than be quick to criticize, condemn and bury our heads in the sand about the reality of complex moral situations.

A condom is a contraceptive, not a medicine.

Hormonal therapy is a “medicine” to treat a disorder. Often, unfortunately they come in the form of oral contraceptive. The primary purpose is to treat the disorder. Chemotherapy’s primary purpose is to treat cancer.

Are you trying to tell me that when a doctor puts on latex gloves before operating on a patient, that he is not engaging even then in medicine? Contraceptive is anything done to engage in the act while intentionally working toward willfully frustrating the procreative aspect of the act. As such condoms, pulling out, oral, manual, prescription medication, etc, can be used as contraceptive methods. Yet oral and manual stimulation are completely legitimate and non masturbatory practices if used as a form of foreplay. God doesn’t look at a piece of latex shaped like a condom and say “That is an evil thing.” He looks at what is going on in our hearts and why we’ve put the latex into that shape and how we utilize it.

I repeat again, I’m not disputing Church teaching. I’m saying that merely looking at the statements against condoms is like taking a random piece of scripture and interrupting it in isolation from the rest of Divine Revelation. There is more to the picture than this and if it were so simple than there would be nothing for moral theologians to debate and there would be no such thing as doctrinal developments that enlighten our faith and build upon our understanding.

 

[kelvinf]

There may be but even with other treatment options, the effectiveness of treatment varies from individual to individual. So yes she should explore her options and try alternative treatments first, just a woman with menstrual issues should try alternative treatments for menstrual problems. The fact remains, that there is a possibility of exhausting treatment measures. For instance, just because the Napro Technology exists does not mean that a couple struggling with infertility problems will not continue to struggle with infertility problems. Luckily, there is no moral mandate within the Catholic Church to have your own biological children. It is perfectly legitimate to adopt and it is perfectly legitimate to live your marriage without children. What is understood though is that infertility is not something desirable which we should be seeking after as if it were a good, even if it would permit us to engage in sex more spontaneously while still spacing our children.

Pointing out that a bunch of random lay people on a message board the same as the general public of having primarily 8 grade reading comprehension levels and that this is universal among college students and graduate students is not the same thing as calling them stupid. I’m not saying anyone has no ability to learn how to read well. This doesn’t make you stupid. Ignorant maybe and ignorant of your ignorance, but not stupid. On the other hand what I’m saying is that yes the Church condoms the usage of the condom, but the Church also teaches many other things that play into this morally challenging situation. There are many other immoral temptations playing at here than just the temptation to use a condom, and the Church has never directly spoken about this issue. Moreover the Church’s primary teaching is about the goodness of the procreative function of sex and our disordered desire to get rid of it to satisfy our lusts. Before Humanae Vitae, the Church was not very clear on whether or not the use of NFP was morally legimate. There are saints who condemned it, and many people sincerely did believe that the Church taught that any method of family planning was immoral. Humanae Vitae was the first document to actually clearly say “NFP is ok.” which is why traditionalists see it as a illegimate compromise with the secular culture. I know this not because I’ve been looking for arguments to discredit the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraceptives, but because my husband and I love and prefer the Latin Mass over the ordinary form of the Mass. I know the arguments against NFP because I’ve considered the arguments seriously.

My point was that we need to be humble about what we actually do understand about what the Catholic Church teaches rather than be quick to criticize, condemn and bury our heads in the sand about the reality of complex moral situations.

Are you trying to tell me that when a doctor puts on latex gloves before operating on a patient, that he is not engaging even then in medicine? Contraceptive is anything done to engage in the act while intentionally working toward willfully frustrating the procreative aspect of the act. As such condoms, pulling out, oral, manual, prescription medication, etc, can be used as contraceptive methods. Yet oral and manual stimulation are completely legitimate and non masturbatory practices if used as a form of foreplay. God doesn’t look at a piece of latex shaped like a condom and say “That is an evil thing.” He looks at what is going on in our hearts and why we’ve put the latex into that shape and how we utilize it.

I repeat again, I’m not disputing Church teaching. I’m saying that merely looking at the statements against condoms is like taking a random piece of scripture and interrupting it in isolation from the rest of Divine Revelation. There is more to the picture than this and if it were so simple than there would be nothing for moral theologians to debate and there would be no such thing as doctrinal developments that enlighten our faith and build upon our understanding.

I think that’s not revelant for this thread. So let’s not just go there.

I will agree with you that condoms could be used to serve a different purpose. E.g. in first aid, a condom could be used in the absence of gloves to put a finger into a person’s mouth when the person is con…(forgotten the spelling). This I learnt in a first aid course.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think that’s not revelant for this thread. So let’s not just go there.

I will agree with you that condoms could be used to serve a different purpose. E.g. in first aid, a condom could be used in the absence of gloves to put a finger into a person’s mouth when the person is con…(forgotten the spelling). This I learnt in a first aid course.

Sure condoms are used on wands of ultrasound machine. It isn’t a contraceptive in that usage.

OK, the word “medicine” is problamatic. The condom is not “curative” to the semen allergy. It would not be considered double effect.

What if some medication existed to treat the allergy, an antihistimine of some sort, with the side effect of causing infertility? That use would be “double effect”, treating the allergy is the primary effect, the infertility is the secondary effect that is tolerated due to the first effect.

Since the condom does not treat or cure the allergy, it’s primary function is to block semen from entering the vagina, making it a defacto contraceptive.

I suggest to the OP to council her Goddaughter to try the resources listed.

 

[PJM]

=SanctaMommy;8962417]My God-daughter and niece confides in me quite a bit, and recently told me that she and her husband have resorted to using condoms because she is allergic to his semen. Apparently, she was getting a very bad inflammatory response to his ejaculate, and her allergy was diagnosed by an allergist and obgyn. She is 27 and has been married 7 months.the allergist told her to use condoms when being intimate with her husband. Apparently, when they want to have children, she can take a high dose of antihistamine and have sperm injected into her falopian tubes (or something.) I am worried that the use of condoms in this situation is still illicit, and that the whole situation makes it too easy to “plan” a family around one’s convenience. Ideas?

THIS IS AN ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED WITH A PRIEST. TAKE THE DR’S INFO WITH HER WHEN SHE DOES SO.

God Bless,
Pat