Allergic to semen... Condoms okay?

[twoangels]

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.

The principal of double effect has nothing to do with whether a treatment cures a disease.

"This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

• the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
• the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
• the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm."

So first, it would have to be shown that the good effective is inseparable from the harmful effect. As such, alternative treatments take priority. You would also have to take into account the effectiveness of the condom in preventing the allergic reaction. You have to look at whether or not is actually solves the problem or encourages the problem that in the long run increases the problem. With HIV, we’re talking about the transmission of a virus, a culture of promiscuty which spreads the virus and the condom giving less motivation for an urgency in monogamy. Its also safer sex, not safe sex. HIV is lethal.

An allergy is not contengeous. The condom is not going to promote promiscuity as the allergy has nothing to do with promiscuity. If anything, mandating total sexual continence places the man in temptation’s way for infidelity. The sexual inactivity harms the marriage. It harms marriage so much that couples are not free to enter Josephite marriage without express permission. Even saints who thought it’d would make them holier (St. Therese’ parents’ for example) were advised by their confessors to not do it.

My point being is not “Ok my conclusion is right” because I’m not even arguing for the conclusion that the condom can be morally justified. I’m stating that this is a tricky moral situation and that there are moral principals for the individual to discern through. Its not our place to be making definitive statements that the Church has not made.

You’re explanation of a circumstance that would fall under the principal of double effect makes no sense. The birth control pill prevents the ovum from being released. The condom blocks the semen from entering the woman. What would not fall under the principal of double effect is if the allergy were prevent through the contraceptive effect: that is through the fact that the condom can prevent pregnancy. In other words, if her allergy were caused by the pregnancy, she could not use a condom to prevent pregnancy because she’s allergic to the pregnancy.

 

[Debora123]

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

God Bless,
Pat

I’m pretty sure the vast majority of priests would tell her niece that using the condom would be perfectly ok. Though truth remains, that according to the letter of the law it would still be contraception and it would still be a mortal sin.

I know I’ve had this discussion here on CAF multiple times, particularly in cases that are even MORE grave, like if the husband has HIV and the wife is already infertile anyway. Even THEN, people still tell me that “it’s contraception and it’s a mortal sin and they’d be required to live as brother and sister for the rest of their marriage.” (Seems like everyone’s favorite thing to say around here is “they must abstain!!”)

Pretty ridiculous, IMHO. But truth remains, that is the letter of the law.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

What if this lady was allergic to her husband’s touch? Or his saliva? Would it be sensible to swathe him in cling film? Or would the couple seek treatment with medication etc?
The trouble is,we live in a culture that is quick to hand out the pill and condoms as a cure-all for everything.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

What if this lady was allergic to her husband’s touch? Or his saliva? Would it be sensible to swathe him in cling film? Or would the couple seek treatment with medication etc?
The trouble is,we live in a culture that is quick to hand out the pill and condoms as a cure-all for everything.

Although this may be true, I also suspect that, if the docs do not know that the patient has any objection, it may also be the SIMPLEST way to deal with the problem.

If condoms are the least expensive, least invasive, least time consuming solution to the problem, of course the doctor would suggest their use. However, if the patient says, “Well Doc, I have a moral objection…” then perhaps the doc would go further with treatment alternatives.

I don’t think we should “blame” the doc here. After all, this is an allergy were talking about here, and the number one common-sense approach to treating an allergy is the avoid the allergen! There are probably many people out there who would rather use a non-pharmaceutical means, who don’t like to take medicine if it’s not Absolutely necessary.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=499539&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=condoms&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=97&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

In the first case, the principle of double effect may not be legitimately invoked because the action at issue is condomistic intercourse, which can never be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances precisely because condomistic intercourse directly contradicts and violates marital relations. According to the criteria of the principle of double effect, the action at issue must be morally good or at least neutral. That is clearly not the case here.

Answered by Father Stephen Torraco

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco
Father Torraco was the Associate Professor of Theology at Assumption College, Worcester, Massachusetts and Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. He also served as a consultant for the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, and for the Cardinal Kung Foundation in Connecticut. He was author of various books and articles on moral theology, medical ethics, the social teaching of the Catholic Church and the spiritual life, as well as the perennially popular Brief Catechism on Voting, as well as host of several EWTN series on moral theology.

 

[Corki]

I’m pretty sure the vast majority of priests would tell her niece that using the condom would be perfectly ok. Though truth remains, that according to the letter of the law it would still be contraception and it would still be a mortal sin.

Pretty ridiculous, IMHO. But truth remains, that is the letter of the law.

It’s not just “the letter of the law” or some technicality.

The wholeness of the marital act is ONLY found when it is both unitive and procreative. Not one without the other.

To have sex with a condom is not procreative (or completely unitive either). To have sperm injected into the fallopian tube is procreative but not unitive. Neither is a complete marital act.

 

[PJM]

=Debora123;8967976]I’m pretty sure the vast majority of priests would tell her niece that using the condom would be perfectly ok. Though truth remains, that according to the letter of the law it would still be contraception and it would still be a mortal sin.

I know I’ve had this discussion here on CAF multiple times, particularly in cases that are even MORE grave, like if the husband has HIV and the wife is already infertile anyway. Even THEN, people still tell me that “it’s contraception and it’s a mortal sin and they’d be required to live as brother and sister for the rest of their marriage.” (Seems like everyone’s favorite thing to say around here is “they must abstain!!”)

Pretty ridiculous, IMHO. But truth remains, that is the letter of the law.

Infirtle couples can marry with permission; yes?

So I don’t know. This is a matter to be dicused with a priest.

One of the conditions for a Mortal sin to exist is wanting to commit the Mortal sin. I don’t see that present Here:shrug:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[manualman]

If this were me, I’d not be satisfied with a prescription of “use and condom and you’ll be fine.” Look at it another way. If you had an ingrown toenail that made walking very painful, would you be satisfied if the doctor handed you a 4 legged cane and said “use this, it will take the weight off the painful toe.” ?? No way!

I wouldn’t buy it. I want the problem fixed, not masked. Wouldn’t you?

 

[JustinR]

sperm allergies can be treated same as allergies to grass, pollen, strawberries. etc. Its a matter of desensitization, so the woman’s immune system does not respond. This is also why some women have miscarriages, because the woman’s immune system sees the baby as foreign DNA and attacks it because on the man’s DNA in her. Its a matter of small repeated exposure until the immune system does not respond.

 

[Corki]

sperm allergies can be treated same as allergies to grass, pollen, strawberries. etc. Its a matter of desensitization, so the woman’s immune system does not respond. This is also why some women have miscarriages, because the woman’s immune system sees the baby as foreign DNA and attacks it because on the man’s DNA in her. Its a matter of small repeated exposure until the immune system does not respond.

I wondered if there would be a way to have allergy shots for this just like there are for allergies to ragweed or cats.

In any case, when an allergy is the diagnosis, your first stop should be to an allergist to determine the course of real treatment. Wearing a condom doesn’t treat anything.

 

[iloveangels]

Talk to your priest and your doctor. This is not the kind of thing that gets solved on CAF. In fact, it’s LEWD in a public forum. Particularly a Catholic forum. It’s about what’s in your underpants, in case you haven’t noticed. YUCK.

The things people will type into the internet! Makes you wonder.

 

[Smugleaf]

Some allergies just don’t react to treatment, and while it may be something to look into, it may be years before (and if) this person is better. Don’t worry, everyone is well aware condoms aren’t a medicine.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Talk to your priest and your doctor. This is not the kind of thing that gets solved on CAF. In fact, it’s LEWD in a public forum. Particularly a Catholic forum. It’s about what’s in your underpants, in case you haven’t noticed. YUCK.

The things people will type into the internet! Makes you wonder.

Why would you post on a “lewd” thread?

 

[Debora123]

It’s not just “the letter of the law” or some technicality.

The wholeness of the marital act is ONLY found when it is both unitive and procreative. Not one without the other.

To have sex with a condom is not procreative (or completely unitive either). To have sperm injected into the fallopian tube is procreative but not unitive. Neither is a complete marital act.

Lol, ok so according the the LAW, it’s not allowed.

Either way, all I was saying was that it wasn’t allowed. No need to argue or nit pick.

 

[Debora123]

Infirtle couples can marry with permission; yes?

So I don’t know. This is a matter to be dicused with a priest.

One of the conditions for a Mortal sin to exist is wanting to commit the Mortal sin. I don’t see that present Here:shrug:

God Bless,
Pat

I agree with you, but this is not what the Church teaches in regards to the subject at hand. The couple would either need to succeed in finding a way to treat/cure the allergic reaction, or live as brother and sister for the rest of their married lives.

 

[anp1215]

Talk to your priest and your doctor. This is not the kind of thing that gets solved on CAF. In fact, it’s LEWD in a public forum. Particularly a Catholic forum. It’s about what’s in your underpants, in case you haven’t noticed. YUCK.

The things people will type into the internet! Makes you wonder.

Really? There is nothing lewd about a man and wife having marital relations and seeking advice on what is probably a heartbreaking problem.

Sorry, but your response reminds me of something a middle schooler would say.

 

[iloveangels]

Really? There is nothing lewd about a man and wife having marital relations and seeking advice on what is probably a heartbreaking problem.

Sorry, but your response reminds me of something a middle schooler would say.

It’s LEWD in a public forum. I don’t want to hear about some stranger’s stinking body parts.

This is properly a medical and moral issue and needs to be discussed with doctor and priest, not in public. It’s LEWD in a public context like this.

Some people have no shame.

 

[CuriousInIL]

It’s LEWD in a public forum. I don’t want to hear about some stranger’s stinking body parts.

This is properly a medical and moral issue and needs to be discussed with doctor and priest, not in public. It’s LEWD in a public context like this.

Some people have no shame.

I ask again then why look at the thread and why post? If you don’t want to hear about it, move on.

 

[paperwight66]

I ask again then why look at the thread and why post? If you don’t want to hear about it, move on.

Indeed. The thread title was admirably concise and accurate, sufficient to tell anyone the subject-matter of the thread.

 

[iloveangels]

It’s LEWD in a public forum. I don’t want to hear about some stranger’s stinking body parts.

This is properly a medical and moral issue and needs to be discussed with doctor and priest, not in public. It’s LEWD in a public context like this.

Some people have no shame.

I really didn’t have to read any of the posts to get the context. It incredibly plain. It has 2 key words, in case you haven’t noticed.