Allergic to semen... Condoms okay?

[StevenFrancis]

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?

With all sympathy and prayers for your niece, no. It is not licit. Ideas? I’m sorry, but this should probably be discussed with a priest. I would guess that it will have something to do with having sex only with fecundity in the heart, and responding to those times as medically appropriate, (you mentioned antihistimines). Perhaps there are antihistimines which can be used as a precaution at other times. It is my understanding, even of NFP, however, that though we can adjust our cycles, and engage in the marrital embrace at times which are less likely to result in pregnancy, that even during those times, we must possess an openness to life in order for it to be licit. With the use of a condom or other artificial birth control measure, there is an intention of blocking the transmission of life per God’s will.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[Nate13]

Here’s my question. Since for example, non-abortifacient birth control pills are permissible in cases where they happen to be the only available treatment for a medical condition, why wouldn’t using a condom in this case fall under the same logic?

The difference is in how the pill works. The pill is being used in these cases to balance hormones. The condition is fixed by the balancing of hormones, which has a side effect of affecting fertility. The difference is in determining what makes something a side effect instead of the actual solution. Using a condom in this case would make the contraceptive effect the primary solution, not a side effect of the action. The contraceptive effect of the pill can be considered a side effect when used for certain therapeutic means which is why its different.

 

[Havard]

Sorry to get even more graphic and personal.

But The semen that goes into the women’s body doesn’t stay there. It leaks out over the course of the next 6 hours or so… in which time we usually wipe and throw away the toilet paper.

Yeah, but at least that’s all in the context of the way the act works. You, uh, ‘gave it the opportunity to do it’s thing’.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

In post #44, in addition to the two options Debra gave, I added two more. And I wouldn’t be surprized if there are more than that.

My math is terrible. 1 was repeated there, wasn’t it? When I add it up, I get 3, not 4. Eh, no big deal.

 

[Debora123]

In post #44, in addition to the two options Debra gave, I added two more. And I wouldn’t be surprized if there are more than that.

And again I respond to you… one of your “other options” was the same thing, because when I said “they’d have to live as brother and sister” I simply meant they’d have to abstain from sexual activity. So that one was the same thing.

Your other one was stating that they could still have sex, just not as often. Well of course that CAN be an “option” but that’s only an option if she’s able to tolerate whatever reaction she’d get from the seamen. In other words, this is all assuming she literally CAN’T have the semen touch her skin without it being intolerable.

In which case, the truth remains: they’d either have to figure out a way to get some sort of treatment, or they’d have to abstain from sex.

 

[Castello]

You know, I was thinking too about the fact that the Church considers it licit for a woman who has been raped to take the morning after pill (as long as conception hasn’t occurred yet) in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Likewise, taking this morning after pill doesn’t “cure” anything… it merely prevents something. In this case it prevents a child from conceiving.

I wonder then, how this can be licit… but wearing a condom to prevent allergic reaction from semen is not?

That is not the teaching of “The Church”, but, an opinion of a Bishop.

 

[Debora123]

My math is terrible. 1 was repeated there, wasn’t it? When I add it up, I get 3, not 4. Eh, no big deal.

Yes, three. Though the third one really would only work if she was able to tolerate the allergic reaction, which is not what I gathered from reading the original post. I was under the assumption that the reaction was too intolerable, regardless of how often she was exposed to it.

 

[Debora123]

That is not the teaching of “The Church”, but, an opinion of a Bishop.

No, if you wanna get technical, it’s not “official Church teaching.” But it is the generally accepted consensus within the Church, not just the “opinion of one bishop.”

 

[iloveangels]

No, if you wanna get technical, it’s not “official Church teaching.” But it is the generally accepted consensus within the Church, not just the “opinion of one bishop.”

No it’s not. Someone may have told you that, but it’s completely wrong. From the Vatican Website:

**2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76 **

Using any sort of medication to prevent the fertilized embryo from attaching to the inside of the uterus is a grave sin. It’s just another early form of abortion.

If indeed, an egg is not fertilized, it will not attach to the uterine wall and will slough off of its own accord. In that case medicine isn’t useful at all and there’s no point to it. Its point is to kill the embryo if there is a fertilized embryo. The doctors, of course, know this.

 

[Debora123]

No it’s not. Someone may have told you that, but it’s completely wrong. From the Vatican Website:

**2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception**: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

Using any sort of medication to prevent the fertilized embryo from attaching to the inside of the uterus is a grave sin. It’s just another early form of abortion.

That’s why it must be determined that fertilization has not happened before the victim takes the morning after pill. What you stated above does not apply.

 

[iloveangels]

That’s why it must be determined that fertilization has not happened before the victim takes the morning after pill. What you stated above does not apply.

IF no conception takes place, why take the medicine? What exactly is it for?

 

[twoangels]

IF no conception takes place, why take the medicine? What exactly is it for?

The morning after pill is a high dosage of the birth control pill. As such, depending on where you are in your cycle. If its early enough, it’ll prevent ovulation. If its a bit later, it’ll cause a double peak. Your body will be preparing to ovulate, but like how stress hormones can cause you to have a mucus patch, fail to ovulate and then a little while later you ovulate, the morning after pill can do that. If its past ovulation though and the ovulated ovum did not get fertilized, the morning after pill will still irritate your endometrium lining which will be a hassle for you, but the idea is that knowing there is no child to kill, it loses its abortificient properties. As such, the idea is that we’re working in complete ignorance as to where the woman is in her cycle.

The thing is though, early enough in a cycle, the stress of being raped can cause a double peak anyway which is why your chance of getting pregnant after being raped is rarer than with consensual sex.

 

[iloveangels]

The morning after pill is a high dosage of the birth control pill. As such, depending on where you are in your cycle. If its early enough, it’ll prevent ovulation. If its a bit later, it’ll cause a double peak. Your body will be preparing to ovulate, but like how stress hormones can cause you to have a mucus patch, fail to ovulate and then a little while later you ovulate, the morning after pill can do that. If its past ovulation though and the ovulated ovum did not get fertilized, the morning after pill will still irritate your endometrium lining which will be a hassle for you, but the idea is that knowing there is no child to kill, it loses its abortificient properties. As such, the idea is that we’re working in complete ignorance as to where the woman is in her cycle.

The thing is though, early enough in a cycle, the stress of being raped can cause a double peak anyway which is why your chance of getting pregnant after being raped is rarer than with consensual sex.

And if conception takes place, it prevents the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall.

Not all uses of the morning after pill involve rape either.

 

[Miserissima]

IF no conception takes place, why take the medicine? What exactly is it for?

To shed the uterine lining, rid the woman’s body of semen, and/or prevent ovulation. It “resets” her menstrual body clock.

More info from the USCCB here (and more here):

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. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.
…]
The law should not require hospitals to administer so-called “emergency contraception” when those drugs will end the life of a newly conceived human embryo. Hospitals can offer rape victims treatments that are truly contraceptive and address their other needs with compassion and respect.

Perhaps we should go over the timeline from ovulation to fertilization/conception to implantation. By that I mean, from ovulation and before fertilization, one may defenssively take the morning after pill, but one cannot take the pill if conception has occured.

I had a resource from (what I thought was) the Center for Bioethical Reform, but I can’t find it right now. However, there’s bit more info here: catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=968

 

[SanctaMommy]

Thank you all for your replies. I am getting good feedback here. For those that have suggested it, my God-daughter has spoken with her priest about it. He said to of course follow her doctor’s recommendation to use condoms to prevent contact with the allergen (he said he used a dust-mite pillow cover for the same reason.) This didn’t seem quite right to me. My niece’s reaction is severe and could become anaphylactic if she keeps exposing herself to semen. In fact, the doctor prescribed an epi pen for the possibility of an emergency. I am very worried about her, but I know I cannot give her false advice. I am checking on the links to alternative therapies to see if those might work for her.

For the poster that thought the topic was lewd, I apologize. Sexuality and health does not seem lewd to me when it is being discussed respectfully and without the intent to arouse indecent passions.

 

[iloveangels]

…

And I suppose you have a big red blinking light on the top of your head that starts blinking when conception has occurred, right??? NOT. Not only that, how long does a person have to be pregnant for it to show up on any available pregnancy test???

The point is that you don’t know which situation is actually the case in these situations. Ever.

BUT if an abortion has taken place, it has taken place. Setting it up so it will take place if it can is a sin. It’s formal cooperation with evil.

If a person takes this pill, they intend for one of these cases we’re talking about to happen, instead of a pregnancy, and they are not choosing which of the cases will actually occur. They are willing to accept any case that does not result in a pregnancy. That’s the whole point of taking this pill.

[BTW, the FDA, as late as last month, was preparing to put the morning-after-pill on drugstore shelves in the US. It will be used as birth control. A sort of “was I really that drunk” birth control pill.]

 

[faithfully]

Thank you all for your replies. I am getting good feedback here. For those that have suggested it, my God-daughter has spoken with her priest about it. He said to of course follow her doctor’s recommendation to use condoms to prevent contact with the allergen (he said he used a dust-mite pillow cover for the same reason.) This didn’t seem quite right to me. My niece’s reaction is severe and could become anaphylactic if she keeps exposing herself to semen. In fact, the doctor prescribed an epi pen for the possibility of an emergency. I am very worried about her, but I know I cannot give her false advice. I am checking on the links to alternative therapies to see if those might work for her.

For the poster that thought the topic was lewd, I apologize. Sexuality and health does not seem lewd to me when it is being discussed respectfully and without the intent to arouse indecent passions.

Surely a priest understands that a healthy marriage engages in healthy sex. She should not have to fear having sex by way of asphyxiating.

Furthermore, we all KNOW that condoms have anywhere near a 3-12% failure rate. In fact, you will hear many here state just that when proclaiming the ONLY WAY to guarantee no PG is to NOT HAVE SEX. All methods of ABC have failure rates. Most mess with your body severely.

I imagine if they use a condom that has no spermicide, and they go about their business they openly accept the chance of PG by 3-12%. They have not closed themselves off to God’s Gift of children. But perhaps have closed themselves off to her dying or flinching at her husband’s very touch. Which, in my interpretation leaves them open to children. As well as a much stronger chance of marriage survival.

I understand that you cannot give her false advice. At this juncture she’s been advised by a priest. Whose knowledge, in theory anyway, trumps yours.

At most I would suggest she talk with more than one. To make sure she’s not talking with a loon approved by the church. Definately investigate alternative methods of treatment. Because her real delimma is going to come up when she’s feeling the tick of the clock, and doesn’t know how to get PG without unnatural intervention.

 

[iloveangels]

Surely a priest understands that a healthy marriage engages in healthy sex. She should not have to fear having sex by way of asphyxiating.

Furthermore, we all KNOW that condoms have anywhere near a 3-12% failure rate. In fact, you will hear many here state just that when proclaiming the ONLY WAY to guarantee no PG is to NOT HAVE SEX. All methods of ABC have failure rates. Most mess with your body severely.

I imagine if they use a condom that has no spermicide, and they go about their business they openly accept the chance of PG by 3-12%. They have not closed themselves off to God’s Gift of children. But perhaps have closed themselves off to her dying or flinching at her husband’s very touch. Which, in my interpretation leaves them open to children. As well as a much stronger chance of marriage survival.

I understand that you cannot give her false advice. At this juncture she’s been advised by a priest. Whose knowledge, in theory anyway, trumps yours.

At most I would suggest she talk with more than one. To make sure she’s not talking with a loon approved by the church. Definately investigate alternative methods of treatment. Because her real delimma is going to come up when she’s feeling the tick of the clock, and doesn’t know how to get PG without unnatural intervention.

Condoms leak like crazy. They aren’t going to help much, if at all. Honestly. She needs to see an allergist if this is a real problem.

 

[Debora123]

And I suppose you have a big red blinking light on the top of your head that starts blinking when conception has occurred, right??? NOT. Not only that, how long does a person have to be pregnant for it to show up on any available pregnancy test???

The point is that you don’t know which situation is actually the case in these situations. Ever.

BUT if an abortion has taken place, it has taken place. Setting it up so it will take place if it can is a sin. It’s formal cooperation with evil.

If a person takes this pill, they intend for one of these cases we’re talking about to happen, instead of a pregnancy, and they are not choosing which of the cases will actually occur. They are willing to accept any case that does not result in a pregnancy. That’s the whole point of taking this pill.

[BTW, the FDA, as late as last month, was preparing to put the morning-after-pill on drugstore shelves in the US. It will be used as birth control. A sort of “was I really that drunk” birth control pill.]

If you want to object to this, why not write a letter to the Vatican and to USCCB?

Trying to argue with us for simply stating the Church’s position on this, is completely pointless.

 

[Katie966]

And I suppose you have a big red blinking light on the top of your head that starts blinking when conception has occurred, right??? NOT. Not only that, how long does a person have to be pregnant for it to show up on any available pregnancy test???

The point is that you don’t know which situation is actually the case in these situations. Ever.

Actually, both ultrasound and hormone tests can be reliable indicators of whether ovulation has occurred or not. As to whether Catholic hospitals use these methods in the case of rape, I have no idea. But it’s not as much of a mystery as you are presenting it to be.