Let’s say that a Catholic married woman goes to the doctor. This lady has been married for many years. She has had a hysterectomy, and is many years past menopause. In other words, her chances of pregnancy are absolute zero. She has no need whatsoever to practice any form of birth control in in any way, shape, or form.
She complains to the doctor of irritation and dryness. The doctor suggests that she have her husband use a condom because condoms are very well lubricated.
Let’s say she follows the doctor’s suggestion. Then she goes to confession and tells the priest that she has practiced birth control.
Would she be telling a lie in the confessional? Would it be any different if she had punched holes in the condoms?
I don’t think it would be a lie,
per se, because the confessing Catholic is confessing to the degree of her understanding, it seems. If the confessing part is hypothetical, but the first part is not, it seems that the person is looking for information about what to confess…what kind of sin, if any, was involved?
The reality is that this is likely NOT “birth control” since the woman is completely sterile. However, it is still a sin…so the person is right to confess it. The condom separates, effectively, the spouses from a true unitive act. So, the marital act engaged in was one in which the unitive nature was acted against. Also, the act, while sterile in and of itself due to the circumstances of the wife, must still be ordered,
per se, toward procreation so that the natural* order *of the act canbe preserved.
Anyway, it is my understanding that a perforated condom (holes punched in it) can be okay, as long as it does not have spermicidal lubricant, for specific reasons. I don’t know if this fits into that or not. Really, a better way for the woman to get lubrication would be from a lubricant, not from a condom…but I suppose that is a different topic.