Another Crazy Birth Control Question

[Listener]

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?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The doctor would have other solutions, more effective solutions. Condoms are not meant for lubrication, but for contraception.

 

[grasscutter]

Easy peasy! A non-spermicidal lubricant. Totally normal. What is the reason for your question?

 

[catholicmamajoy]

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?

The doctor would recommend a gentle lubricant and perhaps even some hormone replacement therapy, if she’s symptomatic with other issues related to a complete hysterectomy. No need for condoms- the material they are made of can exacerbate irritation in vaginal tissue…

 

[JerryZ]

The doctor would recommend a gentle lubricant and perhaps even some hormone replacement therapy, if she’s symptomatic with other issues related to a complete hysterectomy. No need for condoms- the material they are made of can exacerbate irritation in vaginal tissue…

Well I am a male and totally allergic to condoms so I could not use one even if I wanted to

Why would she confess she had practiced contraception is beyond me, this is obvious a problem of not knowing how our basic reproductive system functions. Aside from the fact that indeed I agree that maybe the condom could pose more problems why did not he recommend some lubricating lotion instead.

 

[CopticChristian]

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?

Listener,

Absent a Uterus=No way, no how, no ability to become pregnant. She is essentially sterile.

Using Hormones
Using anything

in consideration that there is no opportunity for pregnancy and any consideration of advice for anything would not be for the use of birth control…

means that Birth Control is not the reason for seeking advice…

and

The advice given is not for Birth Control…

What’s with the hypothetical? What is it you are thinking?

 

[Pug]

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?

A lie must be deliberately chosen so unless there is some indication that she is trying to lie or dissimulate or conceal here, it is not a lie. It is likely that a Catholic calling condom use “birth control” is not trying to lie, but rather to communicate what they think they did.

But are you really asking about lying?

 

[Listener]

A lie must be deliberately chosen so unless there is some indication that she is trying to lie or dissimulate or conceal here, it is not a lie. It is likely that a Catholic calling condom use “birth control” is not trying to lie, but rather to communicate what they think they did.

But are you really asking about lying?

Maybe a better way to put it would be:

1. Was this a sin?
2. If it was, what is the name of the sin?

 

[Listener]

Listener,

Absent a Uterus=No way, no how, no ability to become pregnant. She is essentially sterile.

Using Hormones
Using anything

in consideration that there is no opportunity for pregnancy and any consideration of advice for anything would not be for the use of birth control…

means that Birth Control is not the reason for seeking advice…

and

The advice given is not for Birth Control…

What’s with the hypothetical? What is it you are thinking?

Actually, the first part really happened. The part about the confessional is hypothetical.

 

[Pug]

Maybe a better way to put it would be:

1. Was this a sin?
2. If it was, what is the name of the sin?

To the best of my knowledge, this act was wrong. If the woman truly did not know it was wrong, then she is not charged with sin for the act, and so would not need to confess it, unless that would help her feel better and learn more information. The problem is that the act she engaged in was not in itself properly suited to procreation, as it depended on her and her choices. Her age is not a choice. Her husband shooting blanks would also not be her choice. The condom use is her choice, and prevents any potential uniting of the sperm and egg. If she were to put a hole in the condom tip, then it would be suited to procreation and might still function to enable the couple to better carry out intercourse by reducing pain or dryness (assuming it can do that).

But this is a theoretical answer, based upon reading moral theology texts, and not an answer based upon a Church document. It is my best shot answer, in an attempt to be consistent with other scenarios I’ve seen answered.

Perhaps a better treatment for painful/dry sex exists besides this one. I’d explore that option. To confess it, I’d tell the priest the couple is well past childbearing years, but used an unperforated condom to facilitate less painful/dry sex. Let him decide what it is.

Myself, I’d call it engaging in a non-marital sexual act by use of a barrier.

:twocents:

 

[DeMontfort2]

what a stretch…

why is there such a persistent need for people to try to find loopholes?

 

[Actaeon]

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?

Well, the example, as others have pointed out, is a bit of a stretch since that’s not what a doctor would prescribe… but let me make an assumption that what you meant to ask was:

Is a woman who is sterile due to menopause wrong to presume that she is using contraception by using some form of prescribed ABC for purposes other than preventing childbirth? If so, would she be guilty of lying if she confessed to using contraception in reconciliation?

First, yes, she is wrong. Even if she were to be fertile, if she were prescribed ABCs for a very valid reason (such as treating a hormone deficiency) then she is not contracepting. If she’s sterile anyway, it’s not contraception at all.

So she is wrong in her assumption that what she is doing is the sin of contracepting.

But is she guilty of lying in confession and therefore abusing the sacrament? No… if she honestly believes that what she was doing was a mortal sin, then she’s not lying but rather giving a good faith statement of what she thought were her mortal sins. Hopefully the priest would set her straight and relieve her fears of damnation over what would (presumeably) be a valid prescription in a real life situation!

 

[R1ch4rd]

what a stretch…

why is there such a persistent need for people to try to find loopholes?

Loopholes??? If a woman has had a hysterectomy, why would she even need a loophole. Why is there such a persistent need for people to accuse others of looking for loopholes

 

[maryjk]

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?

Let’s just say that a doctor that tells a woman to use a condom for lubrication isn’t a very good doctor. And let’s just say, she should find a new one.

 

[grasscutter]

I guess, pretty much, like the title says - Crazy Birth Control Question. Whateves…

 

[Kelfa28]

Let’s just say that a doctor that tells a woman to use a condom for lubrication isn’t a very good doctor. And let’s just say, she should find a new one.

This!

A recommendation of a non-spemicidal lubricant is far more effective and morally licit.

 

[R1ch4rd]

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?

There are a number of posters who must be in the medical profession to disagree with a doctors suggestion and call him bad for making it. The OP clarified that the first part happened. Instead of offering opinions on what the doctor should have done, shouldn’t the real question be answered? I’d ask my priest if this needed to be confessed. IMO it doesn’t, but better to be safe.

BTW. the only stupid question is the one that’s not asked …

 

[grasscutter]

There are a number of posters who must be in the medical profession to disagree with a doctors suggestion and call him bad for making it. The OP clarified that the first part happened. Instead of offering opinions on what the doctor should have done, shouldn’t the real question be answered? I’d ask my priest if this needed to be confessed. IMO it doesn’t, but better to be safe.

BTW. the only stupid question is the one that’s not asked …

I agree that there is no stupid question and we should behave with charity (which I did not in one of my posts ). However, even though I’m not a medical doctor, I am a woman and I would have found the advice offered (by the doctor) to be ludicrous in dealing with that particular problem. Based on that, I assumed the question the OP asked was hypothetical.

So, I couldn’t consider the issue of sin.

 

[R1ch4rd]

I agree that there is no stupid question and we should behave with charity (which I did not in one of my posts ). However, even though I’m not a medical doctor, I am a woman and I would have found the advice offered (by the doctor) to be ludicrous in dealing with that particular problem. Based on that, I assumed the question the OP asked was hypothetical.

So, I couldn’t consider the issue of sin.

OK, but do you personally fight with dryness? My wife and I are in our mid 60’s and do. You could say we’re “lubrication expert” because we’ve tried all of them. I have tried what this doctor suggested and I don’t think you should call it ludicrous unless you suffer from the problem and have tried it. My wife could have written this post and after talking with my priest, he didn’t see an issue. After a hysterectomy, pregnancy would indeed be e miracle but if God intends that miracle to happen do you honestly think a piece of latex would stop it?

Now I have to go pray for our country cuz Obama was just re elected

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually, the first part really happened. The part about the confessional is hypothetical.

Listener,

So if the first part happened…have you not heard of getting a second opinion or do we all follow Doctors advice blindly?