Are Condoms Intrinsically Evil?

[Madaglan]

Perhaps it is just me, but I am oftentimes addled by how contraception is described as intrinsically evil. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that condoms and the such are intrinssically evil or is it the objective contraceptive act (which need not have any material object but could be, say, NFP done for the wrong reasons) that is intrinsically evil?

 

[mercygate]

Perhaps it is just me, but I am oftentimes addled by how contraception is described as intrinsically evil. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that condoms and the such are intrinssically evil or is it the objective contraceptive act (which need not have any material object but could be, say, NFP done for the wrong reasons) that is intrinsically evil?

I think you get this.

 

[iamscifimike]

Sorta Like you could use condoms as balloons. Kinda like swords to plowshares.

 

[Newbie2]

What movie was it that the kids bought condoms from the pharmacist for use as water balloons?

 

[Leopard]

There is nothing immoral about using them to keep rifle muzzles clean.

 

[eddy1]

Perhaps it is just me, but I am oftentimes addled by how contraception is described as intrinsically evil. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that condoms and the such are intrinssically evil or is it the objective contraceptive act (which need not have any material object but could be, say, NFP done for the wrong reasons) that is intrinsically evil?

We can say that contraception is intrinsically evil because it refers to an intrinsically disordered act. Acts can be evil because they are acts of the will (whether actuated or not) (that is why contraception is always wrong, but guilt - which is where we usually ascribe ‘evil’ - can be mitigated by lack of knowledge, etc). A condom is not ‘contraception’ but a tool used for contraception. As a tool it is not intrinsically evil, only its use is (as an act). Likewise producing or promoting or providing condoms for contraceptive use can be evil, even if the recipients have no intention of using them for contraceptive purposes.

 

[Madaglan]

So, people prevent people, not condoms.

 

[mizznicole]

If you’ve ever had a transvaginal ultrasound, you’ll encounter another use for condoms that you probably wouldn’t have imagined. I have to admit it grosses me out, but there’s nothing wrong with it. (except maybe that the condom companies make money)

 

[Madaglan]

If you’ve ever had a transvaginal ultrasound

Yeah, I have one every morning, right after my Wheaties.

I don’t think I could have one, even if I wanted.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps it is just me, but I am oftentimes addled by how contraception is described as intrinsically evil. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that condoms and the such are intrinssically evil or is it the objective contraceptive act (which need not have any material object but could be, say, NFP done for the wrong reasons) that is intrinsically evil?

They are not intinsically evil as there are licit uses for them. For instance one who suffers from wet dreams can wear a condom to prevent soiling the sheets.

 

[BlestOne]

If you’ve ever had a transvaginal ultrasound, you’ll encounter another use for condoms that you probably wouldn’t have imagined. I have to admit it grosses me out, but there’s nothing wrong with it. (except maybe that the condom companies make money)

I too was shocked when I had one… I just looked at it as a sanitary measure and I was thankful for it…

Yeah, I have one every morning, right after my Wheaties.

I don’t think I could have one, even if I wanted.

This is funny!!!

 

[repo_man]

i’ve always thought the orthodox teaching made more sense on the subject of nonabortofacient birth control. to me, at least the way i understand it, NFP sounds like a loophole in the rules, even though i know catholics are too smart to think they can get away with loopholes with god. so i don’t understand why NFP is ok but condoms aren’t. they both prevent pregnancy instead of terminating it like the pill, yet with both there is still a possibility that you COULD become pregnant. is it because the condom is coming between you and your partner or something?

 

[briang72]

so i don’t understand why NFP is ok but condoms aren’t. they both prevent pregnancy instead of terminating it like the pill, yet with both there is still a possibility that you COULD become pregnant. is it because the condom is coming between you and your partner or something?

My favorite response to this is “because the Church says so.”

Condoms do not allow total giving of oneself to one’s spouse. NFP does.

 

[estesbob]

I too was shocked when I had one… I just looked at it as a sanitary measure and I was thankful for it…

This is funny!!!

Just another great example of why i am glad i am a man!

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

Its not the rubber devise or the fake homones that are intrinsically evil, it’s using these as a means to prevent conception during an act or marital intercourse.

As you said earlier, anything that is used as a means to prevent conception during intercourse, perverts the act and becomes an act of sacrilege.

 

[BlestOne]

Its not the rubber devise or the fake homones that are intrinsically evil, it’s using these as a means to prevent conception during an act or marital intercourse.

As you said earlier, anything that is used as a means to prevent conception during intercourse, perverts the act and becomes an act of sacrilege.

Amen! An object cannot be evil itself… it’s use and purpose may be… but a shaped piece of latex is not evil.

 

[PennitentMan]

Intrinsically Evil

Since the CCC does not supply a definition to the word, I went to the regular Dictionary for the definition.

The definition of Intrinsic is “in an of itself”
So for something to be intrinsically evil it should be evil in and of itself. Irregardless of who it is that handles, examines or addresses the concept. It has to be evil outside of any government or religion to be intrinsically evil.

Like it was mentioned here, condoms are in and of themselves not intrinsically evil, to answer the OP’s question.

But one has to look deeper and examine the next step of this…is birth control intrinsically evil?

As per the CCC:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favour the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

It appears that the CCC may be contradicting itself in the second half.

In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Would NFP not fall under this category? As stated on this thread, apparently condoms and NFP has the same success rate in conceiving children…so, if the use of condoms are enough to classify it as being intrinsically evil by the Church, since it: "render procreation impossible, then surely NFP would have to also be intrinsically evil.

You can try to reason as the CCC says that it’s in conformity with morality, but the second half contradicts it 100%. Very confusing.

You can also try to tell me that it’s not giving all of you to your spouse…honestly, that is the biggest load I have heard. In fact, the unitive aspect of marital sex increases with the use of condoms as opposed to NFP.
Since the pro-creative aspect is rendered moot in this discussion looking at Condoms (and other non-abortive birth control) vs. NFP, the only criteria left is unitive.

If it encourages more intimacy between spouses, it actually increases the unitive aspect. You hold nothing back from your spouse. You still perform the same loving act, trusting the other person fully with your body and our soul. You allow your spouse to see you in your most vulnerable form, become as intimate as possible, as close as possible, merging into one.
And, again, since the changes of conception is apparently the same, non-abortive birth control cannot be intrinsically evil without NFP being proclaimed as intrinsically evil too.

People please. I know that nothing will change in the Church’s teachings, but do y’all not see that there are certain things that does not make sense? Especially and most probably only in the Birth Control area of the Church’s teachings, but it honestly doesn’t.
I’m just trying to not follow things blindly when inside of me it screams that something is amiss. I have to research this, because I cannot see why they teach this. I cannot see the logic they follow in making something like this Intrinsically Evil. It doesn’t add up.

 

[fix]

Would NFP not fall under this category? As stated on this thread, apparently condoms and NFP has the same success rate in conceiving children…so, if the use of condoms are enough to classify it as being intrinsically evil by the Church, since it: "render procreation impossible, then surely NFP would have to also be intrinsically evil.

? NFP does not render procreation impossible as the act is unaltered.

Since the pro-creative aspect is rendered moot in this discussion looking at Condoms (and other non-abortive birth control) vs. NFP, the only criteria left is unitive.

This is incorrect.

If it encourages more intimacy between spouses, it actually increases the unitive aspect. You hold nothing back from your spouse. You still perform the same loving act, trusting the other person fully with your body and our soul. You allow your spouse to see you in your most vulnerable form, become as intimate as possible, as close as possible, merging into one.
And, again, since the changes of conception is apparently the same, non-abortive birth control cannot be intrinsically evil without NFP being proclaimed as intrinsically evil too.

Again, this is incorrect as it starts from a false premise.

People please. I know that nothing will change in the Church’s teachings, but do y’all not see that there are certain things that does not make sense? Especially and most probably only in the Birth Control area of the Church’s teachings, but it honestly doesn’t.

What seems to not make sense is your reasoning here. You have taken Church teaching and substituted your teaching.

I’m just trying to not follow things blindly when inside of me it screams that something is amiss. I have to research this, because I cannot see why they teach this. I cannot see the logic they follow in making something like this Intrinsically Evil. It doesn’t add up.

Please try and start by reading what the Church actually teaches.

 

[PennitentMan]

? NFP does not render procreation impossible as the act is unaltered.

The act is just that. An act of sex. You cannot alter the act by placing rubber in the way. The act remains what it is. Inserting **** into the ****, and by friction, causing semen to be excreted. (sorry to make something as beautiful as it is sound so mechanical).
The chances for conception is the same whether the “act” is performed with a condom, or whilst practicing NFP. You are hindering sperm to meet with a viable egg. Now, Condoms hinder Sperm from reaching the egg, NFP hinders the Egg from reaching sperm.
The act is unchanged. The end goal is the same. Even the means are the same, only using different tools.

Your intent is one of being closed to life, or being open to life. We can conceive using a condom or NFP. If you engage in the act with the mentality that if we conceive, we will welcome the child with all our love, then whether you use a condom or NFP, does not matter, logically.

Again. The Act is unchanged. The mechanics of it are unchanged…heck, if the act is changed, it would not be Sex. How can the act be unchanged? The act is sex.

The word usage is incorrect. The logic is incorrect.

What seems to not make sense is your reasoning here. You have taken Church teaching and substituted your teaching.

Please try and start by reading what the Church actually teaches.

Actually, I started at the Church teaching and worked from there. Studying it and trying to understand it. That has brought me to this…

 

[rwoehmke]

They are not intinsically evil as there are licit uses for them. For instance one who suffers from wet dreams can wear a condom to prevent soiling the sheets.

How does one fasten it on? With a safety pin?