Catholic Condoms

[lizaanne]

I’m not trying to challenge you, but am genuinely asking the question based upon your experience and your strong feelings about this - what would you recommend? I know you can’t give medical advice on these boards, but I’m curious to know what options are out there.

I’m sure at some point, my husband and I will have to face this; not to pursue immoral means to achieve pregnancy, but to determine what our issues are regarding fertility. So, I am very curious about options I may never have heard of.

Not a challenge at all - but be mindful that I have not worked in the industry for over 10 years. I finally had major moral issues with working in the industry and had to get away.

THIS is a technique that has been used in the past to retrieve sperm for fertility testing. There could be other techniques available today, but I know we used this one quite frequently in situations where men either would not or could not masturbate, or were unable to use a condom for whatever reason. Also in medical conditions where they could not produce a sample.

~Liza

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by lizaanne:

THIS is a technique that has been used in the past to retrieve sperm for fertility testing. There could be other techniques available today, but I know we used this one quite frequently in situations where men either would not or could not masturbate, or were unable to use a condom for whatever reason. Also in medical conditions where they could not produce a sample.

Ouch! They might as well rip the whole thing off with barb wire. Well, I suppose the Catholic Church doesn’t hesitate to give her members the opportunities to offer it all up to God.

 

[lizaanne]

Ouch! They might as well rip the whole thing off with barb wire. Well, I suppose the Catholic Church doesn’t hesitate to give her members the opportunities to offer it all up to God.

Somehow I doubt it even comes close to anything women have to go through for fertility testing, not to mention pregnancy and child birth.

~Liza

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Although a condom with no tip would provide no protection from most STDs, it’s conceiveable that it would hamper the spread of genital warts, depending on their location.

I don’t think it would actually work. Sneezing into your hand and then shaking someone’s is better than just sneezing into their hand, but by how much? The germs are still spreading.

If you’ve had “escapades” and got a “trophy” ( ), you have to face the consequences of your actions. If that means refraining from sex so as not to spread the disease, then that’s what you have to do. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

 

[lizaanne]

How about abstinence? That would be the ultimate Catholic Condom - one you don’t use.

~Liza

 

[Jimbo2]

I’d just like to chime in with one little thing -

Yes, there are many techniques for fertility testing and treatment allowed by the Church, including the one under discussion.

My wife and I are suffering from infertility, possibly caused by her doctor putting her on BC pills at 14 yrs of age.

We went to a couple of “Catholic” fertility doctors (who were not, in fact, practicing according to the teaching of the Church), ended up at an Evangelical fertility doc (who actually understands Catholicism).

After a couple of rounds of tests, we decided that, although the procedures were technically moral, we thought they were weird, un-natural and invasive.

After study, we concluded that God was not asking us to endure all the experiments of modern medicine, so we called it all off.

We are currently engaged in patience.

 

[catholicrocks]

StratusRose’s link was very informative!

Thanks! I’ve read that before, and actually printed it out for my husband to read as well, but I was actually trying to better understand where Liza was coming from based upon her comments.

 

[catholicrocks]

I’d just like to chime in with one little thing -

Yes, there are many techniques for fertility testing and treatment allowed by the Church, including the one under discussion.

My wife and I are suffering from infertility, possibly caused by her doctor putting her on BC pills at 14 yrs of age.

We went to a couple of “Catholic” fertility doctors (who were not, in fact, practicing according to the teaching of the Church), ended up at an Evangelical fertility doc (who actually understands Catholicism).

After a couple of rounds of tests, we decided that, although the procedures were technically moral, we thought they were weird, un-natural and invasive.

After study, we concluded that God was not asking us to endure all the experiments of modern medicine, so we called it all off.

We are currently engaged in patience.

I definitely agree with you on this! I’m not really willing, even if it was considered moral and OK with the Church, to go through a lot of these types of things that I have been reading about. It becomes too clinical, and I would feel like a lab rat, and for me, personally, the focus is no longer in the right place. Please, no one think that I am insinuating anything regarding anyone else’s personal matters. I am just stating that I personally am not comfortable with the idea.

I would like to know what’s going on with my crazy body, and to go to a doctor who isn’t going to try to cram the pill down my throat for every female issue I have (or don’t have - they pass it out like candy!). Even to find out that there really is nothing I can do about it would make me feel better than just “Well, if you won’t take the pill, we can’t help you. You’ll have to deal with it…”

 

[Jimbo2]

“Well, if you won’t take the pill, we can’t help you. You’ll have to deal with it…”

Oh, how many times have we heard that!

Well, we were promised persecution in every age, this is just one form of it.

 

[catholicrocks]

Exactly! I also have my first appointment tomorrow with a new doctor!

 

[lizaanne]

I’d just like to chime in with one little thing -

Yes, there are many techniques for fertility testing and treatment allowed by the Church, including the one under discussion.

My wife and I are suffering from infertility, possibly caused by her doctor putting her on BC pills at 14 yrs of age.

We went to a couple of “Catholic” fertility doctors (who were not, in fact, practicing according to the teaching of the Church), ended up at an Evangelical fertility doc (who actually understands Catholicism).

After a couple of rounds of tests, we decided that, although the procedures were technically moral, we thought they were weird, un-natural and invasive.

After study, we concluded that God was not asking us to endure all the experiments of modern medicine, so we called it all off.

We are currently engaged in patience.

This is exactly where I was many years ago with my ex. After 11 years of trying (and working at the fertility clinic most of that time), I decided that it was just too much. He really didn’t care one way or the other, but followed my lead. Now I am truly and validly married to a man who is happy to put our fertility in God’s hands - if it happens it happens, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. We are at peace with either outcome. It really isn’t up to us.

~Liza

 

[TarlsQtr]

With all due respect to the USCCB - I think that is a cop out. And it is not infallible teaching. But I will submit to their authority and leave it alone. Does not mean I agree.

~Liza

I would point out that the USCCB statement used Donum Vitae as its guideline.

 

[KarenNC]

Although a condom with no tip would provide no protection from most STDs, it’s conceiveable that it would hamper the spread of genital warts, depending on their location.

Sorry, I can’t see it working due to simple mechanics. If there is no tip, looks to me like it’s just going to roll up like a turtleneck due to the friction if the hole is of any size (and realize that the hole will possibly get larger as activity occurs). Latex is stretchy.

This is aside from the issue of the spermicidal lubricant that is frequently used on condoms. You are still introducing that into the equation unless you are careful to get non-lubricated or those lubricated but without spermicide.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Sorry, I can’t see it working due to simple mechanics. If there is no tip, looks to me like it’s just going to roll up like a turtleneck due to the friction if the hole is of any size (and realize that the hole will possibly get larger as activity occurs). Latex is stretchy.

This is aside from the issue of the spermicidal lubricant that is frequently used on condoms. You are still introducing that into the equation unless you are careful to get non-lubricated or those lubricated but without spermicide.

Valid concerns, but I’m thinking more along the lines of a condom specifically manufactured for this purpose, with no spermicide and perhaps a reinforced rim around the hole – not a standard Trojan with the tip snipped.

Thoughts?

Peace,
Dante

 

[KarenNC]

Valid concerns, but I’m thinking more along the lines of a condom specifically manufactured for this purpose, with no spermicide and perhaps a reinforced rim around the hole – not a standard Trojan with the tip snipped.

Since the virus can be transmitted even when the warts are not visibly present, I’m not sure if it would work or not.
metrokc.gov/health/apu/std/hpv.htm#transmission

also this site stdservices.on.net/std/warts/details.htm
“Genital warts are sexually transmitted and spread most readily in moist areas such as beneath the foreskin of the penis of an uncircumcised man, around the vulva, or around the anus.”

A condom that would prevent contact with the area beneath the foreskin is not going to be one that is acceptable to the Catholic Church, I would think.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of an act does not go to the morality of the act. It would certainly be imprudent to undertake an ineffective act, but not necessarily moral or immoral.

As to the use of condoms for the prevention of disease, it suggests that intention and situation alone can alter the nature of an act considered to be immoral. Here it also introduces a new angle, that of attempting to make a device, whose martial use is largely condemned (with the medical exception noted), some how licit by (1) changing the intent or (2) changing the device.

It seems to me that any barrier alters the concept of total self giving and one flesh union, which is the heart of the martial act; which in the normal situation, leads to the procreation and education of children is an immoral act. This seems to be the mind of the Church, with the rare medical exception noted.

It also seems that the donation of one’s self is the decision of the “donator” and one is free prior to marriage to choose to whom one donates one’s self. That being said, one is free to choose the person who has or has not a particular disease. Prudence would suggest to choose a disease free spouse unless one is willing to contract the disease.

One is not free however, to individually alter the nature of the act of marriage, apart from the narrow exception for diagnosis that Christ, through his Church, provides.

So, it seems that the use of condoms in marriage, is generally an immoral act b/c intention and circumstance are not sufficient to alter the act (or the means) to the good end of possibly preventing disease. Making a condom w/a hole in it also does not make the act totally self-giving even though it is more self giving that an intact condom.

It is also an imprudent act as prior posters have noted, since the intention to prevent disease with a perforated condom is not apparently effectively realized.

It seems that we have here a bad means (condoms w/ hole) and a predicted bad end (ineffective disease prevention) with a good intent (disease prevention). This appears to be a immoral act.

 

[Jan2]

Have you heard about the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, Nebraska or Dr. Tom Hilgers?

 

[KarenNC]

So, Magdalen, as the original poster, what goal did you have in mind with condoms that either had the tips cut off or were 50% less effective?

You asked if the material itself were a problem.

My question: Is the wrongness of contraception in the contracepton mindset (I want to prevent pregnancy; not being fully open), or is there something wrong about the material object itself as well?

I don’t believe I have ever heard anyone claim that the Church teaches that latex rubber, in and off itself, was particularly sinful, or that shaping it into a tube thus made it sinful, nor that packets of condoms sitting on the shelf or a kid finding one in a drawer and blowing them up into funny balloons constituted a problem. It is using them for the intent of preventing pregnancy that is the problem.

Honestly, if the question is engaging in sexual activity while avoiding pregnancy and keeping within the bounds of the teachings of the Catholic Church, sounds like you would be best off using the Church approved method of doing so–NFP. It would, if used properly, certainly seem to be more likely to be actually effective for the purpose that engaging in what is sounding like a bit of Russian Roulette with snipping condoms or hoping that the 50% effectiveness would work in your favor.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by KarenNC:
It is using them for the intent of preventing pregnancy that is the problem.

Honestly, if the question is engaging in sexual activity while avoiding pregnancy and keeping within the bounds of the teachings of the Catholic Church, sounds like you would be best off using the Church approved method of doing so–NFP. It would, if used properly, certainly seem to be more likely to be actually effective for the purpose that engaging in what is sounding like a bit of Russian Roulette with snipping condoms or hoping that the 50% effectiveness would work in your favor.

I think you’ve really addressed the question that’s in my mind: what is the real difference between a couple that periodically uses artifical birth control (such as using a condom that is, say, only 80% effective in preventing the semen from entering the woman’s body)–a copule that yet desires to have children but wants to space them out; and a couple that uses NFP with the same intention: open to having children, but desiring to use methods to lower the chances of pregnancy and so space the births out?

I’ve heard that in each act in which artificial contraception is used, the couple is not fully open to life. All right, granted, but what then about couples who for years at a time only engage in the marital act on the less fertile days? They may say, “We’re fully open to life,” and yet they beforehand conducted medical studies to determine, statistically, when the less fertile times would be. While no physical object is used with the NFP group, it seems the mindset can be the same between both groups during each marital act: 1) We are not against having children, 2) However, we believe it healthy to space children at this time, 3) In order to space children, we need to find a way to lower the chances of pregnancy with each marital act, 4) An 80% effective condom lessens the chances of pregnancy with each act; NFP reduces the chances of pregnancy, say, 80%, relative to the peak time of the cycle for each marital act, 5) If she gets pregnant even in spite of these measures, we will accept this pregnancy and be open to life.

NFP seems like a slippery slope, in any case…

Please don’t think me iconoclastic here. I’ve never really understood NFP, probably because I’ve never practiced it.

 

[batteddy]

You are not 100% open to the possibility of life if you are trapping the majority of the sperm before it can even go anywhere.

As long as some sperm get to the right place, you are 100% open to life.

Because it’s like being dead or alive. Like being wet or dry. If some sperm can get there…then your fine. You either are open to life, or you aren’t. There are no different “percents” of being open to life. Some sperm either ends up where it is supposed to, or none does. The Church doesnt require that a man have a certain number of sperm enter the vagina, nor that they make sure that the woman is fertile that day. Just as long as they don’t do anything that delibrately and actively tries to stop conception.

Using a perferated condom isn’t delibrately trying to stop conception by the sheer fact that some sperm gets in the vagina! If that happens…the act is open to life, because those sperm may very well reach an egg and concieve a child. The man doesn’t have to assure that every last sperm makes it in. Just that some does so that conception is a possibility they did not delibrately try to avoid. A person using a perforated condom is not trying to avoid conception. In fact, especially for couples being tested for infertility, they would love it if they concieved that time, and are specifically letting some semen get through so that is a possibility.