Catholic Condoms

[batteddy]

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.

But the ends don’t justify the means.

The ends may be the same (avoiding conception), but the means of contraception are immoral, merely using informatio is not.

Contraception is an active act, delibrately trying to decrease fertility and the chances of conception.

NFP is just the passive use of information, using decreased chances that are already naturally there.

Ethically, the end doesnt really matter. It’s whether the means are moral or not. Two acts can have the same end, but two totally different means, making one moral and the other immoral. We are not mere pragmatists in our ethics, we believe in ideals, and principles, and good or evil inherent in human acts, not just in the results of those acts.

If you don’t allow NFP…the creates strange epistemological questions related to ethics. I mean…does mere knowledge of days of fertility and infertility impose an obligation on you. If you somehow find out…are you then obligated to avoid the less fertile days, or obligated TO have sex on the fertile days??? No. Because you dont have to have sex any days if you dont want to. You can abstain. You dont have to have sex everyday if your married, and sometimes you will end up having sex on an infertile day…merely knowing that it’s an infertile day adds no obligation on your part, and you can even use the information to you advantage if you want.

Here’s an example:
I am at a store looking to buy a toaster. And I overhear two employees saying that there is a secret sale tommorow. Am I allowed to wait till tommorow to get the toaster at a lower price? Sure! I can buy the toaster any damn day I want. If I hadn’t overheard, I could have decided to go home, discuss it with the wife, and come back the next day and been surprised by the sale. But now that I overheard, am I obligated to buy today so as not to “cheat” the company out of that extra money? Of course not! The mere knowledge that there is going to be a sale anyway doesn’t impose any obligation on me. My merely holding the information and using it to my advantage is fine. I’m not “cheating” anyone out of anything, because the sale was going to occur anyway.

Likewise, mere knowledge that tommorow is an infertile day doesnt suddenly make my waiting till tommorow sinful. Because I’m not obligated to have sex tonight, nor am I obligated to abstain tommorow. I’m not cheating God out of anything, because the infertility was going to happen anyway, and I’m not required to have sex on any particular days. Mere information doesnt change that.

Now, if you did something immoral to GET that information…then it’s wrong. But measuring temperatures and mucus…isn’t immoral.

People inside a company who get information that a stock is going to drop…have to disclose their sales to the public before they sell or risk being accused of illegal insider trading for having an unfair advantage. But it is the deceptive tactic of hiding the sale from the public and thus misappropriating the information that is bad and illegal, not the use of the information. An insider can trade if they announce the information publically.

But if an outsider merely overhears the information…they are certainly allowed, under US law, to sell their stocks just as they always are. An outsider can sell them anytime they want…mere secret information that comes to them unintentionally…doesnt suddenly obligate them to hold on to their shares, and definitely not when it would be to their disadvantage to do so.

If the wife knew she was infertile on certain days, but the husband didnt, and she kept only having sex on those days to avoid having the baby he wanted to have…she might be guilty of a certain type of “insider trading” using her information deceptively, hiding it from someone who has a right to know in order to promote her advantage. But if both partners know fully…there is nothing wrong with using the information.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

NFP is only data and is only part of the decision. It assists the couple, who are free to engage in the martial act at any time, in deciding if “this time” given the totality of the marital situation (time, money, home, other children, parental needs, etc.) is a “good time” to engage in a martial act that is more (or less likely to conceive a child).

Persons who work toward self masterly look at the totality of the act and its reasonableness at a particular point in time. Persons who act impulsively or in response to urges do not look at the totality of the act but rather attempt to sterilize the act making its natural and expected end moot 24/7. That way they do not grow in self masterly and mutual respect. Their fertility is technically controlled by a third agent.

God engineered couples to be fertile a hand full of days per month for a reason. It is his intent to make the martial act infertile 75% or more of the time. The married, endowed by the grace of the Sacrament, decide what time to engage in the marital embrace. They are not obligated to engage in it at any particular time.

Can NFP (a good thing) be used for sinful ends? With a complete exclusion perpetually for all children? Probably, but not likely in the majority of instances b/c the couple decides to engage in an act or not. Only the couple can decide if this time is a good time. There is a certain cross in abstaining and this cross is there b/c God, apparently wants us to engage in this act, that is why it is pleasurable. So, to not engage in it is a cross and I suspect, is there for a reason.

NFP is just an observation and in my experience, the presence or absence of mucus or temperature is only one tiny part of the decision, it is hardly the driving part of the decision in most instances. It is hardly a slippery slope b/c each act is evaluated in light of Grace, intellect and situation. Perpetual self –induced sterility is the slippery slope to making a person an object to be had as opposed to a person to be loved.

 

[Michal]

There is a reason why ejaculation accompanies orgasm.

 

[lizaanne]

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

I still do not agree with this. By the same logic you could say that it’s ok to block 99.9% of the sperm from getting where they need to go, and therefore are 100% open to life because that .1% just might make it.

Well - that is the percentage of effectiveness of some artificial birth control methods. So by your logic I could say that I’m open to life because there is still a chance I could become pregnant. A low chance, but still a chance, and since we aren’t speaking in percentages because 100% is 100%, well then, it’s ok if I use that method.

It doesn’t hold water.

If the condom held back half the sperm then you are not being 100% open to life. You are reducing the probability of life occurring and therefore are not 100% compliant.

~Liza

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Humanae Vitae 14. (in part) Similarly excluded is every action which, either 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.

Full document here -

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

Acts w/ a perforated condom, where some semen is placed in the vaginal track in accord with the martial embrace does not render procreation impossible and is a licit act well within the language and intent of Humanae Vitae, which is the sentinel document for this topic.

Using a perforated condom, apart from medical diagnosis, is in the opinion of the Bishops sinful and I uphold that decision as they have the intellect and the Grace of Orders to make it.

The use of a perforated condom has been licit for medical diagnosis for decades b/c it assists the reproductive act by, in accord with Catholic morality, supporting it towards its expected end which is conception. It is both physically and metaphysically 100% open to life in accord with Church teaching as it is generally understood. Common experience of married couple illustrates that 100% of the semen is neither deposited nor remains within the female 100% of the time.

Even Paul VI saw this in the 1970’s.

**
**

 

[cheddarsox]

Here is how it has been explained to me.

Artificial contraception is always sinful.

NFP can be used sinfully,with a “not open to life” midset. But it is not inherently sinful.

If a couple uses NFP with a “not open to life” mindset, then it is no different from a barrier method form of ABC.

The church instructs people to use NFP with an “open to life” mindset.

The gift of fertility comes with great responsibility attached to it. The church recognizes this and treats this gift with great respect.

 

[KarenNC]

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

Interesting that all the arguments are about the sperm getting to the right place, but nothing is said about whether deliberately avoiding sex when you know the egg isn’t in the right place is as problematic in terms of “open to life”.

Something I hadn’t noticed before.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by batteddy:

But the ends don’t justify the means.

The ends may be the same (avoiding conception), but the means of contraception are immoral, merely using informatio is not.

Contraception is an active act, delibrately trying to decrease fertility and the chances of conception.

NFP is just the passive use of information, using decreased chances that are already naturally there.

I agree with you that the ends don’t justify the means.

I don’t see how NFP is the “passive” use of information…

Perhaps an example will show my line of thought:

You’re driving down the road, gunning 100 in a as 65 zone. Suddenly, your radar detector goes off. You decide, based on this information, to slow down to 70-75 for the next stretch. After passing the cop on the side of the road, and after your detector indicates all is safe, you speed back up. Your slowing down to a less stoppable speed, and basing your action on information on the radar detector, is not a passive act, IMHO.

On the flip side: you’re driving down the same road at 100 MPH and suddenly a cop pulls behind you with his lights flaring. You put on your cloaking device and punch 120.

I’m not comparing the morality of speeding with the morality of NFP or contraception. I’m simply emphasizing how both of the above examples are very much “active” and attempt to prevent the being stopped by the police officer and being given a ticket, or worse.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Interesting that all the arguments are about the sperm getting to the right place, but nothing is said about whether deliberately avoiding sex when you know the egg isn’t in the right place is as problematic in terms of “open to life”.

Something I hadn’t noticed before.

The egg not being in the right place is something outside of human control. We do not need to alter our bodies or alter the nature of the sexual act to keep the egg from being in the right place. Quite the contrary. The woman’s body naturally is only fertile about 1 week out of four. Catholics believe that our bodies are created by God. So if a woman is only fertile for one week out of four, that’s likely not an accident. It’s likely the way that God intended it to be.

As long as the sperm is ejaculated into the vagina, and no barrier method or pills are being used to prevent the sperm from reaching an egg, then the act is ordered towards procreation. (I prefer that term over “open to new life.”) The couple is not doing anything to break the link between the procreative and the unitive functions of the sexual act. Rather, by abstaining from sex during the infertile time, they are honoring the link between the procreative and the unitive functions of sex.

 

[Michal]

valiant Lucy:

Rather, by abstaining from sex during the infertile time, they are honoring the link between the procreative and the unitive functions of sex.

So if a woman is only fertile for one week out of four, that’s likely not an accident. It’s likely the way that God intended it to be.

Have people always known a woman is fertile for this time?

 

[TAS2000]

Have people always known a woman is fertile for this time?

I don’t see the relevance. People didn’t always know the world was round, but that doesn’t mean God didn’t make it that way for a reason.

The OP never really stated the intent of the tipless condom, and several have asked, and most have speculated that some sort of dimished semen flow was the intent. But what if the OP meant that they invented a condom that was made so that 100% of the sperm were still delivered? Why? Well for one example, there are several types of condoms in existance now that have ridges, etc. for pleasure. How effective that is, I do not speculate, as I have also been told that condoms are no fun for guys.

Anyway, that would make this hypothetical tipless condom 100% sperm equivalent to NFP, and solely a device for “fun”.

 

[Michal]

I don’t see the relevance. People didn’t always know the world was round, but that doesn’t mean God didn’t make it that way for a reason.

If people didn’t always know this, then many people in the past may have sinned by having intercourse during the infertile time. You might say since they didn’t know, they didn’t, and if we know, we will sin, but that is irrelevant since the body was always essentially the same, so all moral knowledge of its use has to have been known since it’s inception.

All I’m saying is that we do not even need to pay attention to fertile or infertile times, doing so is a result of guilt. If intercourse is a natural, honest, giving away of one’s self, no compulsion should be felt to do so, to initiate pregnancy.

The only worry on the couples mind is if the time is God’s to have children or not.

 

[TAS2000]

If people didn’t always know this, then many people in the past may have sinned by having intercourse during the infertile time.

What are you talking about?! As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that having intercourse within the bounds of marriage is ever sinful, no matter whether they are fertile or not.

all moral knowledge of its use has to have been known since it’s inception.

again…WHAT? So every detail of how something works must be known from the begining of time? Since when? Prove it. So…my 2 year old son, who liked to play with himself in the tub must have been sinnning because since he was born with a body and had it from the beginning MUST have known everythign about the morals of it? Get real!

 

[Michal]

What are you talking about?! As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that having intercourse within the bounds of marriage is ever sinful, no matter whether they are fertile or not.

I didn’t mean grave sin, just some sort of wrongdoing. I was referring to what Lucy said, she didn’t mention sinfulness.

again…WHAT? So every detail of how something works must be known from the begining of time?

Not scientific detail, moral detail.

Prove it. So…my 2 year old son, who liked to play with himself in the tub must have been sinnning because since he was born with a body and had it from the beginning MUST have known everythign about the morals of it? Get real!

I don’t see whats so sinful about a 2 year old taking a bath…but if you’re referring to what children know, then there is a state of innocence. I’m saying the necessary moral knowledge is gained through reflection, by aid of the Spirit. That way every human being since the beginning, until the end, has the available resources to make sound moral decisions. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[Michal]

edit: sorry, double-post.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

If people didn’t always know this, then many people in the past may have sinned by having intercourse during the infertile time.

How is having intercouse by a married couple during an infertile time a sin?

You might say since they didn’t know, they didn’t, and if we know, we will sin, but that is irrelevant since the body was always essentially the same, so all moral knowledge of its use has to have been known since it’s inception.

Confusing

All I’m saying is that we do not even need to pay attention to fertile or infertile times, doing so is a result of guilt.

Exactly how is knowing my wife’s fertile or infertile time a result of guilt? I understand the point that you are trying to make, but it does not work here. We have been blessed with NFP in our marriage (as have so many others) as a means for natural family planning. Family planning. As Catholics we are open to life during each marital act, but we can enjoy the marital embrace, uniting with our spouse during the infertile time of the month and it is not a sin.

If intercourse is a natural, honest, giving away of one’s self, no compulsion should be felt to do so, to initiate pregnancy.

The only worry on the couples mind is if the time is God’s to have children or not.

There are many factors that can come into play when the husband and wife are deciding if now is the right time for children or not. To think that you cannot plan for this is irresponsible. If you have four children and are financially strapped, living paycheck to paycheck, up to your eyes in debt, is now the right time for you to be having another child?

 

[TAS2000]

I don’t see whats so sinful about a 2 year old taking a bath…but if you’re referring to what children know, then there is a state of innocence. I’m saying the necessary moral knowledge is gained through reflection, by aid of the Spirit. That way every human being since the beginning, until the end, has the available resources to make sound moral decisions. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Well I’m afriad I don’t understand your arguement then. It sounded as though you were saying that since people didn’t know about fertility cycles before, then it must somehow be a sin to use them now, because we must now everything about it from the beginning.

To me that is like saying a 2 year old playing with his dingle is sinning. So if he is innocent because of his lack of knowledge, why would people in the past be sinning because of their lack of fertility knowledge? Do you think that somehow reflecting onthe Holy Spirit it would have been reveled to them what the scientific details of the fertility cycle were?

Maybe you need to explain your point again, 'cause I’m not getting it.

 

[Delphinus85]

Someone show me one medically necessary need for knowing sperm count. I don’t believe there is one. Masturbation for the purposes of fertility tests is immoral. So is the use of a perforated condom. Just because the medical industry produces such things does not make them right.

~Liza

For fertility tests, if a couple is having problems concieving, the problem could be because they man isn’t producing enough sperm to be effective, the way to determine this is a sperm count taken from a sample.

 

[Delphinus85]

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

In all truth, the teaching that NFP is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE form of birth control isn’t an infallible teaching either. Thus why I disagree with it, but still follow the teaching, so as to show respect to the church, and trust her, even if I disagree with her.

 

[Michal]

Mirror Mirror:

How is having intercouse by a married couple during an infertile time a sin?

Based on the assumption that God makes a woman fertile for one week out of four, and that intercourse is supposed to take place only during that time.

God did create that deliberately, but I don’t that means we have to keep that in mind, since this is modern knowledge so I think.

There are many factors that can come into play when the husband and wife are deciding if now is the right time for children or not. To think that you cannot plan for this is irresponsible. If you have four children and are financially strapped, living paycheck to paycheck, up to your eyes in debt, is now the right time for you to be having another child?

Then wouldn’t God say no?