Catholic Condoms

[Mirror_Mirror]

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…

So you are saying that sexual intercouse during an infertile times is sinful? Please provide Church support for this. Let me save you the time, you will not find it, because it is not a sin. May I recommend “The Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West. This will help you to gain a better understanding.

Then wouldn’t God say no?

God is all powerful and can do all things. But if you are fertile then you know that you have a valid reason to avoid a pregnancy then you can abstain. Church teaching. If you have a valid reason to avoid and you have sex during your fertile time the chances of achieving a pregnancy are higher.

That would be like saying that you trust that God is for life so he would not want you to get hit by a car so you can freely walk across a busy intersection and God will say no to you getting hit by a car.

(I will no longer hijack this thread, Michal, if you would like to discuss this further, please start a thread or feel free to PM me)

 

[CurlyJake]

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.

Not sure that the statement that “NFP is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE form of birth control isn’t infallible teaching” is true. Paul VI states infallibly in the encyclical ‘Humane Vitae’ that use of cannot use artificial contraception is a grave sin. Further he states that ‘recourse to infertile periods’ for well-grounded reasons is acceptable and moral.

I guess the question is what is your definition of NFP? If it is ‘recourse to infertile periods’, i.e. (BOM, FAM, Creighton model, Marquette model, etc…) then I agree. Otherwise I defer to ‘Humane Vitae’, which is infallible. Below are the quotes from ‘Humane Vitae’ and the link to the encyclical at the Vatican.

CJ

“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”

Also

“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[bobzills]

NFP seems like a slippery slope, in any case…

I think that you may have a point here. For example, according to the statistics given out by the Couple to couple league, condoms fail 7% of the time, whereas NFP, when used correctly, fails only 1% of the time. Condoms are thereby seen to be seven times more open to life than NFP, and since the use of condoms has been condemned by the Church as not being opne to life, why would it not be reasonable to condemn NFP also – at least on the basis of the relative failure rate statistics given by the Couple to Couple League.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

It is unreasonable to condemn NFP b/c it is effective. Effectiveness is immaterial to morality.

The morality of an act is judged by its means, not its end. NFP is licit because it is an honorable means, is in accord with God’s design and the integrity of the act is preserved. The latter is often described as "open to life”. Condoms are immoral b/c they distort the one flesh union of the couple and alters the natural result of the act, depositing of the male component into what amounts to a sack.

The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of an act goes to the prudence of the act. It is both immoral and imprudent to use condoms b/c (1) it is a sin (2) they apparently do not work well.

The fact that NFP is super effective is b/c God designed it that way. He made the signs, he made the intellect to interpret the signs and he made a man and woman to have a mutual fertility that is more or less 20% of the month.

Can NFP a (a moral means) be perverted into an immoral action? Probably but it is difficult to pervert and nearly impossible to judge outside of the marriage. A married couple is free to mutually decide to have or have not a martial embrace.

 

[bobzills]

The morality of an act is judged by its means, not its end.

Is this always true?

 

[Donna_P]

…latex condoms with the tips cut off.

Would it be immoral to partake in the procreative act with such a condom?

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?

Dear Madaglan,

May God be with you!

Perhaps I’m too old but I’m not getting the point of using a condom with the tip cut off.

If your point is: Condoms are sinful regardless. Then I have to say no. It is not the instrument that is sinful but the person who is utilizing the instrument.

God bless you.

 

[bobzills]

The morality of an act is judged by its means, not its end.

I don’t think that this is true.
An action which involves using a good means can still be bad if the intention or end is bad.
So it is not true that the morality of an act is judged by its means and not by its end.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

I don’t think that this is true.
An action which involves using a good means can still be bad if the intention or end is bad.
So it is not true that the morality of an act is judged by its means and not by its end.

I disagree. If the end is bad, it is a bad act, a case of double effect or an accident beyond the actor’s control. But we do not disagree greatly because I agree that intention can make a good act bad, but I suggest that intention is part of the act itself.

Intention is the thinking part of the action; it is not the end of the act. Driving a car is a good or neutral act, but driving the get away car is a sin. The intention of the actor is an integral part of the act. Another way to look at it is that actions are verbs and accordingly, under the control of the actor. Sins too are verbs.

The presence or absence of sin is based on the presence or absence of an action first; and intention (thought) is a part of the action, in fact, thought is an action itself, often the driving part of the action. One never goes to confession and confesses an end, only acts.

If a good act has a bad end, even a predictable and foreseeable bad end, it can still be a good act if the good is proportional to the bad. This is double effect. Getting treatment for a fatal disease while pregnant is a good act, even if the unintended yet foreseeable *end of the act includes the death of the unborn child. *This is know as the double effect; a good act with two ends one good and one bad (or at least less good). The bad is tolerated b/c the value of each life is equal. Double effect has been discussed here many times. The root of the double effect argument is that it is a good (or neutral act) with two ends, one good and one bad.

CCC 1887 -

The inversion of means and ends,10 which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which "make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible."11

 

[bobzills]

I disagree. If the end is bad, it is a bad act, a case of double effect or an accident beyond the actor’s control. But we do not disagree greatly because I agree that intention can make a good act bad, but I suggest that intention is part of the act itself

What I disagree with is the following statement:

"The morality of an act is judged by its means, not its end."

I think that this is wrong.
An act has a means and an end. Suppose the means is good. That does not necessarily guarantee that the act will be good. It is true that in many cases, the act will be good when the means is good. But there will be cases when the act will be bad when the means is good.

 

[writingluver5]

Personally, with a mother who teaches Natural Family Planning, I see absolutely no point in using condoms. If you’re not open to life, then why bother having sex? Sex is both unifying and procreative, and if you leave half of that picture out, then you’re not giving your spouse your full self, which hurts both of you and God. I’m not going to comment on the whole fertility testing thing, since I am not adequately knowledgeable about that. I’d never use condoms, though.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

An act has a means and an end. Suppose the means is good. That does not necessarily guarantee that the act will be good. It is true that in many cases, the act will be good when the means is good. But there will be cases when the act will be bad when the means is good.

Can you show an illustration of when the act will be bad and the means good?

 

[Debra_C]

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

How about when the man has had radiation treatments in the past which have caused cellular damage? Would you disagree that checking fertility in such a case would not only be prudent, but a moral necessity? Would it not be irresponsible to intentionally conceive a child when there is a 50% or higher risk of serious birth defects?

 

[batteddy]

You are reducing the probability of life occurring and therefore are not 100% compliant.

But with a perforated condom it just isn’t true that you are reducing the probability of life occuring.

Until you get down to really small numbers of sperm…the chance of concieving is the same.

You have the same basic chance at conception whether you have 1 million sperm or 2 million sperm. At that point…it doesnt matter probability wise. If you let half the sperm through, you still have a high chance of conception just as if you let all of it in.

Under your logic, it is somehow more moral to point a gun and shoot it at someone if one of the chambers is empty. As if you are only “5/6ths guilty”. As if someone playing Russian Roulette is only “1/6th guilty” of suicide. The numbers just dont work like that except when the chances get astronomically small. I mean, there is always a chance anything will kill you, but you shouldnt actively engage in any act unless the chances are very small.

Likewise, unless you are reducing the sperm to numbers that really do make conception more rare…it’s no issue. 1 million sperm are just as likely to concieve as 2 million. Certainly, the chance is not reduced by 1/2 just because the number of sperm is. Perhaps only a few tiny slivers of a percent. Morally insignificant.

 

[bobzills]

Can you show an illustration of when the act will be bad and the means good?

Yes, I can. Suppose that there is a widow with 6 children living in a very small apartment and in a crime infested area. She is desparate for new and better housing but cannot afford it. A philanthropist comes along and sizes up the neighborhood and sees her situation. He then buys her a beautiful all expenses paid house in a wonderful neighborhood that she has only been dreaming about. She gladly agrees to move out of this stinkhole and the children are excited and happy. As part of the deal she turns over her stinkhole apartment to the philanthropist. And she is pleased as punch to be in her new neighborhood and in her beautiful new house with all expenses paid by the philanthropist. So far this is good. But this is the means to the end. What is the end or purpose of the philanthropist. It turns out that he is a drug dealer and can make millions in drug deals in this rat infested neighborhood. So now that he has the apartment of the widow, he is able to conduct his money making drug and prostitution business.
So the act becomes bad, even though the means was good, since the end of the act is bad.
To sum up:
The means is good: Charitable donation to the poor.
The end is bad: To deal in drugs and prostitution.
The act is bad as it is determined in this case not by the good means, but by the bad end.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Sorry but the exploitation of a poor woman to get her seedy home to further an immoral enterprise (drugs and prostitutes) does not qualify as an act of charity in Catholic tradition.

CCC 1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

It does not seem like there is a lot of "love your neighbor” going on in your example. Mobster acts that appear to be charity typically seek their own end and objectify the parties involved. That is what your case illustrates.

Objectification of (1) poverty (2) situation (3) weaknesses of others for one’s own and not the other’s benefit is not an act of charity. Charity is disinterested love for the sake of the other person.

CCC 1829 The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion…

Your example, as I see it shows what purports to be a charitable act polluted by intention. Since the intention is polluted and apart from that intention, the act would not likely occur, I would suggest that the act is a bad act b/c it clearly displays not only a bad intention but an objectively sinful intention.

It seems to be a bad act with a bad end.

 

[bobzills]

Sorry but the exploitation of a poor woman to get her seedy home to further an immoral enterprise (drugs and prostitutes) does not qualify as an act of charity in Catholic tradition.

CCC 1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

It does not seem like there is a lot of "love your neighbor” going on in your example. Mobster acts that appear to be charity typically seek their own end and objectify the parties involved. That is what your case illustrates.

Objectification of (1) poverty (2) situation (3) weaknesses of others for one’s own and not the other’s benefit is not an act of charity. Charity is disinterested love for the sake of the other person.

CCC 1829 The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion…

Your example, as I see it shows what purports to be a charitable act polluted by intention. Since the intention is polluted and apart from that intention, the act would not likely occur, I would suggest that the act is a bad act b/c it clearly displays not only a bad intention but an objectively sinful intention.

It seems to be a bad act with a bad end.

correct.
The end is bad and therefore the act is bad. however, the charity or giving to the poor is good.

 

[bobzills]

Your example, as I see it shows what purports to be a charitable act polluted by intention.

So the act itself is bad, even though the means was good in some sense. The act was bad because the intention was bad, not because the means of helping the poor was bad in itself.
This example points out the problem that I see with NFP. In using NFP to avoid conception, you are using charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, your knowledge of the female reproductive cycle to frustrate and defeat the primary and natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. When your goal is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception, you are placing the unitive primary and doing your utmost to defeat the procreative purpose of marriage. It was the teaching of the Church before Vatican II, that the primary purpose of marriage was procreative. If that teaching has not changed, then NFP, when used to avoid children, is wrong because it makes the unitive the primary purpose of the marital embrace and not the procreative.

 

[fix]

So the act itself is bad, even though the means was good in some sense. The act was bad because the intention was bad, not because the means of helping the poor was bad in itself.
This example points out the problem that I see with NFP. In using NFP to avoid conception, you are using charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, your knowledge of the female reproductive cycle to frustrate and defeat the primary and natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. When your goal is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception, you are placing the unitive primary and doing your utmost to defeat the procreative purpose of marriage. It was the teaching of the Church before Vatican II, that the primary purpose of marriage was procreative. If that teaching has not changed, then NFP, when used to avoid children, is wrong because it makes the unitive the primary purpose of the marital embrace and not the procreative.

This was published in 1936:

Is sex intercourse
lawful according to Catholic morality only when a child may
possibly result from it? And must Christian people use their sex
powers fully only when they intend to have a baby?..

To arrive at the exact position it must be noted that three
elements must be taken into account in judging the character of a
human action: first, the objective nature of the action
considered in itself, or the deed; second, the personal reasons
for performing it, or the motives; third, the surrounding
situation, or the circumstances. Any deficiency in one of these
factors spoils the action, as when a good deed is done for bad
motives or a well-intentioned action is performed out of place.
All three factors must join to make a morally sound action…

Contraception is commonly called birth-control; an unfortunate
term, since birth-control as such obviously is a reasonable and
necessary thing. Catholics would be the last to deny that the
human reason should control as far as possible such an important
matter as the coming of new life into the world, with its added
responsibilities to the parents. In point of fact, the very
institution of marriage is a method of birth-control, since it
limits procreation to those conditions in which a child will be
cared for…

The Catholic Church’s condemnation is directed at the means
employed for birth-control. What is opposed is not birth-control
or the regulation of births, but certain methods of ensuring
this. They are generally without qualification called birth
control, but more accurately they should be classed under the
term of contraception. They consist in altering or interfering
with the natural character of sex-intercourse, or its antecedent
or consequent processes. They are species of injustice or of
impurity: of injustice when the family and social quality of sex
is affected; of impurity when the sex impulse itself is
disorganized. All wrongful methods of birth-control fall under
these heads. Unjust methods may be reduced to sterilization and
abortion, impure methods to onanism…

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.