Comdom usage with prostitute

[Bruised_Reed]

If a prostitute doesn’t consent at all, then she is not a prostitute but a slave, which is rape.

True. But to a “costumer” she appears to be a prostitute. She may never give consent but instead behave in a way that is enticing. Some take the risk of asking for help but doing so may cause problems for them if it gets back to the pimp.

 

[jimmy]

If your going to have sex with a prostitute, I advise you to use a condom. It is just common sense. It is a little odd to have sex with a prostitute but to have a moral crisis over a condom being contraception. You might have to confess it; I don’t know. The question is whether it is really a separate act from having sex with the prostitute in the first place. Not using a condom with a prostitute isn’t praiseworthy and virtuous, nor is it being open to life; it is stupidity. The Church’s teaching on contraception is based on the assumption of the acceptance of the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality in general. The people the ban on contraception is directed toward is married couples, not prostitutes and their customers.

 

[jimmy]

Corki,

I have a hard time wrapping my head around this notion. Let’s look at the Catechism:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

So… separating sexual pleasure aside from the unitive and procreative purposes to which sex is ordered, is morally disordered. Full stop – no discussion of marriage.

Do sexual acts within marriage fall within this discussion? Naturally, they do! However, the catechism doesn’t seem to discuss this as an “either/or” thing, but as a “both/and” thing: sex outside of its procreative end is wrong both per se and considered in the context of marriage.

I can see how it sounds weird… it makes us consider the degree of sinfulness of an act that is a priori sinful. Nevertheless, the Church doesn’t flinch: all sexual acts must be open to procreation.

The whole discussion in the catechism you reference is within the context of marriage. Sex with a prostitute is outside the bounds of what the paragraphs speak of. According to the Church, sex is a marriage act, so it isn’t going to discuss the proper way to have sex outside of marriage.

Sex with a prostitute has nothing to do with marriage or with procreation or being open to life. It could be argued the very nature of the act is contraceptive from the beginning without the use of a condom. It was never open to life.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

If your going to have sex with a prostitute, I advise you to use a condom. It is just common sense. It is a little odd to have sex with a prostitute but to have a moral crisis over a condom being contraception. You might have to confess it; I don’t know. The question is whether it is really a separate act from having sex with the prostitute in the first place. Not using a condom with a prostitute isn’t praiseworthy and virtuous, nor is it being open to life; it is stupidity. The Church’s teaching on contraception is based on the assumption of the acceptance of the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality in general. The people the ban on contraception is directed toward is married couples, not prostitutes and their customers.

I wish I would have thought of this; it’s pretty obvious.

 

[McCartney]

Wow. Three sins with one act. I say it’s better just to avoid this kind of behavior in the first place!

Not as bad as Moses. He broke all ten commandments at once. LOL

 

[Gorgias]

Jimmy:

The people the ban on contraception is directed toward is married couples, not prostitutes and their customers.

I wish I would have thought of this; it’s pretty obvious.

No, this isn’t true: do you remember the discussion, a couple of years ago, in which Benedict talked about the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and the ways in which husbands who frequent prostitutes can bring AIDS back into their homes, to their wives? The media completely missed the point, and proclaimed that Benedict was saying that condom usage was accepted by the Catholic Church (at least in this case)!

You guys are making precisely the same mistake, here! It’s not that condom usage is not a sin; and it’s not that the sinfulness of condom usage is limited to marital situations (or even situations of consensual sex)! Rather, while the use of a condom might indicate that a person’s conscience is being turned in a certain sense toward virtue, it is nevertheless the case that the use of condoms is objectively sinful. Full stop.

But, in the case of non-consensual sexual activity (i.e., rape), this different context may change the ‘ground rules’ sufficiently to alter the conclusions we might reach.

 

[Gorgias]

The whole discussion in the catechism you reference is within the context of marriage.

Actually, no, it isn’t. That’s why I quoted 2351 – the paragraph on ‘lust’. That paragraph isn’t addressing marriage, but rather, sexual sin.

Sex with a prostitute is outside the bounds of what the paragraphs speak of.

CCC 2351 is part of the section on “offenses against chastity,” not part of a section on ‘marriage’.

According to the Church, sex is a marriage act, so it isn’t going to discuss the proper way to have sex outside of marriage.

No … according to the Church, the proper use of sex is within the context of marriage; certainly, though, it addresses the impropriety of sexual expression outside of marriage.

Sex with a prostitute has nothing to do with marriage or with procreation or being open to life. It could be argued the very nature of the act is contraceptive from the beginning without the use of a condom. It was never open to life.

Huh? Sex with a prostitute, without the use of any contraceptives, isn’t “open to life”? You have an odd definition of what open to life means…

 

[Gorgias]

It’s quite possible for it to be an invalid confession. Let’s say a man went to a prostitute that was a victim of human trafficking. That turns the visit to a prostitute into rape. Now, that may not be what the guy thought he was getting into

Let’s pause here, please. An invalid confession would require that the person intentionally withheld the confession of sin from the priest. If the situation were rape, but the john had no idea that it was rape… then it’s not a mortal sin (i.e., he did not have either full knowledge or deliberate consent of the rape).

but as soon as his picks up on a hint that she doesn’t want to be there, no matter what he’s told or what she says or does, then the situation changes.

You recognize that you’ve just moved the goal posts, right? If the guy knows or suspects it’s rape, then he’s culpable of a mortal sin. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t culpable. Period. Full stop.

Many believe they have no other choice 9but to engage in prostitution and others are tricked into or sold into prostitution. This fact should not be ignored. Your question was a hypothetical, and did not include this possibility but it is a possibility.

True; yet, unless you’re suggesting that all prostitution is rape, then your case doesn’t hold.

It might become clearer why I think condom isn’t even on my radar as the primary sin in this scenario. I think there are far bigger issues.

Agreed; there are “far bigger issues.” However, no one’s talking about “primary sin” (whatever that means); we’re talking about mortal sin. Condom use, in this situation, fits the bill.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Reed, you raise a different question, which shouldn’t be conflated with the OP’s question.

I know this.

Fair enough. Yet, when a new topic is raised, it’s customary to start a new thread, not add a completely different question to an unrelated thread.

I’m just pointing out, to anyone who comes across this thread, that you’ve moved on to a new topic. Don’t get bent out of shape…

It isn’t what he specifically asked but a couple of sexual sins that might apply here were excluded.

Here’s the thing, though: the OP is talking about a (presumably) hypothetical situation. Unless you’re saying that this is necessarily the case in any consideration of this type of hypothetical situation, then you’ve just changed the story. So, you can’t add this consideration to the OP’s question, and still come up with a valid result. (Unless, that is, you’re suggesting that this must be the case here; and I don’t think you can reasonably make that claim.)

Going to a prostitute may also mean one is also committing rape and while not listed by the OP it is a real possibility. I’m not sure if the OP left it off for simplicity sake, he didn’t think of adding it or he didn’t know that prostitution does not always involve someone who is consenting. I just need to make sure that that fact isn’t ignored when the subject comes up.

Fair enough. By not including it, however, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that he’s not considering that he perceived that a rape was taking place. Therefore, it couldn’t be considered a mortal sin. Consequently, it doesn’t fit into his discussion of what must be confessed.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Let’s pause here, please. An invalid confession would require that the person intentionally withheld the confession of sin from the priest. If the situation were rape, but the john had no idea that it was rape… then it’s not a mortal sin (i.e., he did not have either full knowledge or deliberate consent of the rape).

You cut off the sentence. what you quoted above isn’t my whole thought, not just sentence.

You recognize that you’ve just moved the goal posts, right? If the guy knows or suspects it’s rape, then he’s culpable of a mortal sin. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t culpable. Period. Full stop.

Not sure what you are referring to. But again you cut off my sentence and thought.

Didn’t think it was possible to interrupt on the internet.

True; yet, unless you’re suggesting that all prostitution is rape, then your case doesn’t hold.

Not always rape but always exploitation. What case? I’m really not sure what you are referring to now because you chopped my thought in half and now you are just talking about your frame of reference not mine.

Agreed; there are “far bigger issues.” However, no one’s talking about “primary sin” (whatever that means); we’re talking about mortal sin. Condom use, in this situation, fits the bill.

By “primary” I mean the “first” mortal sin. I don’t believe that there is such a thing as adding more mortal sin to mortal sin. Once a person has committed a mortal sin, as far as the soul is concerned it can’t be more separated from God than it is with the first one, can it? If so, how so. No one in the 15 or so years since I first heard this has offered an answer that was compelling.

 

[Brendan]

Sex with a prostitute is mortally sinful with out without the condom. **Using the condom doesn’t add to the sin **nor could it be called “advisable” as if it was a good thing. And it certainly doesn’t lessen the sin.

.

It doesn’t add to the sin of fornication, but it is a sin in it’s own right and should therefore be confessed.

And you are correct, no sin is ‘advisable’

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Fair enough. Yet, when a new topic is raised, it’s customary to start a new thread, not add a completely different question to an unrelated thread.

I’m just pointing out, to anyone who comes across this thread, that you’ve moved on to a new topic. Don’t get bent out of shape…

I did add something but it is relevant to the topic and what is mortal sin. Thanks for your confidence in me.

Here’s the thing, though: the OP is talking about a (presumably) hypothetical situation. Unless you’re saying that this is necessarily the case in any consideration of this type of hypothetical situation, then you’ve just changed the story. So, you can’t add this consideration to the OP’s question, and still come up with a valid result. (Unless, that is, you’re suggesting that this must be the case here; and I don’t think you can reasonably make that claim.)

Unless the OP was specifically thinking of a high end sex worker, able to make informed choices and what comes to mind of anyone reading this thread. If that isn’t the scenario that comes to mind then rape is more likely. There have been comments on this thread (such as most prostitutes insisting on condom use) that indicate that people reading this have different things in mind or may be ignorant about prostitution.

Fair enough. By not including it, however, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that he’s not considering that he perceived that a rape was taking place. Therefore, it couldn’t be considered a mortal sin. Consequently, it doesn’t fit into his discussion of what must be confessed.

Maybe. There is a lot of ignorance and flippancy about sexual exploitation, even rape on this board. I will always add the voice for those that can’t speak for themselves.

Wink all you want but this is a serious issue for me.
The OP and those replying are not the only ones reading and I keep that in mind.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

It doesn’t add to the sin of fornication, but it is a sin in it’s own right and should therefore be confessed.

And you are correct, no sin is ‘advisable’

No sin isn’t advisable can’t suggest people not using condoms when fornicating. It’s bad enough they are having sex outside of marriage but why should they risk passing on a infectious disease. Yes, I did skip over contracting the disease themselves which is an obvious consequence but they are making that choice themselves. Their spouse (or even future illicit partners) doesn’t deserve to be an “innocent victim” of them not using condoms.

I think you guys might be witnessing a change in me here. If what is being presented are the Church’s best arguments they arguments are not very good because they are swaying me in the opposite direction. Good job.

 

[Elizium23]

By “primary” I mean the “first” mortal sin. I don’t believe that there is such a thing as adding more mortal sin to mortal sin. Once a person has committed a mortal sin, as far as the soul is concerned it can’t be more separated from God than it is with the first one, can it? If so, how so. No one in the 15 or so years since I first heard this has offered an answer that was compelling.

It’s called committing multiple mortal sins. You don’t go to confession and only cough up your first sin that took you from a state of grace. You are obliged to confess them all. Especially relevant are aggravating factors in the commission of a mortal sin. If you fornicated with a prostitute AND/OR raped a woman, that is mortal sin that must be confessed. If you used a condom during the sex act, that is another mortal sin that aggravated the circumstance and it, too must be confessed because of its equal status as mortal. Most theologians would say that you would be obliged to disclose the link between the two sins because it changes things. Failing to confess it at all would result in an invalid confession and no forgiveness for the sex act because you did not receive absolution. It’s very plain and clear to me.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

It’s called committing multiple mortal sins. You don’t go to confession and only cough up your first sin that took you from a state of grace. You are obliged to confess them all.

I already said that. See post #7. I hope people will read the entire thread so I don’t have to quote my own posts every time.

Especially relevant are aggravating factors in the commission of a mortal sin. If you fornicated with a prostitute AND/OR raped a woman, that is mortal sin that must be confessed. If you used a condom during the sex act, that is another mortal sin that aggravated the circumstance and it, too must be confessed because of its equal status as mortal. Most theologians would say that you would be obliged to disclose the link between the two sins because it changes things. Failing to confess it at all would result in an invalid confession and no forgiveness for the sex act because you did not receive absolution. It’s very plain and clear to me.

I don’t disagree.

 

[jimmy]

No, this isn’t true: do you remember the discussion, a couple of years ago, in which Benedict…

And from what I recall pope Benedict said it would be better for them to use condoms in Africa. Your reference doesn’t say anything different than what I have been saying. Of course the pope doesn’t support condom usage, because he doesn’t support sex outside of marriage. The pope doesn’t support it as an alternative either because it supports abstinence or chastity as the virtuous path when not married.

Your paragraph references don’t mention the situation of this thread nor do they reference the use of contraception outside of marriage. You only confirm my point by pointing out that you referenced the section on chastity. The Church doesn’t support condom use outside of marriage (and in the case of sex with a prostitute) because it supports chastity. And since using condoms isn’t the alternative of chastity, using condoms outside of marriage is never mentioned or even hinted at. The alternative that is sinful which is hinted at is extra marital sex. Condom use outside of marriage isn’t considered because the act of sex outside of marriage isn’t acceptable. So the conversation ends before it even gets to condom use outside of marriage.

There isn’t any difference between the use of a condom during a rape as mentioned by Bruised Reed and this situation. The Church has never mentioned the use of contraception in either situation because both are outside the bounds of the proper use of sex. In neither case is the sin in the use of a condom. The sin is in the act of sex outside of marriage.

Sex outside of marriage is never open to life, because marriage is the basis of the family. There is no family without marriage, consequently sex outside of marriage is prohibited. Life is the product of the love between a husband and wife, and there is never openness to life without this. This is the definition of openness to life according to the Church. It isn’t about the use of a condom, it is about marriage and the product of the love of marriage. That product is life. (And as a side note, this is precisely where our culture is wrong. Everything it supports contradicts the catholic idea of the family. We are moving toward a culture of individuals, which I think is dangerous no matter who you are.)

 

[Corki]

It’s called committing multiple mortal sins. You don’t go to confession and only cough up your first sin that took you from a state of grace. You are obliged to confess them all. Especially relevant are aggravating factors in the commission of a mortal sin. If you fornicated with a prostitute AND/OR raped a woman, that is mortal sin that must be confessed. If you used a condom during the sex act, that is another mortal sin that aggravated the circumstance and it, too must be confessed because of its equal status as mortal. Most theologians would say that you would be obliged to disclose the link between the two sins because it changes things. Failing to confess it at all would result in an invalid confession and no forgiveness for the sex act because you did not receive absolution. It’s very plain and clear to me.

It changes the sin. In Confession you are supposed to tell the priest your station in life. Having sex with a condom when you are single is one sin (fornication). Having sex with a condom when you are married is another (either adultery or contraception)

 

[Elizium23]

It changes the sin. In Confession you are supposed to tell the priest your station in life. Having sex with a condom when you are single is one sin (fornication). Having sex with a condom when you are married is another (either adultery or contraception)

No, it’s two sins. Fornication+Contraception, or Adultery+Contraception. The only way it may be one sin is Contraception with your wife. Next question: is it really three sins? Paying money to procure sex, is that also grave matter? It seems one should be obligated to say “I paid a prostitute for it” instead of simply “I am guilty of fornication/adultery.”

You can commit multiple sins in one act. If you rob a bank, that is one sin. If you confess to robbing a bank, and what really happened that day is that you killed a teller and then stole a getaway car, that is two unconfessed sins with no absolution for any of them.

 

[jimmy]

One of the problems with the argument that says you shouldn’t use a condom with a prostitute is that it considers condoms in a vacuum, rather than in the context of marriage and the family. Every moral law has an end and a social purpose, even those which supposedly have no victim. The concept of the family is changed if you accept contraception in principle (it is one thing to use it, but a whole other to change the principle.).

Sex with a prostitute isn’t marriage and it has nothing to do with family, except in as much as it is a sin against the family. Use of a condom with a prostitute isn’t the same as in marriage because the whole concept of marriage and family are completely gone from the act. There is no openness to life (which basically means openness to family).

 

[jimmy]

No, it’s two sins. Fornication+Contraception, or Adultery+Contraception. The only way it may be one sin is Contraception with your wife. Next question: is it really three sins? Paying money to procure sex, is that also grave matter? It seems one should be obligated to say “I paid a prostitute for it” instead of simply “I am guilty of fornication/adultery.”

You can commit multiple sins in one act. If you rob a bank, that is one sin. If you confess to robbing a bank, and what really happened that day is that you killed a teller and then stole a getaway car, that is two unconfessed sins with no absolution for any of them.

The problem with your argument is you have reduced morality to law and you have lost the context. No law is a law unto itself. Every law has a context and a purpose.

Robbing a bank and murder are two completely seperate acts. It is in no way comparable to the subject of this thread.