Comdom usage with prostitute

[Elizium23]

It’s not a question of ‘more’ or ‘less’; it’s a question of number of grave sins committed. Looking at grave sins and asking “is this more or less important?” is an erroneous approach to understanding mortal sin…

Not really. Sins have degrees of gravity. Masturbation and murder are equal in that they will both send you to Hell under the proper conditions, but you can see from their unequal treatment in secular law and attitude that they are not equal in gravity. While we cannot commit evil so that good may come of it, there sometimes come times in everyone’s life where we must choose the lesser of two evils. This necessarily involves discernment of the gravity of sins and the choice of one over another. We cannot convince ourselves that every mortal sin is equal or we will treat others with a good measure of indifference.

 

[Gorgias]

A few questions for those who think the use of a condom compounds the sin of sex with a prostitute:

Is it a sin to put a condom on if you aren’t planning on having sex?
Would the use of a condom compound the sin of masturbation (I realize the unlikeliness that someone would use a condom for this)?
Does use of a condom compound the sin of homosexuality?

Jimmy,

You’re changing the issue here, and therefore, your questions lead us off in the wrong direction.

The question isn’t “is use of a condom sinful?” per se, but rather, “is contraception, with the condom as the contraceptive method, sinful?” Therefore, the questions of “condom use” – outside of the intent of contracepting – don’t really make sense here…

 

[Gorgias]

Not really. Sins have degrees of gravity. Masturbation and murder are equal in that they will both send you to Hell under the proper conditions, but you can see from their unequal treatment in secular law and attitude that they are not equal in gravity.

Yes, but that’s a different context. Here, we’re talking about whether we can ‘ignore’ one mortal sin, since there’s another one as well, as if we were simply ‘stacking’ them. That’s not the case. That is, you’re talking about a situation of a choice between committing ‘this or that sin’, and the discussion here is what results when it’s a situation in which one’s already committed ‘this and that sin’…

 

[djames99]

The general sin spawns others and they should be mentioned. The gauge of severity and warranted penance will be assessed in the totality of the act. But the main focus will be the sex outside of marriage.

Needless to say I suppose, the potential dangers are twofold, one loss of health and the other loss of ‘Life’.

 

[Elizium23]

Let’s break it down clearly and clinically, because I don’t know if everyone is clear on what “procreative” means when it comes to the marital embrace.

A procreative act is one in which the man uses his organs in the natural way to deposit sperm in the proper place of the woman, whereupon the sperm use the natural methods to traverse the woman’s reproductive system, during which time they have the opportunity to meet with an egg cell, should one be already released.

That’s it. It’s simple and obvious what procreativity is. Contraception is defined as something that destroys the procreative aspect of sex. A barrier such as a condom, a hormone that inhibits ovulation, a spermicide, etc. In a different class are abortifacient contraceptives which do things such as inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg. Anyone can plainly see that Natural Family Planning is in yet another class, as it does not frustrate the procreativity of the act as I have defined it, rather it works with the natural cycles of the body to ensure the outcome desired by the couple. Abstinence is not contraception at all.

The unitive aspect of sex to me is more nebulous and poorly defined. As I understand it, sex is unitive when it brings a couple together in love. Clearly rape is not unitive. It could be argued that prostitution and homosexuality are not unitive, but I digress: unitivity is not the subject of this thread.

Sodomy and masturbation are clear examples of non-procreative sex. While with a prostitute, assuming that it is vaginal penetration between a man and a woman in the natural manner, is clearly procreative. The fact of marriage is utterly irrelevant to these cases, other than changing the nature of the primary sin involved. It could be fornication, it could be adultery… it could be sinless marital sex if you are paying your wife for it!

The procreativity of sex with prostitutes is obvious on the face of it. Sure, the use of contraception prevents the spread of disease as a side effect, but a prostitute who becomes pregnant is bad for business. No pimp would allow that and most prostitutes would be afraid of that consequence to their livelihoods. I even understand that some prostitutes have policies against procreative sex and concentrate on sodomy or masturbation as their only services, precisely because normal sex is both unitive and procreative, and they are afraid of both of these aspects, which are both bad for business.

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s break it down clearly and clinically

 

[McCartney]

Yes, I get the sex-out-of-marriage part.

But someone listed the sex partner being a prostitute as a separate “sin” all on it’s own-- for the non-prostitute person.

In other words…if i was having sex outside of marriage, that is one sin.
If the person i was having sex with is a prostitute, that is two sins.

But if you are having sex outside marriage, what does it matter what the other person is doing separate from you? Your own “sin” is the sex without marriage bit.
The prostitute part is their own “sin”.

It’s like the condom question. Having sex with a prostitute and using a condom doesn’t make it any less a “sin”.
By that same token, does having sex outside of marriage with a non-prostitute make it any less a sin?

.

I’m not too sure what the poster meant but I think he is talking about the immorality of paying for sex. There is nothing immoral if I pay you to mow my lawn but it is if I pay you to murder an enemy.

 

[McCartney]

Hmmmm. Wives getting paid 50 bucks for each sex act…now there’s an idea…

A couple were having a hard time saving up for a holiday. They put a jar on the side of the bed and decided that very time he wanted sex, he would put a dollar in the jar. Some time went by and the jar was quite heavy. So they decided to open it up. They found a few dollar coins but many $50 and $100 notes. In shock he said, “Where did all that come from.? I only put in dollar coins”. To which she answered, “Well, not everyone is as stingy as you are”.

 

[djames99]

precisely because normal sex is both unitive and procreative,

It is only ‘unitive’ if they are bound in Holy Matrimony, otherwise they use each other for mutual masturbation, and satan is well pleased. If she was selling herself while married, she would be committing adultery(not to mention tainting a gift from God).

Let’s break it down clearly and clinically,…

Not necessary, nor is it spiritually healthy, especially to those who are not firmly entrenched in their faith. It puts into question the integrity of already defined theological dogma,places an uncertainty in the inquirer’s mind, and retards their progress on their road to faith.

The initial act that found him in the compounding circumstances was a serious sin. The events with the condom would have not played out if he had heeded the advice to stay away from occasions of sin.

 St. Thomas (II-II:153:4) "a capital vice(lust) is that which has an exceedingly desirable end so that in his desire for it a man goes on to the commission of many sins all of which are said to originate in that vice as their chief source". It is not then the gravity of the vice in itself that makes it capital but rather the fact that it gives rise to many other sins.

In this context, discussion is unnecessary, has it is an article of faith. Obfuscation of evident truths serves no good purpose.

 

[Elizium23]

precisely because normal sex is both unitive and procreative,

It is only ‘unitive’ if they are bound in Holy Matrimony, otherwise they use each other for mutual masturbation, and satan is well pleased. If she was selling herself while married, she would be committing adultery(not to mention tainting a gift from God).

Prove it.

This article disagrees.

The rest of your post was unnecessarily dismissive and not worthy of being dignified by a response.

 

[Gorgias]

 St. Thomas (II-II:153:4) "a capital vice(lust) is that which has an exceedingly desirable end so that in his desire for it a man goes on to the commission of many sins all of which are said to originate in that vice as their chief source". It is not then the gravity of the vice in itself that makes it capital but rather the fact that it gives rise to many other sins.

Hmm… I think you’re misusing Aquinas’ argument here. When he talks about “giving rise to many other sins,” he’s not talking about tallying up the number of sins that are committed in the course of intending to sin in a particular way (e.g., if I’m anxious to have sex with my mistress, I run a red light on the way to the hotel and cut off someone in the parking lot). Rather, what he’s talking about is a taxonomy of sins – that is, a hierarchy of sins that proceed from the seven deadly sins. So, adultery and fornication and masturbation proceed from lust. So, it’s not that he’s “compounding sins,” as you assert, that Aquinas is talking about in II-II.153.4, but that from lust proceed a number of related sins.

Blessings,
G.

 

[djames99]

The sin occurs from the willed expression through it’s instrument, the action. Lust may be a temptation, but it was substantiated by the act of sex with the prostitute outside of the marriage context.

Aquinas is speaking of compounding effects, and that is exactly what is occurring in this case. The OP is asking if he should confess an action which is a compounding sin that can be traced to it’s source. The analogy would be for a person who murders someone for money, and asks if he should confess that he squandered the money.

if I’m anxious to have sex with my mistress, I run a red light on the way to the hotel and cut off someone in the parking lot)

Our right choices have the effect of obtaining graces we would not otherwise receive if we chose differently. Perhaps if he chose not to have the sex, thus maintaining God’s friendship, He would see to it that he made it home without any problems.

 

[livingwordunity]

Condoms used while committing a sin such as this do not add to the sin. In such a case, the sin is not the use of a condom. The sin is sleeping with a prostitute.

 

[djames99]

I’m going on your word here, as I find no citation at that site.

***A valid marriage **between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fa…
*

Good news, seems we agree at least here in this paragraph. I think the author implies within the context of marriage. Now, if I’m not mistaken, I think the OP said he had sex with a prostitute?

The rest of your post was unnecessarily dismissive and not worthy of being dignified by a response.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Gorgias]

Condoms used while committing a sin such as this do not add to the sin. In such a case, the sin is not the use of a condom. The sin is sleeping with a prostitute.

I appreciate that you believe that this is the case. However, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Do you have anything that substantiates your claim?

 

[Gorgias]

OK… I have to admit, I had a honking long post queued up, discussing Aquinas, capital vices, and ‘compounding effects.’ But, before I go there, I want to make sure I understand the case you’re making.

Aquinas is speaking of compounding effects, and that is exactly what is occurring in this case.

Are you saying that the salient issue is the compounding of the effects, or is it the relationship between the sins? That is to say, are you talking about a whole set of sins that proceeded incidentally from the lustful desire to have sex with a prostitute, regardless of whether those sins were related to lust? Or, are you saying that the particular sins in question are formally related to lust?

I’m thinking that it’s the former, rather than the latter. Which case are you making?

Blessings,
G.

 

[livingwordunity]

I appreciate that you believe that this is the case. However, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Do you have anything that substantiates your claim?

When the Church says that using a condom is a sin She means that it’s a sin when it is used between a husband and wife in a valid marriage. The reason that using a condom is a sin in the context of marriage is because it puts an artificial barrier between the husband and wife and prevents the two from becoming one flesh. The husband and wife should become one flesh and should have a baby. But the situation of a man sleeping with a prostitute is the exact opposite of context. The Holy Bible specifically says that we should not join our body with a prostitute. So using a condom with a prostitute is actually a barrier that is not extreme enough since we shouldn’t be joining our body with the prostitute at all. Benedict XVI said something about this once. But he was misunderstood, and the media tried to act like he was changing the Church’s teachings. The truth is all he was doing was clarifying what the Church teaches about condoms and when using one is a sin.

 

[Gorgias]

When the Church says that using a condom is a sin She means that it’s a sin when it is used between a husband and wife in a valid marriage.

Again… freely asserted, freely denied.

The reason that using a condom is a sin in the context of marriage is because it puts an artificial barrier between the husband and wife and prevents the two from becoming one flesh.

No – the reason is that it prevents conception: “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” (Humanae vitae, 14). Please note that this definition of the morally illicit nature of contraception is based not on marriage but on the prevention of procreation.

The Holy Bible specifically says that we should not join our body with a prostitute.

Fair enough. But it doesn’t say that an imperfect joining of our body with prostitutes is ok, which is essentially what you’re saying – that prostitution is bad, but condom use in the context of prostitution is ok.

So using a condom with a prostitute is actually a barrier that is not extreme enough since we shouldn’t be joining our body with the prostitute at all. Benedict XVI said something about this once. But he was misunderstood, and the media tried to act like he was changing the Church’s teachings. All Benedict XVI was doing was clarifying what the Church teaches about condoms and when using one is a sin.

Yikes! This isn’t what he meant, at all! He was simply saying that condom use – in the context of a husband going to a prostitute, in an attempt to save his wife from contracting AIDS – was at least an indication that he was feeling the promptings of his conscience to turn away from sin! It wasn’t at all that the condom use in this case was praiseworthy, or even sinless!

 

[Elizium23]

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.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor 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:159

Contraception is intrinsically evil. That means it is always and everywhere wrong! It can never be justified, it can never stop being a sin!

 

[Fraz94]

I do see your point- I think it would be best to Confess all of those things, remembering that we are talking directly to Jesus through the Priest and we must always want to make a good and entirely whole Confession!

The most important thing is repentance of course, but yes we must tell all our sins. I seem to remember Pope Benedict saying that in some circumstances (such as the one you described) it can be the lesser of two evils, although still evil. I remember 100% seeing that on a Catholic news channel.

Contraception however is evil, yet if a man is going to be stupid (or perhaps weak enough) to visit a Prostitute it is a mortal sin in the first place yet it would be the lesser of two evils for those people to use Contraception, for the purpose of not spreading or catching any disease.

I am a great hater of contraception- so don’t misunderstand me anyone. Condoms and Artificial Contraception are pure evil!