Comdom usage with prostitute

[Elizium23]

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 disagree. It is an intrinsic moral evil to destroy the contraceptive nature of sex. Any quality prostitute is likely to be disease-free, as that is bad for business. Unless the man knows for a fact that he carries something deadly like AIDS then I would question the “lesser of two evils” argument in favor of using contraception.

 

[Elizium23]

Ah yes, let’s make another thing clear, this time in regards to the oft-quoted Benedict XVI interview. His Holiness was speaking about a male prostitute in a context of homosexuality. Therefore his commentary was strictly on the morality of using a condom as a barrier against disease and nothing to do with contraception, as homosexual sex, as I have explained in detail, is not procreative sex. So the Benedict quote and interview is another red herring which is being inserted in this thread just to confuse the issue of the OP’s question.

But since that rabbit hole has been opened, although I think I have answered it already here, no, there is no sin in condom usage during sodomy, because of its inherently sterile, non-procreative nature. If you want to prevent disease then go ahead, there is nothing to confess but the sodomy.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)
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?

(…)

Be careful! The OP did not say that.

Yet another reason I won’t ask questions on this forum. :nope:

 

[livingwordunity]

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

With all due respect, CCC 2370 is under the heading, “The Love of Husband and Wife.” It’s saying that contraception is intrinsically evil (evil in and of itself) when used by married couples. If we are talking about the birth control pill then its use can also be intrinsically evil even outside of a marriage if it causes an abortion. But condoms don’t cause abortions. So a man using a condom with a prostitute is a totally different context than if a married couple were to use them.

 

[Elizium23]

With all due respect, CCC 2370 is under the heading, “The Love of Husband and Wife.” It’s saying that contraception is intrinsically evil (evil in and of itself) when used by married couples. If we are talking about the birth control pill it’s use can also be intrinsically evil even outside of a marriage if it causes an abortion. But condoms don’t cause abortions. So a man using a condom with a prostitute is a totally different context than if a married couple were to use them.

It doesn’t matter, contraception is an intrinsic evil for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage. Sex must always be unitive and procreative or it is a grave sin. ALWAYS. It doesn’t matter what context the sex is in, it must always have those two aspects.

The reason that CCC 2370 is under that heading is because the only licit type of marital embrace is that within the context of marriage. Therefore, most discussion of the marital embrace, and indeed, the very name of the act, derives from its rightful context within marriage. However, sex with a prostitute can still be called “the marital embrace” and it still needs to be unitive and procreative and the couple still sins by destroying one or both of those aspects.

 

[livingwordunity]

It doesn’t matter, contraception is an intrinsic evil for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage.

In the context of a man who is with a prostitute, a condom puts a barrier between his body and hers. The Bible says that a man should not join his body with that of a prostitute. So, in this case, the condom actually doesn’t go far enough in acting as a barrier. In the case of married couples, the barrier that a condom puts between the husband and the wife is why it is bad in that context.

 

[Elizium23]

In the context of a man who is with a prostitute, a condom puts a barrier between his body and hers. The Bible says that a man should not join his body with that of a prostitute. So, in this case, the condom actually doesn’t go far enough in acting as a barrier. In the case of married couples, the barrier that a condom puts between the husband and the wife is why it is bad in that context.

No, barrier contraception is intrinsically evil because it destroys the procreative aspect of sex. Those are the terms defined in Humanae Vitae and held forth in the Catechism. Since contraception is described as an intrinsic evil, by definition it is always immoral in every context regardless of marital status or type of participant in the act.

 

[Gorgias]

CCC 2370 is … saying that contraception is intrinsically evil (evil in and of itself) when used by married couples.

I’m confused by your argument here. An ‘intrinsic evil’ is an evil that is immoral always and in every case. How is it, then, that you might attempt to make the case that an intrinsic evil is only evil within the context of marriage? That doesn’t make any sense…

If we are talking about the birth control pill then its use can also be intrinsically evil even outside of a marriage if it causes an abortion. But condoms don’t cause abortions.

Hmm… so, when the CCC says that contraception is intrinsically evil, it doesn’t really mean that it’s intrinsically evil? It means that some forms of contraception are intrinsically evil, but others aren’t? What an odd take on what the CCC says plainly…

 

[livingwordunity]

No, barrier contraception is intrinsically evil because it destroys the procreative aspect of sex. Those are the terms defined in Humanae Vitae and held forth in the Catechism. Since contraception is described as an intrinsic evil, by definition it is always immoral in every context regardless of marital status or type of participant in the act.

Okay. I just looked again at a Pope Benedict XVI interview from 2010. Here’s a link about it on Zenit containing an interview with Janet Smith: Benedict XVI, Condoms, and the Light of the World. And perhaps I overreached on what Benedict XVI said in the interview. Benedict XVI was only talking about male prostitutes when he made the comments he made about condoms. I stand corrected.

 

[Elizium23]

Let’s say that a hunter’s manual published in the state of Connecticut contains a paragraph where it explains that hunters should not use silencers because they are illegal in Connecticut. Now let’s say someone murders his wife, using a pistol with a silencer on it. Then he comes to court with multiple charges, including the murder charge, of course, but also one count of using an illegal silencer. His lawyer petitions the court to drop the charge of using a silencer, and he points to the hunting manual as evidence, because it says the silencer is illegal, but it’s in the context of hunters hunting game, and therefore the law must not apply because it was used in the commission of a murder. What does the judge rule in this case?

 

[underacloud]

Let’s say that a hunter’s manual published in the state of Connecticut contains a paragraph where it explains that hunters should not use silencers because they are illegal in Connecticut. Now let’s say someone murders his wife, using a pistol with a silencer on it. Then he comes to court with multiple charges, including the murder charge, of course, but also one count of using an illegal silencer. His lawyer petitions the court to drop the charge of using a silencer, and he points to the hunting manual as evidence, because it says the silencer is illegal, but it’s in the context of hunters hunting game, and therefore the law must not apply because it was used in the commission of a murder. What does the judge rule in this case?

The judge wonders why anyone is talking about silencers and directs them to get back to the murder trial.

(much like a priest would focus on the fornication and prostitution, not on the use or not of a condom)

I like the analogy BTW.

 

[Gorgias]

The judge wonders why anyone is talking about silencers and directs them to get back to the murder trial.

LOL! Nice try… but there’s a distinct legal question: is the charge of “illegal use of silencer” one that should ‘stick’ to the defendant. So… what’s the answer here?

(much like a priest would focus on the fornication and prostitution, not on the use or not of a condom)

One would hope that the priest wouldn’t ignore a sin only because there are two others to address.

 

[jimmy]

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…

I am surprised that this thread is still going. I figured I would check in to see how it was going.

I don’t think I changed the issue. The question is whether the use of a condom is sinful in this case. I don’t think contraception is even the issue. I suggest the use of a condom not to prevent pregnancy, but rather to prevent disease. It is complete stupidity to have sex - particularly without a condom - with someone who has probably had hundreds of sex partners. The contraceptive effect is secondary.

 

[livingwordunity]

I am surprised that this thread is still going. I figured I would check in to see how it was going.

I don’t think I changed the issue. The question is whether the use of a condom is sinful in this case. I don’t think contraception is even the issue. I suggest the use of a condom not to prevent pregnancy, but rather to prevent disease. It is complete stupidity to have sex - particularly without a condom - with someone who has probably had hundreds of sex partners. The contraceptive effect is secondary.

Did you see my post here?

 

[jimmy]

Okay. I just looked again at a Pope Benedict XVI interview from 2010. Here’s a link about it on Zenit containing an interview with Janet Smith: Benedict XVI, Condoms, and the Light of the World. And perhaps I overreached on what Benedict XVI said in the interview. Benedict XVI was only talking about male prostitutes when he made the comments he made about condoms. I stand corrected.

Whether he is talking about homosexual acts or not is irrelevant to the issue. He doesn’t say anything about the sinfulness of condom use while having sex with a female prostitute. It is an assumption to assume that since he is talking about homosexual prostitutes here, the alternative of condom use with a female prostitute is presumed to be sinful. It is a presumption that isn’t found in the text.

And I don’t deny what he said about it not being a solution to HIV or disease. As he said, the only real solution is to have a more healthy understanding of sexuality. Having sex with a prostitute is stupid regardless of whether you use a condom. The Church doesn’t support condom use to prevent disease because it supports a proper perspective on sexuality.

There have been a lot of presumptions in this thread because the Church has never said anything on the issue. When it speaks of condom use or contraception in general it tends to assume marriage as the context of its discussion. It is discussed in the context of marriage. The interview above is a rare example where the pope mentions the use of condoms outside of the context of marriage. The Church isn’t going to promote alternatives to its own teachings on sexuality. So you won’t see the pope saying that condom use outside of marriage is acceptable, because sex outside of marriage is unacceptable. Similarly he doesn’t talk about condom use in general outside of marriage because sex outside of marriage is already illicit.

An illicit act is an illicit act, the use of a condom doesn’t change it.

 

[on_the_hill]

Let’s say that a hunter’s manual published in the state of Connecticut contains a paragraph where it explains that hunters should not use silencers because they are illegal in Connecticut. Now let’s say someone murders his wife, using a pistol with a silencer on it. Then he comes to court with multiple charges, including the murder charge, of course, but also one count of using an illegal silencer. His lawyer petitions the court to drop the charge of using a silencer, and he points to the hunting manual as evidence, because it says the silencer is illegal, but it’s in the context of hunters hunting game, and therefore the law must not apply because it was used in the commission of a murder. What does the judge rule in this case?

I’m not a lawyer, but courts do consider circumstances that make a crime worse. So murder with a silencer might lead to a different level of charges, e.g. the silencer might indicate the crime was premeditated, or that the murderer attempted to cover up the crime, etc.

 

[livingwordunity]

Whether he is talking about homosexual acts or not is irrelevant to the issue. He doesn’t say anything about the sinfulness of condom use while having sex with a female prostitute. It is an assumption to assume that since he is talking about homosexual prostitutes here, the alternative of condom use with a female prostitute is presumed to be sinful. It is a presumption that isn’t found in the text.

And I don’t deny what he said about it not being a solution to HIV or disease. As he said, the only real solution is to have a more healthy understanding of sexuality. Having sex with a prostitute is stupid regardless of whether you use a condom. The Church doesn’t support condom use to prevent disease because it supports a proper perspective on sexuality.

There have been a lot of presumptions in this thread because the Church has never said anything on the issue. When it speaks of condom use or contraception in general it tends to assume marriage as the context of its discussion. It is discussed in the context of marriage. The interview above is a rare example where the pope mentions the use of condoms outside of the context of marriage. The Church isn’t going to promote alternatives to its own teachings on sexuality. So you won’t see the pope saying that condom use outside of marriage is acceptable, because sex outside of marriage is unacceptable. Similarly he doesn’t talk about condom use in general outside of marriage because sex outside of marriage is already illicit.

An illicit act is an illicit act, the use of a condom doesn’t change it.

What you are saying is essentially the argument that I was making in this thread. The reason I backed down is because I realized that Pope Benedict didn’t say anything about female prostitutes. And I want to be cautious before I say what I think the Church teaches about condoms used with female prostitutes when, as far as I know, the Church hasn’t specifically addressed this question yet.

 

[jimmy]

What you are saying is essentially the argument that I was making in this thread that I backed down from. The reason I backed down is because I want to be cautious before I say what I think the Church thinks about condoms used with female prostitutes when, as far as I know, the Church hasn’t specifically addressed this question yet.

I agree that the Church hasn’t addressed it, and I don’t think they ever will for the reason I mentioned. The act is already illicit so to ask about condom use is to get beyond ourselves when it comes to the Church’s teaching. The Church would say don’t have sex with a prostitute. They aren’t going to say, ‘if you insist on having sex with a prostitute go ahead and use a condom.’ They will continue to say ‘don’t have sex with a prostitute.’

 

[on_the_hill]

This is a really interesting discussion.

In real life, if I were in this situation, I’d ask the priest.

 

[Gorgias]

The contraceptive effect is secondary.

You’re making a ‘double effect’ argument, then. OK; let’s see if that holds up…

I suggest the use of a condom not to prevent pregnancy, but rather to prevent disease. It is complete stupidity to have sex - particularly without a condom - with someone who has probably had hundreds of sex partners. The contraceptive effect is secondary.

So, the desired positive effect is ‘disease prevention’. The unintended (but foreseeable) negative effect is ‘contraception’. (In particular, it is contraception by means of a barrier method, in this case.)

So… does the positive effect proceed from the negative effect? That is, is this an argument of ‘the ends justify the means’? In this case, yes, that’s exactly what’s happening here: the condom thwarts the spread of disease by preventing the transmission of bodily fluids.

Therefore, since the positive effect happens by means of the operation of the negative effect, there is no valid double effect argument that can be made in this case. In other words, the contraceptive effect is not secondary; it is the means through which disease prevention occurs. One can not participate in an immoral action, in order to achieve a desired goal, no matter how good that goal is.

(There’s a good case to be made in the example of the male prostitute; however, in a discussion of an encounter between a man and a woman – client and prostitute (regardless which is which ) – the fact of contraception is relevant and is grave matter.)