Condom use legitimate as contraceptive effect an unintended consequence?

[Filii_Dei]

A reader might misunderstand you. Wanting sex for procreation is an insufficient thing to make it right. Premarital sex wanted for the reason of procreation (begetting a child) is still wrong. Forcing oneself upon your bed-ridden, near comatose wife to procreate is wrong. Procreate is not enough.

It is wrong to have sex for inordinate pleasure, sought outside of reason, outside the natural law, or outside the meaning of marriage, etc., of course.

I apologise for that phrasing. Certainly sex must be an act performed in true Christian love. I would not have wished to suggest otherwise. It cannot be divorced from consenting love. That is also why marital rape is sinful in the eyes of God.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“A good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed.” Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor

It is a common error in moral theology to claim that an act cannot be intrinsically evil because the person does not intend evil. However, the Magisterium definitively teaches that to be moral all three fonts of morality must be good:

1. intention
2. moral object
3. circumstances

The deliberate choice of an act that is – by the very nature of the act, independent of intention or circumstances – ordered toward an evil proximate end is always objectively a sin. Such acts are intrinsically evil. The morality of an intrinsically evil act is not determined by intention or circumstances, but by the moral object of the chosen act.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC, n. 1756)

For example:

Euthanasia is essentially murder (the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being) with the intention of eliminating all suffering. The intention is good, but the chosen act is intrinsically evil. The good intention in euthanasia does not cause the act to become no longer intrinsically evil.

The same is true for all intrinsically evil acts. A good intention does not justify genocide, or torture, or racism, or slavery, or perjury, or blasphemy, or adultery. Neither does a good intention justify the popular sins of the present age, such as contraception or various sexual sins.

The argument that people use to try to justify contraception, by saying that the intention, the purpose or reason for choosing the act, is good, is not a valid argument. If this approach did in fact cause the intrinsically evil act of using contraception to become no longer evil, then the approach would work for other types of intrinsically evil acts. It does not.

 

[JRKH]

What is not Catholic teaching?

I acknowledge that sex also achieves other objectives such as bringing a married couple closer together in love. However, the fact that there are secondary ends of sex does not detract from the fact that the primary - i.e., first and foremost - objective of sex is procreation. Once that primary objective has been willingly and knowingly been rendered impossible by contraception or sterilization, sex has been transformed into perversion.

I congratulate you here. This is a FAR better expression than the one that you gave earlier in the thread when you said:
“The moment that this procreative element is removed, sex becomes nothing more than an act of self-gratifying pleasure, exploited for the sake of giving oneself selfish pleasure without the opportunity of the creation of life,” (Emphasis mine)
A statement which failed to adequately address the various circumstances where sex is licitly engaged in but procreation is either highly unlikely or impossible.
It was THIS aspect, and this choice of wording (“sex becomes nothing more than…”) that we have called into question and not the fundamental truth that the primary purpose of sex is procreation.

Having said this, and recognizing the much better statement above, I still wonder if there is a better term than “perversion” which many may not understand in the way that I believe you intend it.

Peace
James

 

[harding]

The argument that people use to try to justify contraception, by saying that the intention, the purpose or reason for choosing the act, is good, is not a valid argument. If this approach did in fact cause the intrinsically evil act of using contraception to become no longer evil, then the approach would work for other types of intrinsically evil acts. It does not.

Excellent and well-research summary of Church teaching, Ron! But I do I find your last paragraph a bit confusing because it seems you use two different meanings of the word contraception.

I read “justify contraception” as referring to the contraceptive act and “using contraception” as referring to contraceptive devices or medicinals.

As I understand Church teaching, the contraceptive act is illicit but contraceptive devices and medicinals are licit if used for otherwise licit purposes. For example, I can use a condom as an air-filled balloon. (Although I admit that’s kinda creepy.)

The distinction between the different meanings of contraception is very important here because the Original Poster (OP) is trying to understand the difference in Church teaching between contraception qua contraception and contraception qua medicine.

-Dave

 

[Hokomai]

I acknowledge that sex also achieves other objectives such as bringing a married couple closer together in love. However, the fact that there are secondary ends of sex does not detract from the fact that the primary - i.e., first and foremost - objective of sex is procreation. Once that primary objective has been willingly and knowingly been rendered impossible by contraception or sterilisation, sex has been transformed into perversion.

I agree that this is the logic of the Catholic position. However, it is not, as far as I can see, the actual Catholic position, as someone who is willingly sterilised, knowing it to be sinful, who later repents, confesses and is absolved, is able to continue having sex despite the primary objective having been willingly and knowingly … rendered impossible by contraception or sterilisation. The Church does not consider this ‘perversion’.

I very much appreciate the efforts people in this and my other contraception thread to help me understand this issue, but this example, and others, reinforced to me that the Catholic position ‘unravels as it weaves’, and that those who have told me that faith is required to understand and accept it are correct. I will try to formulate a clearer response and post it.

 

[Corki]

I agree that this is the logic of the Catholic position. However, it is not, as far as I can see, the actual Catholic position, as someone who is willingly sterilised, knowing it to be sinful, who later repents, confesses and is absolved, is able to continue having sex despite the primary objective having been willingly and knowingly … rendered impossible by contraception or sterilisation. The Church does not consider this ‘perversion’.

This is because the moral wrongs of contraception and sterilization are not the same. Contraception is sin against the marital act itself. It requires an ongoing effort that, after contrition can be stopped. Sterilization is a sin against the body. It is a permanent change. Once done, there is nothing to stop doing.

 

[harding]

omeone who is willingly sterilised, knowing it to be sinful, who later repents, confesses and is absolved, is able to continue having [licit] sex

Once again, Hokomai, you ignore intention when comparing situations. The difference between the unreformed self-sterilized man and the reformed self-sterilized man is a matter of intention. The unreformed man wants to have sex without children; the reformed man is open to children even if, medically, the chances of having children are very small.

I politely request you stop ignoring intention in your scenarios–or that you explain why you think intention doesn’t matter.

…] this example, and others, reinforced to me that the Catholic position ‘unravels as it weaves’, …]

I’m new to this forum, but I find polite discussion benefits when everyone keeps their personal judgments to themselves.

I will try to formulate a clearer response and post it.

I look forward to reading it.

-Dave

 

[jerry74383]

No, it is not Church teaching that one must refrain from sex when taking contraceptives to treat a condition.

Hormonal contraceptives have abortifacient potential should break-through ovulation occur. The risk of abortion raises the bar on the proportionate risk criteria of the Principle of Double Effect.

What conditions are treated with hormonal contraceptives for which there are no other treatments compatible with pregnancy available?

What is the risk of not treating the patient for these conditions? Of stopping treatment periodically to allow for conjugal periods during prolonged courses of treatment?

Finally, there is the option to abstain from sex entirely for the entire course of treatment. While this is certainly a difficult option for the patient and spouse, it is preferable to causing the death of a new life.

 

[Hokomai]

[harding;9552103]

Once again, Hokomai, you ignore intention when comparing situations. The difference between the unreformed self-sterilized man and the reformed self-sterilized man is a matter of intention. The unreformed man wants to have sex without children; the reformed man is open to children even if, medically, the chances of having children are very small.

I politely request you stop ignoring intention in your scenarios–or that you explain why you think intention doesn’t matter.

I think I am correct in saying that intention establishes, in Catholic thought, whether an individual is culpable. “Evil” or “sinful” or 'Morally wrong" acts can exist outside of intent. It is, in Catholic thought, always wrong to directly kill an unborn child to achieve a good outcome, but one who does this believing, in madness, that God has instructed them to do so, is blameless. Although intent is an issue in all cases of ‘double effect’, this is only in so far as the primary intent needs to be a good one (in this case preventing disease).

I’m new to this forum, but I find polite discussion benefits when everyone keeps their personal judgments to themselves.

Well, me too, but what you are responding to here is me explaining the conclusion I have come to, after explaining the basis on which I have come to it. I cannot come to anything but personal conclusions, and when I express them they become judgements (in this case of a teaching, not a person).

I look forward to reading it.

Coming up Dave.

 

[davidv]

[harding;9552103]

I think I am correct in saying that intention establishes, in Catholic thought, whether an individual is culpable. “Evil” or “sinful” or 'Morally wrong" acts can exist outside of intent. It is, in Catholic thought, always wrong to directly kill an unborn child to achieve a good outcome, but one who does this believing, in madness, that God has instructed them to do so, is blameless. Although intent is an issue in all cases of ‘double effect’, this is only in so far as the primary intent needs to be a good one (in this case preventing disease).

Well, me too, but what you are responding to here is me explaining the conclusion I have come to, after explaining the basis on which I have come to it. I cannot come to anything but personal conclusions, and when I express them they become judgements (in this case of a teaching, not a person).

Coming up Dave.

In Catholic thinking intention is not the only (name removed by moderator)ut on culpability, knowledge of a actions wrongness plays a bigger part.

 

[harding]

I think I am correct in saying that intention establishes, in Catholic thought, whether an individual is culpable.

No, Hokomai: the sin of scandal is often committed unintentionally.

“Evil” or “sinful” or 'Morally wrong" acts can exist outside of intent.

No purposeful actions can exist outside of intent because we only act with the intention of achieving some end. I think you mean that an action can be wrong even if it were begun with good intentions.

It is, in Catholic thought, always wrong to directly kill an unborn child to achieve a good outcome, but one who does this believing, in madness, that God has instructed them to do so, is blameless.

Is that your conclusion based on your understanding of Church teaching or an official conclusion?

Although intent is an issue in all cases of ‘double effect’, this is only in so far as the primary intent needs to be a good one (in this case preventing disease).

Is that your opinion or that of the Church? I did a quick Web search, and I didn’t find any official Church documents distinguishing between primary intent and other intentions. Here are the search results I viewed (first and second pages only):

 [duckduckgo.com/html/?q=catholic+%22primary+intention%22](https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=catholic+%22primary+intention%22)

 [newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0&q=primary+intent&sa=Search&cof=FORID:9](http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0&q=primary+intent&sa=Search&cof=FORID:9)

It seems to me that the Church deals with intention as an indivisible whole: either your intentions are good or they aren’t.

If you agree, please address intention in your scenarios. If you disagree, I look forward to seeing your evidence.

-Dave

 

[Corki]

[harding;9552103]

I think I am correct in saying that intention establishes, in Catholic thought, whether an individual is culpable. “Evil” or “sinful” or 'Morally wrong" acts can exist outside of intent. It is, in Catholic thought, always wrong to directly kill an unborn child to achieve a good outcome, but one who does this believing, in madness, that God has instructed them to do so, is blameless. Although intent is an issue in all cases of ‘double effect’, this is only in so far as the primary intent needs to be a good one (in this case preventing disease).

Culpability applies to whether something is mortally sinful and does not usually have to do with intent but rather knowledge or free will. In your example of someone who is insane killing a child, the person would not be culpable but it would be due to lack of free will rather than intent.

One can have the most virtuous** intentions **but act sinfully with full knowledge and consent. That act would not have any dimminished culpability.

 

[Mumbles140]

So Mumble, do you believe that that each and every new human is the result of a specific intervention by God, or do you believe that God does not intervene but had a plan for each and every life? If it is the first, I wonder how an omnipotent God’s intention could be defeated by a piece of rubber. If the second, given the constant thwarting of God’s plan, and the arrival, as a result, of people he did not plan and the non-arrival of people he did, did God have an infinite number of plans, and does he change them second-by-second? if so, how is that a plan? If not, how can He be said to have a plan?

Omnipotence doesn’t equal control. God wants us all to go to Heaven, as He offered up His Only Begotten Son to pay the price of our sin. However, He gave us free will to choose to do what we wanted, even if it meant to betray Him and reject His love. Therefore, He has given us the ability to make decisions, but He also puts consequences in place. We cannot know His part in everything, but you are trying to put human meaning to God with words like “plan” and “omnipotence”. God is not bound by space and time as we are. He knows what was, what is, and what is to come because He sees all of these at once - He is all of these at once.

 

[Rhuarc]

I invite you to comment on a hypothetical situation: a man, Fred, is married to a woman who has a sexually transmitted disease which does not respond to medication. He uses a condom with the intention of preventing the virus responsible for the disease from infection him. If his wife did not have the virus, he would not wear the condom. His intention is not to contracept, but to prevent the spread of disease. The contraceptive effect is an unintended side-effect.

Now I understand that this is not what the Church teaches. But I fail to see the logic. Can anyone explain it to me, when the situation of a woman using oral contraception to protect against acne, or to regulate periods is acceptable to the Church, as the contraceptive effect is an unintended side effect.

Your situation breaks down REALLY quickly after the first few sentences. If they cannot have sex in a procreative way then they should not have it at all plane and simple friend. If he wears a condom then a baby cannot be born and all he is doing is acting out of lustful passions.

For example a guns main purpose is to shoot metal out of the barrel. No matter how you cut it that is what it does and what it was made to do, how we use it does not change this purpose. If we murder someone or kill an animal people will say it’s main purpose is to kill, that is the abstract goal when the physical down to earth purpose of the gun smith was to shoot metal out of the barrel.

So to it is with the condom it is meant to stop a baby from being born and should never ever be used. If someone has a disease then they should live the rest of their life celibate, it is only common sense. Besides why would you even take the risk because condoms are by no means fool proof.

 

[Ron_Conte]

harding;9550108As I understand Church teaching:

The purpose of an act is the first font, also called intention. The moral object, in the second font, determines if the act is intrinsically evil or not.

A good intention does not justify an intrinsically evil act. In other words, the purpose for which the act was chosen does not determine the moral object. So if a married couple chooses an act which is ordered, by its very nature, toward thwarting the procreative meaning of sexual acts, but for a medical purpose, they nevertheless commit the sin of contraception.

The pill or physical device itself is not the sin? True. But when the pill is used by a sexually active women, she is choosing a use of that item which does in fact kill prenatals by abortifacient action, and does in fact deprive sexual acts of their procreative meaning. The purpose or intention for which the act is chosen does not justify the choice of an inherently immoral act.

Both contraception and abortion are immoral, regardless of whether these acts are chosen as the intended end, or as a means to a good end, such as a medical purpose. The end (intended end, purpose for which the act is chosen) does not justify the choice of an evil means (an intrinsically evil act).

This distinction becomes very clear when we look at the intrinsically evil act of direct abortion to save the life of the mother. The intended end, the purpose of the act, is to save the life of the mother; this purpose is one of the highest medical purposes – saving innocent life. And yet direct abortion remains intrinsically evil. It does not become indirect by being done for the medical purpose of saving the mother’s life. Similarly, the use of abortifacient contraception by a woman who is sexually active remains intrinsically evil even when done for a medical purpose, such as treating a disorder.

 

[Ron_Conte]

• objective of sex is procreation. Once that primary objective has been willingly and knowingly been rendered impossible by contraception or sterilisation, sex has been transformed into perversion.

The good moral object of natural marital relations open to life is the procreative and unitive and marital meanings. The act is moral because it is ordered toward each of these three ends. But procreation does not occur as a result of every act of marital relations. So it is not the attainment of the procreative end that makes the act moral, but rather the deliberate choice of an act that is ordered toward that good end, as well as the good ends of the unitive and procreative meanings. If a married couple are sterile through no fault of their own, such as due to old age, they nevertheless commit a good and moral act when they engage in natural marital relations open to life. For the act remains ordered toward its proper threefold good moral object: the procreative, unitive, and marital meanings.

It is not the attainment of the moral object that makes the act good or evil, but rather the deliberate choice of an act that is ordered toward the moral object.

 

[harding]

[T]he pill …] does in fact kill prenatals by abortifacient action

Abortion is a sin–you’ll get no argument from me about that, Ron. But think about what abortion is: a deliberate act of murder against an innocent life. If a woman accidentally causes a miscarriage doing something licit, we don’t call it a sin.

Intention here is key.

[The pill] does in fact deprive sexual acts of their procreative meaning.

Yes, but so does any form of sterility. Naturally sterile men and women may have otherwise-licit sex. Sexual acts deprived of their procreative meaning are not inherently immoral.

Intention here is also key–it is the intention to deprive sex of its procreative meaning that makes it immoral.

Both contraception and abortion are immoral, regardless of whether these acts are chosen as the intended end, or as a means to a good end, such as a medical purpose.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I agree completely. But medicine typically labeled as contraception is only immoral when it’s used as contraception (contraception qua contraception) or for another illicit purpose.

-Dave

 

[thewanderer]

I invite you to comment on a hypothetical situation: a man, Fred, is married to a woman who has a sexually transmitted disease which does not respond to medication. He uses a condom with the intention of preventing the virus responsible for the disease from infection him. If his wife did not have the virus, he would not wear the condom. His intention is not to contracept, but to prevent the spread of disease. The contraceptive effect is an unintended side-effect.

Now I understand that this is not what the Church teaches. But I fail to see the logic. Can anyone explain it to me, when the situation of a woman using oral contraception to protect against acne, or to regulate periods is acceptable to the Church, as the contraceptive effect is an unintended side effect.

This is a very interesting question, thanks for bringing it up.

I have to admit that I do not find the answers given so far sufficient to explain this. I think the best explanation here is the one that makes a distinction between treating a disease/illness currently present and attempting to prevent a disease. However I am not certain of it for the reasons you brought up Hokomai. I think it could be correct, but it does need a little more elaboration to help explain why this difference really makes a difference.

The main thing I can think of that might explain it (if this is in fact the case) is that perhaps using a condom during sex is always contrary to the unitive purpose of sex? Although if this is the case, I have to wonder why it is ok to use a condom with holes for collecting semen.

Hokomai, I think this is something which is not actually explicitly taught officially, but rather is something that must be drawn out of the Church’s official teachings, which is partly why I am so interested in this question. I think it is actually a legitimate question for Catholics to ask, is this really never permissable? Maybe it is maybe it isn’t. The Church is actually all about thinking and using ones reason, and being consistant with ones principles. To everyone else, who are most likely going to disagree with me on the idea that this question is actually open, I am more than willing to proven wrong if you can find an official Church document that teaches about this specifically. I’m not saying it isn’t wrong, but I am saying it is something that one can look into and investigate.

 

[Pug]

The main thing I can think of that might explain it (if this is in fact the case) is that perhaps using a condom during sex is always contrary to the unitive purpose of sex? Although if this is the case, I have to wonder why it is ok to use a condom with holes for collecting semen.

I wonder what the Church would say to a special magic polarized condom, that only lets sperm pass and stops virus things from passing. Then the wearing of the condom would not impede the sperm at all. It would only stop disease transmission.

That might meet the unitive aspect and the procreative aspect just fine. Thoughts?

That seems like a pretty magic condom, though.

 

[harding]

I wonder what the Church would say to a special magic polarized condom, that only lets sperm pass and stops virus things from passing.

I imagine it’d be fine as long as it worked reliably and didn’t interfere with the unitive function of natural sex.

That seems like a pretty magic condom, though.

It might not be that difficult in the case under discussion where the husband is trying to avoid contracting an STD from his wife. The condom would need only a one-way pressure valve that released the sperm without admitting anything else.

Such valves are quite common in industry. Designing a soft plastic one would be an engineering and manufacturing challenge, but (as a non-engineer) I imagine it’s quite doable. You’d just need a large enough market for it.

-Dave