P
Pug
Guest
Yes you are right.
I was thinking of the husband transmitting a virus to wife and not the other way around. A one-way valve doesn’t seem so improbably magic.
Condom use legitimate as contraceptive effect an unintended consequence?
- Status
I was thinking of the husband transmitting a virus to wife and not the other way around. A one-way valve doesn’t seem so improbably magic.
U
underacloud
Guest
Yes, a few difficult questions here.
With regard to conditions where other treatments may be available, I think it is fair that a patient looks for the best treatment available, even if it comes with certain secondary effects. They don’t need to accept a lesser treatment simply because it eliminates the secondary effect. I’m not saying the Pill etc is always the best treatment, but where it is, based on good medical advice, a faithful Catholic should not feel guilty in taking it.
For some conditions there are increased long-term risks, such as a greatly increased risk of endomertial cancer for some conditions (POCS, endometriosis). These long-term health risks are certainly a factor in weighing the proptortionality of the benefits of treatment vs any secondary effects.
With regard to the potential abortifacient effect of the Pill etc, this is difficult. Some would argue that this effect is hypothesised but not established, while others will point out that moral theologians disagree as to whether a couple need abstain from sex while the woman is on the Pill anyway. The Church herself has not placed any such requirement on couples, so each couple will need to work through this. There are some good arguments either way.
Y
YoungCatholic21
Guest
The use of a condom is to prevent a man’s seed from entering a woman. It’s inherent function is as a contraceptive. Anything but flesh unto flesh is a contraceptive. He still uses contraceptive, and is therefore sinning against purity.
No, it is an unacceptable, mortal sin. It is not justified.
T
thewanderer
Guest
But by this same argument the pill is still a contraceptive and so shouldn’t it never bbe permissable to use the pill and still have sex? This is Hokomai’s question exactly.
You might want to look into the principle of double effect to better understand the nuances of the question that is being put forward here. If you want to address the question satisfactorily you will need to explain why the principle of double-effect does not apply in this case.
H
harding
Guest
In short, double effect allows you to do good even if it may cause evil; but you may not do evil to cause good.[1]
Hokomai assumes the situations are anagalous: (1) good: Sally takes a pill to treat acne; bad: Sally becomes temporily sterile. (2) good: Fred wears a condom during sex to prevent catching disease; bad: Frank becomes temporarily sterile.
But Hokomai also assumes that wearing a sealed condom during sex is as morally neutral as taking a pill. Is this so?
I doubt it.
It is not possible to be open to new life while wearing a device that closes the door to conception. Even if it were possible, the condom interferes with the unitive aspect of marital sex–others have called sex with condoms “mutual masturbation.”
If wearing a condom during sex is evil, then the situations are not anagalous: Fred is doing evil to effect good, which is illicit.
-Dave
[1] The Wikipedia article linked below contains a comphrenhesive summary of the principle of double effect, but my favorite quote about it comes from Humanae Vitae, section 14, paragraph 3 (also linked below): “In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Effect
newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm
T
thewanderer
Guest
Thank you for your response. 
As to the unitive aspect, I brought that up as a possible reason earlier, but my question with this as a reason is that people are allowed to wear condoms with little holes in them for the sake of collecting semen for medical tests. However, putting holes in it will only fix a problem with fertility, allowing semen through, it would not fix the fact that there is still this rubber thing between the two of you, hence it would seem that if that was a problem with respect to unity then people would not be allowed to use a condom with holes in it for medical reasons, but from what I have heard they are allowed to do this.
I think it is precisely this part, though, that needs a better explanation. You are essentially saying that because wearing a condom while having sex renders the act infertile it is inherently an evil act. However this is also true of having sex while taking the Pill, the pill renders one infertile and so renders the act infertile. If there is to be a difference in the way these situations are treated morally there has to be some real difference between the two that makes the one inherently evil while the other not. Perhaps I am not fully understanding your argument, but so far I still do not see what the difference in the situations would be.
As to the unitive aspect, I brought that up as a possible reason earlier, but my question with this as a reason is that people are allowed to wear condoms with little holes in them for the sake of collecting semen for medical tests. However, putting holes in it will only fix a problem with fertility, allowing semen through, it would not fix the fact that there is still this rubber thing between the two of you, hence it would seem that if that was a problem with respect to unity then people would not be allowed to use a condom with holes in it for medical reasons, but from what I have heard they are allowed to do this.
H
harding
Guest
My pleasure!Thank you for your response.
Generally, yes, that’s what I’m saying–but I think there’s an additional two nuances that bear considering:
- Contraceptive pills don’t always prevent conception, so Sally can hope the pill will treat her acne while also hoping the pill won’t make her totally sterile.
- When Sally takes her acne medicine, she isn’t having sex, so at that point she isn’t preventing conception.
That seems like a fine distinction, but it speaks to the “circumstances in which we perform the act.” (Previously cited by Ron Conte to USCCB Catechism, p. 311-12)
I dislike analogy–especially when we are already dealing with an analogy–but perhaps it will help: licit sex is good, but otherwise-licit sex on your parish altar is bad. Why? It’s inappropriate to circumstances.
Similarly, using contraception in the middle of sex is inappropriate to the circumstances of the marital act even if the contraception is used as medicine.
I don’t know this for sure, but I imagine a core unitive part of sex is the exchange of fluids–most importantly the man’s fluids into the woman. (Side note: I hate writing about this stuff.)
Perhaps it is an artifact of my bachelor status, but I think of sex as a little like french kissing. Kissing through plastic saran wrap wouldn’t be the unitive act unimpeded kissing is partly because there would be no fluid exchange. Touch alone can give pleasure, but not that deeper feeling of connectedness.
-Dave
T
thewanderer
Guest
I completely understand that a difference in the circumstances can make a difference as to whether a particular act is ok or not. I’m still not certain that I see what you are saying yet. Especially with 2. Lets take the classic example of double effect, you kill someone in self-defense. It is at the moment that you defend yourself, and in fact with the same action that you kill the other person. With 2 you seem to be implying that the principle of double effect only applies in a case where there is a seperation in the actions. I don’t see how that makes a difference.
For number 1, maybe I see what you are saying, except that it sounds almost as though you are saying that one can only have sex if they hope that they actually get pregnant. There are 3 different states of intent that could happen. 1 hoping for pregnancy, 2 hoping not to become pregnant, 3 being completely open for either conceiving or not. Now all of these different intents can be perfectly valid and moral. Intent number 2 is only moral under the right circumstances, but Intent 1 and 3 are always perfectly fine. Why can’t the person in our scenario simply be ambivalent, why must he be hoping for pregnancy to occur?
Yes, well, unfortunately it looks as though the unitive aspect is harder to define concretely than the procreative aspect. We are both throwing out ideas of what that definition might be, but neither of us can say for certain.
H
harding
Guest
That wasn’t my intention. It is sufficient to be open to the possibility of life, among the other requirements for licit sex.
Fred’s dilemma is that he cannot be open to the possibility of life when he is activity thwarting the reproductive mechanism.
The principle of double effect cannot justify an immoral act. Sex with a sealed condom is always an immoral act because the active use of contraceptive devices is inappropriate within the circumstances of the procreative act.
-Dave
T
thewanderer
Guest
Maybe we will just end up going around in circles on this one, but I still don’t see it. I don’t see how you can say that a woman on the Pill is open to life while at the same time saying that Fred is not, both are using a contraceptive device for non-contraceptive purposes. They both have sex and they are for both of them that sex is rendered infertile. Neither of them intends the infertility. I just don’t understand what distinction makes Fred’s act closed to life while the woman on the Pill is still open to it.
That wasn’t my intention. It is sufficient to be open to the possibility of life, among the other requirements for licit sex.
Fred’s dilemma is that he cannot be open to the possibility of life when he is activity thwarting the reproductive mechanism.
This I understand and entirely agre with.
What I don’t understand, as noted earlier, is why the active use of a contraceptive can be ok with the Pill, but is apparantly always wrong with a condom. The reason you gave here is that the act of taking the Pill is a completely seperate act from that of having sex, and claiming that that is what makes the principle of double effect apply. However, for the principle of double-effect there is no necessity that more than one act be involved. In fact, the whole principle of double-effect is based upon the fact that one single action can have multiple consequances. Take the case where a man kills an intruder in self defense. The man sees the intruder, and shoots him in self-defense. There is only one act involved, the man shoots the intruder to protect himself. This act ends up killing the intruder. Because of the principle of double-effect, ie, two different effects from the same action, one intended the other not, he is not held culpable for the death of the intruder, that was an unintended consequance of his action of self-defense. Similarly, so it would seem, Fred wears a condom, one act, which has two effects, 1 protects from disease, 2 artificially removes fertility from sex. He intends only the first and so acts for the first, the second is merely an unintended consequance of his action. Since protecting oneself against disease is a good action, not an inherently evil action, the question still remains as to why the principle of double-effect doesn’t come into play in this instance as well?
Like I said, it is quite possible that this will only end up going around in circles, and if so I’m sorry. I have no real-life reason to make sure to work out the answer, I am interested in it purely in an intellectual manner, so if you feel like this conversation isn’t going anywhere we can just drop it. but if you think you have another way of trying to explain the difference to me feel free, as I am interested in understanding this scenario better.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Thank you Harding and Thewanderer for your most interesting and too-the-point debate. I am more used to my more challenging posts producing, well, not such interesting and too-the-point debates. As I have noted in another thread I have started, I still find the Catholic position unconvincing, even in its own terms. But this and my other thread have taught me more about the way opposition contraception fits in with what you might call a ‘holistic’ Catholic approach. If you take the Catholic view of marriage, and if you add some element of belief that conception involves influence from God (which I must say is not my understanding of biology, but it is clear that many on CAF see it this way), and you see the creation of families as an unpredictable, but always ultimately positive venture (if God remains at the centre), it all sort of makes sense (should one be a Catholic). But the actual Catholic argument, starting with natural law and working through to a highly prescriptive recipe for who may put what and spill what where for every act of sex still fails to impress me, despite, Harding, your heroic efforts, and those of Wanderer in questioning you. :tiphat::tiphat:
As I have noted in another thread I have started, I still find the Catholic position unconvincing, even in its own terms. But this and my other thread have taught me more about the way opposition contraception fits in with what you might call a ‘holistic’ Catholic approach. If you take the Catholic view of marriage, and if you add some element of belief that conception involves influence from God (which I must say is not my understanding of biology, but it is clear that many on CAF see it this way), and you see the creation of families as an unpredictable, but always ultimately positive venture (if God remains at the centre), it all sort of makes sense (should one be a Catholic). But the actual Catholic argument, starting with natural law and working through to a highly prescriptive recipe for who may put what and spill what where for every act of sex still fails to impress me, despite, Harding, your heroic efforts, and those of Wanderer in questioning you. :tiphat::tiphat:
H
harding
Guest
You’re welcome. Thank you for starting such an intellectually-challenging thread.
-Dave
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
I read through all the pages here and am still confused about a couple things.
Does not the Church declare contraceptives to be inherently evil? If the action of consuming a contraceptive drug is inherently evil, even if the intention of the act is not for contraception but is in fact for medicinal purposes, in no way can one say this satisfies the law of double-effect. To satisfy the law of double effect, the action must not be in itself inherently evil.
I see how people can rationalize that the action is not in fact consuming a contraceptive, but rather the action is simply consuming a pill. I feel like like this is a reductionist approach. In a similar fashion, the action of me killing an innocent human being in cold blood with a gun is not killing an innocent human being in cold blood with a gun, but rather it is simply me pulling the trigger of a gun, which in itself is not inherently evil. I think this argument is a sneaky attempt at circumventing morality, reducing that which we know to be evil as simply neutral. I’m not sure if I buy it.
I’m not sure if we have the authority to speak on such an issue. Does anyone have any sort of document by Popes or Church officials, specifically stating the morality of contraceptive use in medicinal practices?
Does not the Church declare contraceptives to be inherently evil? If the action of consuming a contraceptive drug is inherently evil, even if the intention of the act is not for contraception but is in fact for medicinal purposes, in no way can one say this satisfies the law of double-effect. To satisfy the law of double effect, the action must not be in itself inherently evil.
I see how people can rationalize that the action is not in fact consuming a contraceptive, but rather the action is simply consuming a pill. I feel like like this is a reductionist approach. In a similar fashion, the action of me killing an innocent human being in cold blood with a gun is not killing an innocent human being in cold blood with a gun, but rather it is simply me pulling the trigger of a gun, which in itself is not inherently evil. I think this argument is a sneaky attempt at circumventing morality, reducing that which we know to be evil as simply neutral. I’m not sure if I buy it.
I’m not sure if we have the authority to speak on such an issue. Does anyone have any sort of document by Popes or Church officials, specifically stating the morality of contraceptive use in medicinal practices?
P
Pug
Guest
Please see Humanae Vitae (a Church document)
This is probably not intended to comprehensively cover the case of what if the treatment has killing the child as a side effect, like say chemotherapy for cancer. I’d just use this passage for contraception as a side effect.
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.
T
thewanderer
Guest
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
But this was not talking about contraceptives right? Or was it? Surely the Church doesn’t consider medical treatment in general to be inherently evil, so such a statement in Humanae Vitae makes sense. But doesn’t She also specify that consumption of contraceptives are inherently evil? I would assume then that this statement couldn’t apply to that which is indeed inherently evil, such as abortion, as it would violate the law of double effect.
Even if you consume a contraceptive without your intent being an impediment to procreation, the fact remains that the drug is designed for that exact impediment. Even if you get an abortion without your intent being to kill the child, rather you want to save your own life, that doesn’t change the fact that the abortion’s purpose is indeed to kill the child.
I’m really not trying to be argumentative, I’m just struggling to understand this. What would satisfy my understanding is if the Church never declared contraceptives to be inherently evil, or if She specified "only when the intent is to impede procreation, contraceptives are inherently evil. But doesn’t She proclaim the mere use of contraceptives as inherently evil?
T
thewanderer
Guest
Well, setting aside arguments as to whether or not the Pill is an abortificient for now, and how that would effect things.
What is the pill? it is a dose of hormones. The introduction of these hormones have many effects on a persons body, just as any medication does, some of these effects are useful for treating various conditions, one of these effects is that it usually prevents conception. Now, it seems that your understanding is that there is something about the pill itself, so about the hormones, that is inherently wrong. The hormones occur naturally in us. When these hormones are used to treat something all that is being done is our own hormones are being increased to fix some problem that is currently occuring because of our current level of hormones. The thing is, when used as such these hormones are not a contraceptive, they are a remedy for an existing health issue. I think the problem is that some people speak so forcefully about the problems of contraception (admittedly because of its widespread acceptance in todays culture) that they end up overgeneralizing about morality and fail to make important distinctions in what they are saying. This is something that is really easy to do with any moral issue, there are so often so many nuances to moral issues that it is diffficult to be careful to express what you are saying in a way that is mindful of those nuances. Does that help?
T
thewanderer
Guest
OP, I second this. I love being able to have interesting intellectual conversations.
Dave, thanks for being so thoughtful and polite in your replies, thats really not something you always find here on CAF.
P
Pug
Guest
First, be sure to read thewander’s reply to you also.
The Church says it is wrong to consume something in order to do contraception, But that is not the same thing as saying that if a thing has multiple uses, one of which is to do contraception, then all uses of that thing are forbidden. A pill might have more than one use. It is so with hormone pills (*the *pill); it is so with certain cancer treatments as well. For example, one pill treats rheumatoid arthritis, or treats cancer, or can be used to trigger an abortion, all in the same little pill. It is okay to take that pill to treat arthritis or cancer.
Maybe it would also help to talk about a condom, which you probably think of as a “contraceptive device”. But a piece of tube-like rubber closed at the end is not inherently evil. For example, I’ve seen one placed on the end of an ultrasound device while doing an ultrasound for a woman’s innards. This is for sanitation of the instrument. This is perfectly okay. Although the object in question is a condom and is being used in proximity to the genital area, it is not being used as a contraceptive device.
Yes, I do think Humanae Vitae is talking about the pill there, or perhaps a therapeutic historectomy to cure cancer. The surrounding context in Humanae Vitae is certainly contraception, but it is footnoted out to another document, one by PiusXII, one that I don’t have access to.
The only reason I mentioned abortion was to forestall confusion if you were thinking about the pill as an abortion drug. But I see I just caused confusion by mentioning it.
For now, let us put aside the question of is it possible that the pill causes an abortion and assume its effect is strictly contraceptive (but that may not be true).Double effect requires the the means be okay to do (this is a partial description of double effect, not a full description). So if the means are not okay to do, you can’t do it. However, some means are okay, but have undesired effects. Removing a uterus is an okay means if the uterus is killing the woman with cancer, but removing the uterus can have unwanted effects, like the woman becomes sterile, or a baby might die if it turns out that she is pregnant at the time, or she dies on the table from anesthesia problems. Sometimes the unwanted effects outweigh fairness or the like, so we still can’t do it. Sometimes they don’t.
Doing contraception cannot be used as an ends or a means, but taking the pill to treat a disease is not using contraception as a means or an ends. Rather, you are accepting a reduction in fertility to be a side effect.
Just ask more questions if I’m being unclear.
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
Ok. I think I can understand now. It might make me feel better though, for pharmaceutical companies to market some of these pills purely by their chemical attributes, rather than as contraceptives and abortificants, so that women who actually do need chemical therapy can receive it without feeding demand for contraceptives. I think it would also make the process of treatment more streamlined.
But I still don’t think it’s justified for people to argue that some women need medical treatment which can be fulfilled by these pills, therefore the government should expand their availability. There’s plenty of men who have chemical problems as well, yet people are silent. I’d much prefer the government to stay out of it all together.
But I still don’t think it’s justified for people to argue that some women need medical treatment which can be fulfilled by these pills, therefore the government should expand their availability. There’s plenty of men who have chemical problems as well, yet people are silent. I’d much prefer the government to stay out of it all together.
- Status