Condom use legitimate as contraceptive effect an unintended consequence?

[Hokomai]

SonCatcher:
I appreciate your interesting points, but if I respond I will allow reality to intrude on my thought experiment!

 

[Hokomai]

Filii Dei;9542034]

It is acceptable for women (or men, if there were such a medical indication) to take an oestrogen-and-progresterone pill for the purpose of therapy - be it as vain as acne control or as serious as cancer prophylaxis - so long as they do not knowingly and willingly engage in sex while they are using it.

Off-topic but acne can be a painful, debilitating and disfiguring condition with significant social and mental consequences. Treating it is not vain. Not treating it can be foolish.

So long as they remain chaste, there is no sex that the pill will interfere with, and so there is no recreational sex. However, if she decides to have sex with her husband while still using the pill, she has committed a sin. Even though the initial intention of taking the pill was therapeutic, she knows that the pill would prevent her from conceiving, and yet she decided to have sex. Thus it can be easily concluded that she had no intention of having sex for the purpose of procreation - it was merely recreational. Thus, it is a sin. If the husband was aware of this and yet continued to have sex, then he is party to the sin too.

I am surprised that this is Catholic teaching, if it is. is it? It seems to have the problem that what you say applies equally to infertile couples.

Now, back to the first situation - a man wishes to wear a condom to avoid contracting a incurable sexually-transmitted disease from his wife. However, condoms do not prevent the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases by simply being worn on the penis - they prevent the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases during sex. Why does he want to have sex then, if he knows that condoms are contraceptive? It is clearly not for procreative reasons. It is not explicitly mentioned in your analogy, but it is clear that if he wanted to have children (and I hardly think it wise to have a child when your wife is carrying an incurable sexually transmitted disease), he wouldn’t be so eager to have sex with a condom on.

Again, if an infertile couple (say, in their 80s, can have sex because it is theoretically open to life, why cannot a condom-for-health using couple have sex, if their intention is therapeutic, not contraceptive? if God can let an 80-year-old hope for a child, why not a couple using a condom for health reasons?

 

[Hokomai]

“Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act… All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act.” (USCCB Catechism, p. 311-312.)

“a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed.” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 78.)

“The whole tradition of the Church has lived and does live on the conviction” that “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.” (Pope John Paul II, Speeches, To participants of the International Congress on Moral Theology. April 10, 1986.)

“In qualifying the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI intended to teach that this moral norm is such that it admits of no exceptions: no circumstances whether personal or social have ever been able, are able, or will ever be able to make such an act an intrinsically ordered act.” (Pope John Paul II, Address to Participants of the Second International Congress of Moral Theology, Sala Clementina, Vatican City, 12 November 1988, no. 5).

“Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified. To think, or to say, anything to the contrary is tantamount to saying that in human life there can be situations where it is legitimate not to recognize God as God. Users of contraception attribute to themselves a power that belongs only to God, the power to decide in the final instance the coming into existence of a human being.” (Pope John Paul II, Address on Responsible Procreation, 17 Sept, 1983.)

A most interesting set of statements, illustrating well the completeness of the church’s opposition to contraception. Thank you. I have highlighted what appears to me to be a false statement of fact by the pope, on a scientific matter. There is no evidence at all that conception of humans happens in any way differently to the conception of any other sexually-reproducing organism. The is no evidence at all of divine intervention on any occasion, with the exception of some scriptural statements, let alone every time a conception happens and every time a conception does not happen.

 

[harding]

Hokomai:

[A] hypothetical situation: …] Fred is married to a woman who has a sexually transmitted disease [and] he uses a condom with the intention of preventing the virus responsible for the disease from infecting him.

This is [against] what the Church teaches, but I fail to see [why] a woman [can use] oral contraception to protect against acne.

I think you’ve left unstated an important detail: Fred wants to have sex. Sex is Fred’s intention, not preventing infection.

On the other hand, the woman (let’s call her Sally) wants less acne. Less acne is Sally’s intention, not contraception.

Fred wants the pleasure of sex without the regular consequences of sex–implantation of semen which may lead to children. Sally just wants less acne; she would be just as interested in the medicine (or maybe more interested) if it had no effect on her fertility.

-Dave

 

[Mumbles140]

The is no evidence at all of divine intervention on any occasion, with the exception of some scriptural statements, let alone every time a conception happens and every time a conception does not happen.

Unprotected sex between two fertile adults does not always result in conception, agreed? Whereas the non-believer calls this ‘chance’ or ‘nature’, Catholics believe it is part of God’s plan - that He is the author of life.

However, when you do something that is intended to prevent the opportunity for life, as given by God (as Catholics believe) or by chance/nature, it is manipulating the gift from God that is pleasurable sex as the means for procreation. Sex does not always need to be for procreation, but it should always be open to procreation, and the use of contraceptives is not.

And again, it is my understanding of Catholic teaching that if a woman is using ABC for non-contraceptive use (i.e. acne), but then has sex while on the pill, that is a grave matter. Even though it was not the original intention, it created a situation, of which the woman was fully aware, that allowed for the use of a contraceptive agent in sexual intercourse. Filii Dei hit the nail on the head, but Hokomai is mistaken that this should apply to infertile couples. It is not a choice for the couple to be infertile, and nothing they are choosing to do (remember, free will is a gift from God, and choice is essential in sin) prevents them from conceiving. However, someone knowingly taking medication that will cause infertility (whether temporary or permanent) and continuing to have sex is committing a sin.

 

[Corki]

I am surprised that this is Catholic teaching, if it is. is it?

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

Again, if an infertile couple (say, in their 80s, can have sex because it is theoretically open to life, why cannot a condom-for-health using couple have sex, if their intention is therapeutic, not contraceptive? if God can let an 80-year-old hope for a child, why not a couple using a condom for health reasons?

Because the condom use is actually NOT theraputic. Theraputic involves treatment. Condom use ** treats **nothing.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Off-topic but acne can be a painful, debilitating and disfiguring condition 7ith significant social and mental consequences. Treating it is not vain. Not treating it can be foolish.

If you wish to bring it off-topic, then I am compelled to respond off-topic as well.

Before we begin, could I ask if you would similarly object to me saying that “the Solar System has planetary bodies as small as Pluto and as large as Jupiter” by arguing that Pluto is not small at all and to call it small is foolish?

I don’t understand why you wish to take issue with this. Where did I ever say that it should not be treated? Please cite it for me. Let me run that by you again: I said that it was acceptable for the pill to be used for acne control within certain boundaries. However you dress it up, it is ultimately still relatively trivial when you compare it with cancer. Acne merely inflicts superficial damage that is neither disabling nor life-threatening (except in certain rare circumstances). Any danger is mainly contingent upon societal pressures and self-confidence.

For the record, I have received treatment for acne myself, and I still believe that me worrying about acne is far less significant than worrying about a cancer. If you wish to disagree, you’re more than welcome.

I am surprised that this is Catholic teaching, if it is. is it? It seems to have the problem that what you say applies equally to infertile couples.

I am surprised too. I did not apply it to infertile couples - the only person who wishes to apply this to them is you.

I have clearly stated in my explanation that the contraceptive act must be done knowingly and willingly. In case you missed that again, the operative word is ‘willingly’. Infertile couples did not choose their state of fertility. In the eyes of the Church, they do not sin by having sex. Again, you are misconstruing what I have written.

Again, if an infertile couple (say, in their 80s, can have sex because it is theoretically open to life, why cannot a condom-for-health using couple have sex, if their intention is therapeutic, not contraceptive? if God can let an 80-year-old hope for a child, why not a couple using a condom for health reasons?

How is this “open to life” if a woman in their 80s should have been in menopause for a few decades already? Which biology textbook have you been reading?

What is this strange talk of a couple having sex “if their intention is therapeutic, not contraceptive”? Nowhere in my post did I say sex could be used for therapeutic reasons. I specifically and only discussed the use of substances that are normally regarded as contraceptives, for therapeutic reasons, in situations that do not involve sex. There is no such thing of having sex for “health reasons”, much less with condoms. If you want to be healthy, eat less meat and exercise more.

God can let them hope for a child, but if He gives them one, it is considered a miracle, not a result of the natural law which we are discussing now.

 

[catholictiger]

Ummm - no, it is not procreative and therefore cannot remain so. I get that there is no actual impediment to procreation place there by the immediate actions of the partners, but it is not procreative. To take an example: a man has a vasectomy, confesses validly, and resumes having sex. is his sexual activity procreative? If words mean anything it isn’t.

unfortunately you are correct but my guess, i’m not really sure, is that this person wouldn’t be sinning any more if he were to have sex, if had realized the fault of his actions. I’m not really sure what the church says on this.

 

[Rence]

The difference it that someone taking a drug to treat acne is actually treating a medical condition. The moral good of the treatment is the only reason the secondary effect is tolerated.

This is a proper application of secondary effect.

Someone using a condom to prevent the spread of disease is not **treating **anything. There is a moral good to the union of the spouses but the condom use itself has no moral good.

Treatments don’t always cure, heal or relieve symptoms: they can also be preventative. For example, being vaccinated against mumps is a preventative treatment. It doesn’t cure anything. If receiving a vaccine, or any other preventative treatment is considered a good thing, then there must be another reason why condom usage in the prevention of disease transmission is not considered acceptable by the Church, just like receiving a vaccine, or even taking hormone therapy. So, I, like others, don’t see the difference between allowing ABCs to treat, cure or relieve symptoms, and using a condom to prevent disease transmission when reading HV. I, like others, consider it the same for the reasons above.

EXCEPT: taking ABCs to treat, cure or relieve symptons does not physically affect the spouse. Whereas, using a condom to prevent disease transmission STILL leaves the spouse vulnerable to disease. Condoms by themselves are not reliable enough to prevent pregnancy, and therefore are usually used in conjunction with another method such as spermicides or diaphragms, etc. Therefore, using them to prevent disease is not sufficient, though better than nothing. In today’s society, one must know that using a condom to prevent disease transmission is only lessening the chances of contraction of disease, not completely avoiding it. It can, and still does happen. Therefore the spouse is still vulnerable to disease, which can’t be a good thing.

I think the OP will only be sufficiently answered by someone at the diocese who can research it correctly. They have the resources to do that.

 

[Corki]

Treatments don’t always cure, heal or relieve symptoms: they can also be preventative. For example, being vaccinated against mumps is a preventative treatment. It doesn’t cure anything. If receiving a vaccine, or any other preventative treatment is considered a good thing, then there must be another reason why condom usage in the prevention of disease transmission is not considered acceptable by the Church, just like receiving a vaccine, or even taking hormone therapy. So, I, like others, don’t see the difference between allowing ABCs to treat, cure or relieve symptoms, and using a condom to prevent disease transmission when reading HV. I, like others, consider it the same for the reasons above.

I know you are in the medical field but, from a non-medical viewpoint, there is a difference between treatment and prevention.

However, even if you class a condom as a treatment, it doesn’t treat or prevent the condition EXCEPT when having sex. Hormonal treatments or pills are acting to improve the condition and their effects are present whether or not the user is having sex. That is an important differenence.

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai:

I think you’ve left unstated an important detail: Fred wants to have sex. Sex is Fred’s intention, not preventing infection.

On the other hand, the woman (let’s call her Sally) wants less acne. Less acne is Sally’s intention, not contraception.

Fred wants the pleasure of sex without the regular consequences of sex–implantation of semen which may lead to children. Sally just wants less acne; she would be just as interested in the medicine (or maybe more interested) if it had no effect on her fertility.

-Dave

Dave, I think Fred wants sex, with procreation, but because he must use a condom to prevent infection, finds as an unintended side-effect that procreation is not possible. Now of course I don’t subscribe to this moral framework, but I am trying to understand it. Fred’s intention is to prevent infection, not to stop conception.Sally’s intention is to reduce acne, not to stop conception. In each case the outcome (no kids) is the same. in each case the thinking is the same. In each case the action (taking something physical to stop the body doing something physical) is the same. But the Church says the one is evil and the other is good. I get that one could choose to accept this on faith, but I do not see how the logic could convince anyone.

 

[Hokomai]

Unprotected sex between two fertile adults does not always result in conception, agreed? Whereas the non-believer calls this ‘chance’ or ‘nature’, Catholics believe it is part of God’s plan - that He is the author of life…

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?

 

[harding]

Fred’s intention is to prevent infection, not to stop conception.

But, Hokomai, what about the sex? Fred can prevent infection through abstinence, so why does he need to wear a condom?

Imagine a sailboat tacking into the wind. It turns starboard for a bit, then port for a bit more, then starboard again. Except briefly during turns, it never points directly at its destination, but that destination becomes quite clear if you average out its course.

In your example, it looks like Fred is trying to prevent infection–but that’s just him dealing with the wind. Fred really wants sex and he wears the condom to minimize its consequences–to tack into the wind.

Sally’s intentions don’t involve sex, so it isn’t true that “the thinking is the same.”

-Dave

 

[Hokomai]

But, Hokomai, what about the sex? Fred can prevent infection through abstinence, so why does he need to wear a condom?

Imagine a sailboat tacking into the wind. It turns starboard for a bit, then port for a bit more, then starboard again. Except briefly during turns, it never points directly at its destination, but that destination becomes quite clear if you average out its course.

In your example, it looks like Fred is trying to prevent infection–but that’s just him dealing with the wind. Fred really wants sex and he wears the condom to minimize its consequences–to tack into the wind.

Sally’s intentions don’t involve sex, so it isn’t true that “the thinking is the same.”

-Dave

OK, Dave, accepted for the sake of the argument that this is so, then what does it matter? Wanting sex is a perfectly good thing, even in Catholic doctrine.

 

[Filii_Dei]

OK, Dave, accepted for the sake of the argument that this is so, then what does it matter? Wanting sex is a perfectly good thing, even in Catholic doctrine.

Wanting sex for procreation, might I add. Wanting sex for the sake of pleasure is perversion. That is why premarital sex, prostitution, contraceptive sex, and all other kinds of dubious sexual activities are wrong.

 

[harding]

OK, Dave, accepted [that Fred wants sex] for the sake of the argument, [but] what does it matter? Wanting sex is a perfectly good thing

It’s not that Fred wants sex, Hokomai, but that Fred wants unnatural sex, which is illicit.

-Dave

Update: hat tip to Filii Dei, who beat me to the punch by a few seconds.

 

[Pug]

Wanting sex for procreation, might I add. Wanting sex for the sake of pleasure is perversion. That is why premarital sex, prostitution, contraceptive sex, and all other kinds of dubious sexual activities are wrong.

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.

 

[Viki63]

To understand both situations, one must first understand why the Church abhors contraceptives. The Church believes that sex is first and foremost an act of procreation. To interfere with it is to interfere with the the whole objective of sex - procreation. 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. Contraceptives are thus condemned because they enable this to happen. The actual sin committed is recreational sex, and not strictly the use of substances that can be contraceptives.

This is not Catholic teaching. Seeope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii:
vatican.va/holy_father/pi…nnubii_en.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why would Fred want to take the risk? Condoms have a 15% failure rate. FDA said 1 in 250 fails

contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001053.htm

 

[Filii_Dei]

This is not Catholic teaching. Seeope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii:
vatican.va/holy_father/pi…nnubii_en.html

What is not Catholic teaching? By the way, your link is broken. The correct link is here:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

I quote:

The Church believes that sex is first and foremost an act of procreation.

Did I say that the exclusive end of sex was procreation?

I quote further:

59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

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.