Condom Use

[Magnavox]

Is it morally permissible to use perforated condoms every time you have intercourse?

I understand it is for the purpose of sperm testing, but what if you wanted to do this every single time you had intercourse?

Thanks.

 

[mwncheesehead]

Well the question should be asked: why would the couple do this? Are they trying to hinder procreation? Yes, there’s a generally a problem with a couple doing this.

 

[manualman]

Uh, why? Why would you want to deal with the interruption, the hassle, the loss of physical skin to skin contact?

Arguably from an academic point of view, it’s not objectively sinful. But neither would putting a paper bag on your wife’s head first, and I don’t recommend that one either!

 

[thistle]

Is it morally permissible to use perforated condoms every time you have intercourse?

I understand it is for the purpose of sperm testing, but what if you wanted to do this every single time you had intercourse?

Thanks.

No. Their use is permitted ONLY to gather a sample of sperm for analysis.

 

[Newbie2]

Uh, why? Why would you want to deal with the interruption, the hassle, the loss of physical skin to skin contact?

Arguably from an academic point of view, it’s not objectively sinful. But neither would putting a paper bag on your wife’s head first, and I don’t recommend that one either!

Yep, arguably. There are arguments that would suggest that such usage is objectively sinful.

It does, as you point out, bring up the “Why?” aspect of its usage.

 

[sw85]

Yep, arguably. There are arguments that would suggest that such usage is objectively sinful.

It does, as you point out, bring up the “Why?” aspect of its usage.

Presumably to enhance, err, stamina.

That said, I’m fairly confident this is not approved and would be a near occasion of sin, and therefore shouldn’t be done at all.

 

[manualman]

Presumably to enhance, err, stamina.

That said, I’m fairly confident this is not approved and would be a near occasion of sin, and therefore shouldn’t be done at all.

Copout. Practice is a much better prescription for that…

 

[LaSainte]

Why should the reason matter? Intent doesn’t play a role in the morality of the use of contraception to my knowledge. So shouldn’t the use of a perforated condom either be always or never permissable?

 

[mwncheesehead]

Why should the reason matter? Intent doesn’t play a role in the morality of the use of contraception to my knowledge. So shouldn’t the use of a perforated condom either be always or never permissable?

It matters if the guy is using a perforated condom solely to minimize the chances of impregnating his wife. In this way, it’s a form of contraception. However, if they’re using it for purposes of semen analysis, then that’s a different situation. The sperm are still deposited in the wife’s vagina in each case, but intent is relevant here. I still don’t know why a guy would use a perforated condom for “just because” purposes.

 

[underacloud]

An example came up in another thread recently where it was painful for the male to have sex due to some sort of rash (if I recall correctly) but a condom alleviated the pain and allowed for enjoyable intercourse. It was asked whether this would be OK, and I said no, but perhaps if they cut of the tip of the condom (or perforated it?) then the contraceptive element was removed and thus I don’t see any objective sin.

So, there are hypothetical cases. It might be argued that if there is no contraceptive effect, then concom use might be as morally neutral as using lubricants for example.

 

[twoangels]

Is it morally permissible to use perforated condoms every time you have intercourse?

I understand it is for the purpose of sperm testing, but what if you wanted to do this every single time you had intercourse?

Thanks.

What purpose would you have in wanting to do this?

I would say if the man had an open wound due to some accident in the bathroom with a falling razor, it may be permissible to use a perforated condom as a bandaid to be able to engage in sex without infecting or irritating the wound (if such a hypothetical situation were to arise and it worked well enough as a bandaid), but I would not consider doing it for no reason to be something correctly ordered.

 

[LaSainte]

It matters if the guy is using a perforated condom solely to minimize the chances of impregnating his wife. In this way, it’s a form of contraception. However, if they’re using it for purposes of semen analysis, then that’s a different situation. The sperm are still deposited in the wife’s vagina in each case, but intent is relevant here. I still don’t know why a guy would use a perforated condom for “just because” purposes.

But a man can’t use a condom if the intent is not to contracept, but to prevent the spread of disease to his wife. This is still illicit according to the Church. And Humanae Vitae states that although contraception is always wrong, one’s REASONS may be perfectly valid. So if intent cannot make an illicit act licit, then intent is not a factor in the morality of condom use, right? So why should it matter here? The act itself is ether moral and a valid way of having sex with one’s spouse, or it isn’t, right? When it’s the other way around, the Church says intent doesn’t matter, but here it does?

If the Church says that sex has to be both unitive and procreative every time, and that a perforated condom to diagnose a condition doesn’t violate these principles, then what exactly does it violate when used for other reasons?

 

[sw85]

Why should the reason matter? Intent doesn’t play a role in the morality of the use of contraception to my knowledge. So shouldn’t the use of a perforated condom either be always or never permissable?

Intent does in fact matter (the “end” of the act). It’s just not the only thing that matters. For instance a woman may take oral contraceptives to treat a disorder which the pill genuinely treats, so long as she in no way wills (intends) the contraceptive effect.

As you can see from this example, though, the circumstances must be extraordinary to justify such an act – and even then the intentions must be pure. Likewise in this case.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But a man can’t use a condom if the intent is not to contracept, but to prevent the spread of disease to his wife. This is still illicit according to the Church. And Humanae Vitae states that although contraception is always wrong, one’s REASONS may be perfectly valid. So if intent cannot make an illicit act licit, then intent is not a factor in the morality of condom use, right? So why should it matter here? The act itself is ether moral and a valid way of having sex with one’s spouse, or it isn’t, right? When it’s the other way around, the Church says intent doesn’t matter, but here it does?

If the Church says that sex has to be both unitive and procreative every time, and that a perforated condom to diagnose a condition doesn’t violate these principles, then what exactly does it violate when used for other reasons?

I tend to see your point.

If the condom isn’t being used as a contraceptive, and it’s been altered to not be a contraceptive anymore by way if the perforations, it could theoretically be used.

I’m not sure, barring a medical reason why anyone would want to, though. But I can imagine medical reasons where it would be useful.

This debate reminds me of the softcup debate, whether the softcup worn during relations would be allowed. I thought it would be ok, because it isn;t a contraceptive, the makers state it doesn’t work as a contraceptive, it’s a feminine hygiene product.

Others thought it wouldn’t be allowed because it blocks the cervix, making it a defacto contraceptive.

 

[manualman]

Why should the reason matter? Intent doesn’t play a role in the morality of the use of contraception to my knowledge. So shouldn’t the use of a perforated condom either be always or never permissable?

What? Intent TOTALLY matters. It is precisely the intent to have sex while rejecting the inherent fertility of sex that makes the action sinful.

Your example of the couple with an STD does not follow. The condom use to prevent the disease transmission ALSO inherently renders the action sterile. Given that there is a viable alternative (abstinance), the principle of double effect cannot be invoked here.

Believe me, I GET why people want to justify contraceptive use. I do. But in the end, natural law is like gravity, you can’t find loopholes, you can only suffer the consequences of trying…

 

[LaSainte]

I tend to see your point.

If the condom isn’t being used as a contraceptive, and it’s been altered to not be a contraceptive anymore by way if the perforations, it could theoretically be used.

I’m not sure, barring a medical reason why anyone would want to, though. But I can imagine medical reasons where it would be useful.

This debate reminds me of the softcup debate, whether the softcup worn during relations would be allowed. I thought it would be ok, because it isn;t a contraceptive, the makers state it doesn’t work as a contraceptive, it’s a feminine hygiene product.

Others thought it wouldn’t be allowed because it blocks the cervix, making it a defacto contraceptive.

Ok, I totally agree with you here. The soft cup is NOT a contraceptive device, is not intended as such, and is only used during a woman’s period. This seems like a clear case to me.

 

[LaSainte]

What? Intent TOTALLY matters. It is precisely the intent to have sex while rejecting the inherent fertility of sex that makes the action sinful.

Your example of the couple with an STD does not follow. The condom use to prevent the disease transmission ALSO inherently renders the action sterile. Given that there is a viable alternative (abstinance), the principle of double effect cannot be invoked here.

Believe me, I GET why people want to justify contraceptive use. I do. But in the end, natural law is like gravity, you can’t find loopholes, you can only suffer the consequences of trying…

Humanae Vitae states that the intent in using contraceptives and the intent in using NFP can both be the same valid intentions, so clearly intent to prevent conception is not in itself sinful, nor is it what makes ABC sinful. So whether the intent is to lessen the chances of conception or to take a sperm sample, why does it matter? The act is not rendered sterile either way.

 

[manualman]

Humanae Vitae states that the intent in using contraceptives and the intent in using NFP can both be the same valid intentions, so clearly intent to prevent conception is not in itself sinful, nor is it what makes ABC sinful. So whether the intent is to lessen the chances of conception or to take a sperm sample, why does it matter? The act is not rendered sterile either way.

Close, but read HV again. The intent to avoid pregnancy is not the sinful part. The intent to render a naturally fertile sexual encounter to a sterile one is the sinful part. Read it yourself. By changing the nature of what the intercourse IS, the couple uses the language of the body to essentially tell each other lies. Those who simply wait until the body is naturally infertile have NOT rendered the encounter sterile. It is temporarily sterile naturally. It’s that waiting time that keeps the couple honest about what sex IS.

 

[sw85]

Humanae Vitae states that the intent in using contraceptives and the intent in using NFP can both be the same valid intentions, so clearly intent to prevent conception is not in itself sinful, nor is it what makes ABC sinful.

Sure, because, again, the intention alone is not what matters. The intention interacts with the end and the circumstances to determine the moral worth of an action.

 

[Magnavox]

To the multiple people who asked me why, another reason its hard to say this where it isn’t disgusting but I will try.

Say a married couple want to have intercourse but the wife doesn’t want to ‘drain’ all day, or wear a pad, because it makes her feel nasty or dirty.

A perforated condom would allow the possibility of pregnancy, but at the same time prevent her from feeling nasty all day.