Condoms and Zika

[Antegin]

CDC Issues Sex Precautions to Prevent Zika Transmission

Men with a pregnant partner should use a condom or abstain from sex for the duration of the pregnancy if they have visited, or live in, an area where mosquitos are spreading the Zika virus, which is strongly suspected of causing microcephaly in newborns, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced today.

If a woman is pregnant and a condom can’t possibly be birth control, can it be used for disease prevention?

 

[pensmama87]

CDC Issues Sex Precautions to Prevent Zika Transmission

Men with a pregnant partner should use a condom or abstain from sex for the duration of the pregnancy if they have visited, or live in, an area where mosquitos are spreading the Zika virus, which is strongly suspected of causing microcephaly in newborns, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced today.

If a woman is pregnant and a condom can’t possibly be birth control, can it be used for disease prevention?

I don’t think so, because each act needs to be ordered toward procreation even if procreation is not possible.

If there is a question of passing the disease I would think abstinence would be the only moral option (also condoms are far from perfect).

 

[Convert_in_99]

I don’t think so, because each act needs to be ordered toward procreation even if procreation is not possible.

If there is a question of passing the disease I would think abstinence would be the only moral option (also condoms are far from perfect).

If it is a serious disease with serious threats to mother and baby (which this disease is proving to be quite serious to babies during pregnancy) then why would you risk anything short of abstinence? Anything less is potentially very dangerous in this situation. Condoms are morally wrong, but they also have a decent rate of failure. Why risk it? Sex, no matter how wonderful it is in marriage isn’t worth the threats to the life of a pregnant mother and her unborn baby. Unconditional love teaches us to put others above ourselves. The baby and pregnant mother take priority here. Thats all there is to it!

 

[Corki]

CDC Issues Sex Precautions to Prevent Zika Transmission

Men with a pregnant partner should use a condom or abstain from sex for the duration of the pregnancy if they have visited, or live in, an area where mosquitos are spreading the Zika virus, which is strongly suspected of causing microcephaly in newborns, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced today.

If a woman is pregnant and a condom can’t possibly be birth control, can it be used for disease prevention?

No condoms cannot be morally used. A condom, in that case, would make the act no longer ordered toward procreation. Not to mention that it doesn’t really prevent the disease; it just is being used for “safer” sex.

 

[thistle]

CDC Issues Sex Precautions to Prevent Zika Transmission

Men with a pregnant partner should use a condom or abstain from sex for the duration of the pregnancy if they have visited, or live in, an area where mosquitos are spreading the Zika virus, which is strongly suspected of causing microcephaly in newborns, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced today.

If a woman is pregnant and a condom can’t possibly be birth control, can it be used for disease prevention?

The ONLY permissible use of a condom is a perforated one to collect a semen specimen for analysis while staying open to life.

Condoms may not be used for any other purpose, not for contraception and not to prevent disease.
The way to prevent disease is abstaining.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The ONLY permissible use of a condom is a perforated one to collect a semen specimen for analysis while staying open to life.

Condoms may not be used for any other purpose, not for contraception and not to prevent disease. The way to prevent disease is abstaining.

Simplistic dogmatic assertions just ask for pedantic exceptions in response .

The use of a condom when ones partner is pregnant to reduce risk of disease communication is not impermissible.

This act would not contain inherently “ceptive” objective matter.
Therefore its objective potential for containing an inherent contra-ceptive teleology (over-riding the purpose of the actor) is zero - always and everywhere I would think.

Therefore the only way such an act could ever be considered contra-ceptive is if the actor was unaware of the pregnancy or if an interior sin of malice was entertained by this act (eg "even if my wife wasn’t pregnant I would still use a condom).

If you disagree I would be interested to see what Magisterial source material you can supply that explicitly denies this position. And please, no purely personal interpretations of HV or FC. But I am willing to look at a commentary from a Bishop’s Conference or an undisputed moral theologian of high Magisterial standing that speaks to this case. Thanks.

 

[Rau]

Simplistic dogmatic assertions just ask for pedantic exceptions in response .

The use of a condom when ones partner is pregnant to reduce risk of disease communication is not impermissible.

This act would not contain inherently “ceptive” objective matter.
Therefore its objective potential for containing an inherent contra-ceptive teleology (over-riding the purpose of the actor) is zero - always and everywhere I would think.

Therefore the only way such an act could ever be considered contra-ceptive is if the actor was unaware of the pregnancy or if an interior sin of malice was entertained by this act (eg "even if my wife wasn’t pregnant I would still use a condom).

If you disagree I would be interested to see what Magisterial source material you can supply that explicitly denies this position. And please, no purely personal interpretations of HV or FC. But I am willing to look at a commentary from a Bishop’s Conference or an undisputed moral theologian of high Magisterial standing that speaks to this case. Thanks.

Condom’s are not permissible in the marital act for reasons other than their usual contraceptive effect. All marital acts must be of a kind capable of consummating a marriage. They must be a one flesh Union. I recall this point appears in Canon Law.

Sex with a condom is morally indistinguishable from mutual masturbation, and may also be contraceptive. Is it your view that mutual masturbation is “not impermissible”?

 

[Ron_Conte]

thistle is correct and Blue Horizon is wrong, on the above question.

CCC 2399 Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

The basic principles of ethics, as taught in the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor, are absolutely clear that intrinsically evil acts (including abortion, abortifacient contraception, contraception) are never justified by a good intention (such as to prevent disease transmission or to prevent birth defects), nor by a dire circumstance (such as the harm that results from the disease or the cause of birth defects).

The moral object is the end, in terms of morality, toward which the knowingly chosen act is inherently (directly) ordered. Every knowing choice of the human person is an act. The act in any particular case is called the concrete act. Every concrete act has an inherent moral meaning, called its moral nature, because that act is the knowing choice of a person, who has a relationship with God and with other persons. When the knowingly chosen concrete act is inherently (directly) ordered toward an evil proximate end (i.e. an evil moral object), then the act is morally disordered, and the knowing choice of that act is always a sin.

You can’t simply label an act you wish to justify with a good moral object. The object is determined by the ordering of the chosen concrete act.

Use of a condom to prevent disease transmission has a good intended end, and perhaps good circumstances, but the chosen act is ordered toward depriving sexual acts of their procreative meaning. So the moral object is evil.

Also, it is not the attainment of the object that makes the act good or evil, but the choice of an act ordered toward a good or evil end. So an infertile couple (e.g. if the wife is pregnant or elderly) engaging in natural marital relations open to life do not sin, even though they cannot attain the procreative meaning. And the couple who use contraception do sin, even if they accidentally procreate (due to failure of the contraception) on a particular occasion.

Similarly, use of contraception is still the choice of a morally disordered act, even if the wife is pregnant or elderly and so cannot conceive. Sexual acts must have the proper ordering toward only good, and never evil.

In the case of disease transmission, contraception directly prevents conception, and only indirectly prevents disease transmission, since the prevention of transmission is entirely dependent on (and logically subsequent to) the prevention of conception.

But the case of abortifacient contraception is worse, since one is choosing an act ordered toward two evil ends: the death of the innocent prenatal and the deprivation of the procreative meaning.

 

[e_c]

Simplistic dogmatic assertions just ask for pedantic exceptions in response .

The use of a condom when ones partner is pregnant to reduce risk of disease communication is not impermissible.

This act would not contain inherently “ceptive” objective matter.
Therefore its objective potential for containing an inherent contra-ceptive teleology (over-riding the purpose of the actor) is zero - always and everywhere I would think.

Therefore the only way such an act could ever be considered contra-ceptive is if the actor was unaware of the pregnancy or if an interior sin of malice was entertained by this act (eg "even if my wife wasn’t pregnant I would still use a condom).

If you disagree I would be interested to see what Magisterial source material you can supply that explicitly denies this position. And please, no purely personal interpretations of HV or FC. But I am willing to look at a commentary from a Bishop’s Conference or an undisputed moral theologian of high Magisterial standing that speaks to this case. Thanks.

Actually, you have the burden of proof… It is common knowledge (here at least) that the Church teaches that separating the two components of the marital act (unitive and procreative) is NEVER permissible. If there were some exception, you will need to provide the document. It is clear that you, like so many others, fail to understand what is actually meant by “moral object,” if this was even on your radar in the first place. The object here is the sterilization of the marital act, while the intent is the prevention of disease. In normal contraception, the object is the sterilization of the marital act, while the intent is the prevention of pregnancy. Compare this with a defensive use of an oral contraceptive that prevents conception (like in this all of a sudden super popular but possibly mythical Paul VI and Congolese nuns example)… The moral object is the rejection of someone’s sperm, while the intent is the prevention of pregnancy. As Pope Francis said in his now famous/infamous Mexico-Rome flight, preventing pregnancy is NOT in itself evil. It is fine to do something that avoids pregnancy intentionally, like abstinence, or not marrying, or, dare I say it, using NFP.

 

[Thorolfr]

No condoms cannot be morally used. A condom, in that case, would make the act no longer ordered toward procreation. Not to mention that it doesn’t really prevent the disease; it just is being used for “safer” sex.

This doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman is pregnant, how could sex during her pregnancy be ordered to procreation? Can a pregnant woman get doubly pregnant? And of course the reason for using the condom during pregnancy where there is a possibility of Zika infection is indeed to make the sex “safer”.

 

[Rau]

This doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman is pregnant, how could sex during her pregnancy be ordered to procreation?

Yes, of course. So can a sterile couple.

Can a pregnant woman get doubly pregnant? And of course the reason for using the condom during pregnancy where there is a possibility of Zika infection is indeed to make the sex “safer”.

Of course no one can get pregnant while pregnant. Nor if sterile. And finally, good intentions cannot themselves ensure the morality of an act.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes, of course. So can a sterile couple.

Of course no one can get pregnant while pregnant. Nor if sterile. And finally, good intentions cannot themselves ensure the morality of an act.

It’s a rather strange moral universe where ordering something towards procreation even when procreation is impossible is more important than preventing the contraction of a deadly disease.

 

[Rau]

It’s a rather strange moral universe where ordering something towards procreation even when procreation is impossible is more important than preventing the contraction of a deadly disease.

Funny how you omit to consider the option of abstinence. In our strange world, avoiding that seems to have become the most important goal of all, never to be spoken.

 

[e_c]

This doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman is pregnant, how could sex during her pregnancy be ordered to procreation? Can a pregnant woman get doubly pregnant? And of course the reason for using the condom during pregnancy where there is a possibility of Zika infection is indeed to make the sex “safer”.

The focus here is off. It is not about the result, it is about the integrity of the act, the act which is the means by which God brings new immortal souls into existence. It is super, duper important to get it right.

By its very God-given nature, the marital act is ordered toward procreation, in every instance. Whether or not it can achieve conception is irrelevant, unless a barrier or chemical is introduced that of its nature destroys that possibility, regardless of whether or not avoiding pregnancy is the intent. By introducing a barrier, the order of the marital act changes (since its procreative element has been destroyed by the willful introduction of that barrier that prevents the means of conception from its natural path), which is a direct offense against the Orderer. The object, sterilization of the marital act, is bad, even though the intent, avoiding Zika, is very good.

Condoms are always, always, always, always wrong to use during the marital act.

Frankly, if a man is so consumed with desire for his wife that he can’t withhold himself in this case (especially since condoms are not so reliable as people think), or vice versa, there is another problem to discuss… Abstinence is the solution.

People say the Church is obsessed with sex. The Church is obsessed with people, and people are obsessed with sex. Go figure.

 

[Thorolfr]

By its very God-given nature, the marital act is ordered toward procreation, in every instance. Whether or not it can achieve conception is irrelevant, unless a barrier or chemical is introduced that of its nature destroys that possibility, regardless of whether or not avoiding pregnancy is the intent.

What possibility? If a woman is pregnant, for her to conceive again during her pregnancy is impossible. On the other hand, because of human nature, nine months of abstinence from sex for most couples would probably be more difficult than learning how to use a condom correctly where the chances of spreading a disease like the Zika virus are minimal. Under these conditions, I would think that protecting the health of the already conceived child is more important than the impossibility of a second conception. In my opinion, this is the kind of scenario where following doctrine blindly with no exceptions under any circumstances becomes immoral.

The Church is obsessed with people, and people are obsessed with sex. Go figure.

Yes, people are obsessed with sex. That is human nature, and not to take that into account and pretend that it’s not true and that millions of couples living in Zika infested areas are going to practice abstinence even when we all know that this is not likely makes no sense.

 

[Rau]

What possibility? If a woman is pregnant, for her to conceive again during her pregnancy is impossible. On the other hand, because of human nature, nine months of abstinence from sex for most couples would probably be more difficult than learning how to use a condom correctly where the chances of spreading a disease like the Zika virus are minimal. Under these conditions, I would think that protecting the health of the already conceived child is more important than the impossibility of a second conception. In my opinion, this is the kind of scenario where following doctrine blindly with no exceptions under any circumstances becomes immoral.

So, do you also assert there would be occasions when the doctrine against intentional killing of the innocent should be rejected? Or does that become the right choice sometimes? Can you say when?

 

[Thorolfr]

So, do you also assert there would be occasions when the doctrine against intentional killing of the innocent should be rejected? Or does that become the right choice sometimes? Can you say when?

Why bring this issue up? No one is being killed if a couple uses a condom when the wife is pregnant in areas were the Zika virus is present. They are not the same issue. Using a condom in this case is a victim-less situation unless you believe that God is going to send such a couple to hell for this.

 

[Rau]

thistle is correct and Blue Horizon is wrong, on the above question.

CCC 2399 Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

The basic principles of ethics, as taught in the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor, are absolutely clear that intrinsically evil acts (including abortion, abortifacient contraception, contraception) are never justified by a good intention (such as to prevent disease transmission or to prevent birth defects), nor by a dire circumstance (such as the harm that results from the disease or the cause of birth defects).

All true, but the wearing of a condom when a knowingly pregnant woman has sex is not an act of contraception. There is no will acting to choose that course, as reason makes clear. The act is wrong, but it is not the act we call contraception. You confuse the observable behaviour with the act of will.

 

[Rau]

Why bring this issue up? No one is being killed if a couple uses a condom when the wife is pregnant in areas were the Zika virus is present. They are not the same issue. Using a condom in this case is a victim-less situation unless you believe that God is going to send such a couple to hell for this.

Are there intrinsically wrong acts? If you justify a wrong act on the grounds of the circumstances, then you assert there are no intrinsically wrong acts. If you accept that there are intrinsically wrong acts, but condom usage in the marital act is not one of them, then you should have no need to refer to circumstances to justify the act. You should simply state you know of no evil in condom usage.

So which is it Thor?

 

[Thorolfr]

Are there intrinsically wrong acts? If you justify a wrong act on the grounds of the circumstances, then you assert there are no intrinsically wrong acts. If you accept that there are intrinsically wrong acts, but condom usage in the marital act is not one of them, then you should have no need to refer to circumstances to justify the act. You should simply state you know of no evil in condom usage.

So which is it Thor?

You’re right that I know of no evil in condom usage. I also believe that there are few situations in life that are starkly black or white, evil or good regardless of the context or circumstances. Most things become gray in certain circumstances.