Condoms during pregnancy

[felra]

cheddarsox:

In the end he said he and his wife will abstain from relations because condom use is not allowed by the church. He agreed to follow the teachings of the church, though he may not understand or agree or see the particular virtue involved, he agreed to follow the teachings. Isn’t that enough? Or is he to be condemned for not understanding, and/or wishing it were different?

cheddar

…

Okay, you got me, I lost my read between the lines eyeglasses.

 

[surfinpure]

amateurthomist:

Here is something I offer as food for thought, and please no tomatoes . While I would never say that it is immoral to have sex during pregnancy since the Church does not say that it is; still, one wonders if nature really intended us to have sex while the woman is pregnant. Perhaps, pregnancy should be one of those times where the couple is separate sexually and devoted to prayer and fasting just as menstration is. It would be interesting to find out what the ancient Jews and early Christians thought about this.

This is an interesting thought. I don’t know what the Church says about it (except that intercourse is acceptable during pregnancy), but I’m currently in my eighth month and I’m not too interested right now! LOL

(On the other hand, my husband might just keel over and die if he had to go nine months!)

 

[Arlene]

The trouble with Braxton Hicks, is that sometimes they’re not. I will spend the rest of my life wishing they had been or recognizing sooner that they weren’t.

I don’t know about semen causing contractions, but I do know that in both my subsequent pregnancies I was to have no intercourse for the duration of the pregnancy. In my 3rd pregnancy I had another preterm scare and had to see an on call doctor who checked my cervix. My own doctor had a fit when she found out. NOTHING in, until baby was out.

I guess the question is settled since the OP plans to abstain, but I certainly don’t blame him for wanting information about how to make sure baby is safe.

Arlene

 

[surfinpure]

Just to clear up the matter on semen – yes, it does contain a hormone that causes the uterus to contract. Whether it’s prostaglandin or oxytocin I don’t know for sure, but two of my OBs have confirmed this for me. If you’re not in preterm labor and not at risk for such, this isn’t a problem.

 

[astegallrnc]

Semen contains prostaglandin. Just a bit of further information, nipple stimulation may stimulate the release of oxytocin.

 

[amateurthomist]

Do you ever wonder if perhaps we just know too much? I must confess that sometimes I don’t want to know anymore about my body, my health, the consequences of every little minute action. The human race has survived for thousands of years without ever having raised some of the questions we raise. I wonder if knowledge and technology aren’t as much of a burden as they are a blessing sometimes.

 

[cheddarsox]

amateurthomist:

Do you ever wonder if perhaps we just know too much? I must confess that sometimes I don’t want to know anymore about my body, my health, the consequences of every little minute action. The human race has survived for thousands of years without ever having raised some of the questions we raise. I wonder if knowledge and technology aren’t as much of a burden as they are a blessing sometimes.

AMEN !:yup:

 

[Orionthehunter]

I don’t know how to make it such that I can intersperse my comments among the person’s to whom I am replying so I will bold the comments of Felra and my comments are in normal text. I apologize that preserving Felra’s comments and probably my rambling nature require me to put this in two posts. Sorry.

There are some very good points made in this thread that the combination of this pregnancy and this medical condition can be a period of self-imposed sacrifice for God. My advocacy on this issue is not intended to encourage the affected couple to discourage abstaining as an offering to God and to develop greater agape love. However, this is not my or anyone else’s decision on what is best for them, consistent with God’s plan for them but theirs.

**This is the biological/medical definition of contraception. The Church does not seperate the biological (body) from the theological (soul) meaning of conjugal love as consumated in the sexual act. To do so would be to deny the fullnes of the dignity of the person and the sacrament of the marital act. **

I agree with you here and my following comments are not an intent to separate them. I think that most of the people opposing this in the thread though are inappropriately defining “contraception” as anything that uses a contraceptive device. The Catechism, the Bible and other Church documents use very precise words and they must be applied totally within context. Misusing the concept of contraception can lead one to misinterpret Church teaching and that is what I’m trying to prevent. By the end of this thread, you’ll get tired of the hysterectomy analogy but I can see someone who defined “contraception” as anything that has the effect of preventing pregnancy making the wrong decision when faced with a cancerous uterus.

God has designed periods of natural infertility through the menstral cycle, pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopause, … None of these are acting against fertility.

This is a very important point that I also agree with. I could maybe summarize my entire points is to say simply that since they are in a period of natural infertility that it is de facto impossible to practice contraception. Contraception is an act with an intent to prevent pregnancy. If it is impossible to get pregnant, how can they practice contraception?

Hmmmm, you would have to make the case that introducing a condom is a “therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily disease”.

Felra, maybe again here you are making my point. The dictionary defines therapeutic as "serving to cure or heal or preserve health. (my emphasis). In this case, the use of the condom is to preserve the health of the baby which is a darn good reason!

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.” (Humane Vitae 15).

Again, I couldn’t agree more with this comment by Felra. Contraception is evil. However, Church teaching is clear that it is acceptable to use a vehicle for curative purposes (ie removal of a cancerous uterus) that has as a by-product contaceptive effect. I have been told that there are even cases where the Church allows the use of the pill in certain medical conditions so long as the reason for the use of the pill is not to prevent pregnancy. In this case, a teen girl developed ovarian cysts every few months. It was feared by the doctors that the frequent occurance of the cysts would impact fertility and potentially render her infertile when she was married. Being a good faithful Catholic family, they took their case to the Church and it was approved. My wife (she had the conversations with the mother) tells me that there was also conversation with the girl by the Pastor that it was imperative that she remain chaste so that she wasn’t using this condition to essentially subvert Church teaching. Personally, I told my wife that I was torn over this decision as they were creating demand for a product that its most prevalent use was evil. However, as I worked through this in an effort to accept the Church’s decision, it also led me to come to the conclusion I have on this issue as they appear to be virtually identical.

I don’t know for sure Church teaching if is acceptable to use the pill if the medical condition that one is trying to protect one against is caused by pregnancy but it is my interpretatino that this would not be allowed.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2 of the Previous post.

Your point?

As some of the comments in the thread stated that the congugal act had to be unitive AND procreative, I was just saying that the Church allows married couples to perform the congugal act even if one is no longer capable of being procreative (i.e. post menopause). Ergo, if the Church allows them to have sex in this case, they also allow it when the wife is pregnant and if it is unitive (as opposed ot just relieving sexual stress) probably encourage it.

There is nothing complex about the matter and use of contraception (when properly understood as acting against the procreative good capacity). The legitimate intentions of the couple do not change the intrinsic evil of the act of contraception. The Chuch has always been clear in this matter.

Again, I agree here. There is no legitimate intention to that would allow one to do a contraceptive act. However, since the Church allows a woman to remove a cancerous uterus, it is obvious that one can use a contraceptive vehicle (hysterectomy) so long as the reason for the hysterectomy is not contraception (note what I underlined above in Felra’s comment). Thus, this again goes to my central point: This couple’s use of condom to protect the child is not a contraceptive act even though the vehicle they are using is a device that is most often used for contraception. Go back to my discussion of the teen girl LEGITIMATELY using the pill for a non-contraceptive purpose. In all three cases (hysterectomy, the pill and the condom), nobody is “acting against the procreative good capacity” but the act is totally unrelated to the contraceptive act even though they are using a contraceptive vehicle.

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

Again, go back to my discussion that the Church allows the removal of a cancerous uterus. This is direct sterilization but allowed by the Church. Thus it is obvious that the Church doesn’t allow anyone to do anything with the intent to prevent pregnancy but they do allow one to do something for other purposes even if the by-product result is direct sterilization.

]“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified.”(Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

Again, it is obvious that the act of removing a cancerous uterus is not defined as contraception. Otherwise, the Church would not allow it. And thus, you do have to look to the rationale (intention is the word I used in my other post) for using the contraceptive device.

**It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow there from”(Humanae Vitae).

I hate to keep repeating myself but removing a cancerous uterus is not evil even though it has the effect of being contraceptive.

**Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended ** to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means (Humanae Vitae) (my emphasis is the underline)

Again, note the word intended. As I read this in the context of everything else written here and the fact that certain acts (hysterectomies or the use of the pill as I’ve described ad nauseum ) are permissable, the issue that the couple (and to insure that they have totally examined their conscience in the context of “conscience” used in the Catechism and not popular parlance of "own conscience with their Priest) and anyone else faced with a potentially justifiable use of a contraceptive vehicle need to make absolute sure that the reason they are considering it is entirely for a purpose other than preventing pregnancy (Contraception). I’d also add that the “purpose” should not be frivolous but important. In my mind, protecting a woman from cancer, preserving a teen girls fertility, protecting a baby, and preserving the ability of a couple to perform the unitive congugal act are all important.**

 

[TAS2000]

This is a very difficult concept to discuss and not end up with everyone saying “well in THIS particular set of circumstances…” etc. I think we pretty much all agree on the big points, but for the detail points, there is always some discussion. The problem with the argument you are putting forth Orion, is that the reason can’t just be “serious” to be a good enough reason. Contraception is always wrong. It is morally evil, no matter the reason. What the Church allows is that in some cases for a serious health reason (like cancer) a medical treatment may be necessary to preserve a life (usually the mother) that also has a contraceptive effect (like removeing a cancerous uterous). It DOES NOT say that we have carte blanche to use those medical treatments when other more moral alternatives are available, but may be less convienient. We also do not have some kind of a “right” to sex. If abstinance will also “cure” the problem, then that is the moral choice. Yes, unitive and procreative are important, but if giving them up is necessary, then that is what we are called to do. We were never promised it would be easy.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

siguatapeque:

Thank you, Island Oak, for the thoughtful and informed response.
I will try Creighton. For those who don’t know, Braxton Hicks contractions are not always “harmless”, nor do they naturally occur every 7 minutes at week 29. In later weeks, they can stimulate the uterus and lead to full on labor (which would be fine at week 37 and following). Our Catholic doctor suggested a condom, but I wanted to be sure of the Church’s teaching beyond doubt. How can anyone question our openess to life? We can’t get pregnant again until this kid is out!

The problem with using a condom isn’t a matter of being open to life or not open to life. That is part of the big picture but isn’t per se applicable in your situation.

What we have to consider is are you changing the act of intercourse from the way it is designed? The answer is yes…you are using a condom and destroying the natural order of God’s design for intercourse. Therefore, it would not be okay to utilize a condom even though your wife is pregnant.

God bless,

Matthew

 

[TAS2000]

Well, they won’t let me edit that post, but what I wanted to say was this:
Cancerous uterous, hysterectomy is medically necessary, contraception is undesired side effect.
Hysterectomy because we have too many kids already- not medically necessary, morally not allowed.
Hysterectomy because a future pregnancy “might” be dangerous. Also not allowed.

The first two are pretty easy for most to see, but the last one is hard for most people. It meets the criteria for being “Serious”, but that isn’t enough. In this case the direct purpose is contraception, so the couple can continue to have sex, but not have to worry about the possible “might be” problem. In this case, abstinance or NFP would be morally right solutions, not the hysterectomy. It is to be hoped that the real health problem may be cured or treated in the future, then the procreative process can be restored. It would be much easier to contracept so that the couple can continue to live as they did before, but sometimes scarifice is required of us, and sometimes that sacrifice is great, like Jesus’s own sacrifice for us. We were not called to do the easy thing, but the right thing.

 

[astegallrnc]

Do you ever wonder if perhaps we just know too much? I must confess that sometimes I don’t want to know anymore about my body, my health, the consequences of every little minute action. The human race has survived for thousands of years without ever having raised some of the questions we raise. I wonder if knowledge and technology aren’t as much of a burden as they are a blessing sometimes.

Sometimes I ponder this. My dad was very logical about things and always would bring up that the human race had survived without all of the current information available, and it is true. When I was laboring and could read the monitor I knew I had too much knowlelge. I felt this the day my mother died… those I spoke to on the phone held on to this hope that I just didn’t have. But, I have seen our knowledge save lives including the very topic being discussed here. I doubt many of us would refuse the medical science availabe to us.

I have been a supporter of “reproductive health rights” for over half of my life until I started visiting these forums, so my understanding of the Church’s teachings is growing. Thought provoking discussion.

Autumn

 

[Orionthehunter]

TAS2000:

The problem with the argument you are putting forth Orion, is that the reason can’t just be “serious” to be a good enough reason. Contraception is always wrong. It is morally evil, no matter the reason. What the Church allows is that in some cases for a serious health reason (like cancer) a medical treatment may be necessary to preserve a life (usually the mother) that also has a contraceptive effect (like removeing a cancerous uterous). It DOES NOT say that we have carte blanche to use those medical treatments when other more moral alternatives are available, but may be less convienient. We also do not have some kind of a “right” to sex. If abstinance will also “cure” the problem, then that is the moral choice. Yes, unitive and procreative are important, but if giving them up is necessary, then that is what we are called to do. We were never promised it would be easy.

Tas, it this thread, your comment that makes the most sense isthat since abstinence is an alternative, it is the best choice and is the one that I’d make (probably because the condom option would never cross my mind )

However, I am not prepared to say necessarily that this is the decision that this couple joined in Holy Matrimony MUST make. I am very sensitive to the accusation that the Church is opposed to sex because of its stand on premarital sex, abortion, and homosexuality. The Church sees the congugal act as a blessing within a Sacrament and thus is Holy.

I couldn’t agree more that we can’t choose a medical treatment that is contraceptive if another is available if the motive for making this choice is because it has a contraceptive effect. This goes to my comment that any couple should sincerely examine their conscience to make sure that the contraceptive alternative is not really being chosen for immoral reasons. But if they know in their heart that the choice is taken for purely acceptable moral reasons (which in this case could be the unitive merits of congugal love) and the contraceptive effect has no bearing (unless it steers them to another choice of course), it is my belief that the Church will endorse their right to make this decision using their God-given conscience (as defined in the Catechism and not popular vernacular).

I advise you read what the Church says about Conscience in the Catechism (paragraphs 1776-1794). The following are some highlights.

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."

(Moral conscience) enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law. [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

I am also sensitive that people misinterpret the Church’s teaching on contraception to prohibit certain “vehicles” that have as a by-product contraceptive results. This misinterpretation causes faithful Catholics to sometimes mistakenly forgo or delay legitimate medical procedures with sometimes tragic results. This personally affected my family as my wife struggled and had consternation over removing her cancerous uterus as she somehow believed that it was against Church teaching.

Similarly, I am sensitive to knee jerk reactions to this question “wrong/wrong/always wrong” is what causes sincere faithful people like my wife to not only reach wrong conclusions about the Church’s teaching but sometimes the misinterpretation can cause people to leave the faith becuase they correctly are listening to their conscience (see above) and they think the Church is teaching an untruth.

This misinterpretation is also sometimes used by anti-Catholics to further bigotry against our church and its members. I’m reminded of Fulton Sheens comment that not one hundred people hate the Catholic Church but millions hate what they mistakenly believe about the Catholic Church.

 

[felra]

I could maybe summarize my entire points is to say simply that since they are in a period of natural infertility that it is de facto impossible to practice contraception. Contraception is an act with an intent to prevent pregnancy. If it is impossible to get pregnant, how can they practice contraception?

This is true (obviously) in the biological process of the sexual union. However, the sexual union is also a theological process. Fully understood in its dual meaning as a biological and theological process, then a contracepted act of intercourse (mind you, regardless if naturally fertile or infertile) is an act of intercourse that the spouses defraud of its procreative potential. The sacramental sign of intercourse is based on the faithful and ongoing incarnation of the marriage vows—vows of fidelity, permanence, and openness to children.

“Sexual union is not only a biological process; it is also a theological process. When we override the divine Word written in our bodies with contraception, we speak against (we contra-dict) the “great mystery” of God’s life and love that our bodies were created and redeemed to proclaim. Insert contraception into this sacramental symbol of married love, and (knowingly or unknowingly) a couple engages in counter-sign of the “great mystery” of creation and redemption. Their union becomes an objective denial of God’s creative and redemptive love.” (Theology of the Body Explained”, Christopher West, p. 419)

Felra, maybe again here you are making my point. The dictionary defines therapeutic as "serving to cure or heal or preserve health. (my emphasis). In this case, the use of the condom is to preserve the health of the baby which is a darn good reason!

To preserve the health of the baby, as in the *potential *health risk to the baby as a possible consequence of having intercourse. This does not fulfill the definition of bodily disease, unless of course, one can make the case that a “potential health risk” is a “bodily disease”. Also, “means necessary” would bring into question how “necessary” contraceptive measure is if abstinence is a viable option as a preventative measure.

I have been told that there are even cases where the Church allows the use of the pill in certain medical conditions so long as the reason for the use of the pill is not to prevent pregnancy.

See this link to CA AAA thread that explains this:

I don’t know for sure Church teaching if is acceptable to use the pill if the medical condition that one is trying to protect one against is caused by pregnancy but it is my interpretatino that this would not be allowed.

Correct. To do so one would have to redefine the procreative good potential as no longer an intrinsic good.

 

[felra]

Thus, this again goes to my central point: This couple’s use of condom to protect the child is not a contraceptive act even though the vehicle they are using is a device that is most often used for contraception. Go back to my discussion of the teen girl LEGITIMATELY using the pill for a non-contraceptive purpose. In all three cases (hysterectomy, the pill and the condom), nobody is “acting against the procreative good capacity” but the act is totally unrelated to the contraceptive act even though they are using a contraceptive vehicle.

Herein lays the fatal flaw of your argument. In the case of the hysterectomy and the pill, the condition being treated is the illness/disease. In the case of the couple wanting to use the condom during pregnancy, the “illness/disease” being treated is the potential subsequent health risk to the developing baby only as a result of the couple engaging in the sex act.

This same flawed logic/application of moral principles, can justify contraceptive intercourse in the case where a wife is facing serious/life threatening health risk if she becomes pregnant again. In both cases, the rationale for introducing contraceptive intercourse is a potential health risk, not an actual disease of the body.

Again, go back to my discussion that the Church allows the removal of a cancerous uterus. This is direct sterilization but allowed by the Church. Thus it is obvious that the Church doesn’t allow anyone to do anything with the intent to prevent pregnancy but they do allow one to do something for other purposes even if the by-product result is direct sterilization.

Actually, this is called indirect sterilization.

Again, it is obvious that the act of removing a cancerous uterus is not defined as contraception. Otherwise, the Church would not allow it. And thus, you do have to look to the rationale (intention is the word I used in my other post) for using the contraceptive device.

I prefer the use of the word “conditions”, versus “rationale “or “intention”, simply because good intentions and rationalizations can lead many into serious sin/objectively sinful acts.

Again, a potential or possible health problem does not meet the criteria/conditions for introducing contraception into the marital embrace, because the conditions for the principle of totality are lacking.

I hate to keep repeating myself but removing a cancerous uterus is not evil even though it has the effect of being contraceptive.

Agreed, but this does not apply to potential health risks.

the issue that the couple (and to insure that they have totally examined their conscience in the context of “conscience” used in the Catechism and not popular parlance of "own conscience with their Priest) and anyone else faced with a potentially justifiable use of a contraceptive vehicle need to make absolute sure that the reason they are considering it is entirely for a purpose other than preventing pregnancy (Contraception). I’d also add that the “purpose” should not be frivolous but important. In my mind, protecting a woman from cancer, preserving a teen girls fertility, protecting a baby, and preserving the ability of a couple to perform the unitive congugal act are all important.

Legitimate (“all important’) intentions on the part of a couple does not change the criteria/conditions to determine whether of an action is “intended to prevent procreation”.; otherwise this would open Pandora’s box to anyone to use contraceptive measures.

“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. …The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC 1783)

“Some rules apply in every case: - One may never do evil so that good may result from it;” (CCC 1789)

 

[Orionthehunter]

Comments to which I’m responding are in bold and my comments are in plain text.

**Fully understood in its dual meaning as a biological and theological process, then a contracepted act of intercourse (mind you, regardless if naturally fertile or infertile) is an act of intercourse that the spouses defraud of its procreative potential. The sacramental sign of intercourse is based on the faithful and ongoing incarnation of the marriage vows—vows of fidelity, permanence, and openness to children.

Sexual union is not only a biological process; it is also a theological process. When we override the divine Word written in our bodies with contraception, we speak against (we contra-dict) the “great mystery” of God’s life and love that our bodies were created and redeemed to proclaim. Insert contraception into this sacramental symbol of married love, and (knowingly or unknowingly) a couple engages in counter-sign of the “great mystery” of creation and redemption. Their union becomes an objective denial of God’s creative and redemptive love.” (Theology of the Body Explained”, Christopher West, p. 419)**

Based on these comments, you should also believe that “an act of intercourse” where a woman is taking the pill for menstrual cycle regularity (your link said this was right which surprises me) or prevention of ovarian cysts is also a “contracepted act of intercourse” and thus should be against Church teaching.

Additionally, since using the pill in the case you use and the one I use is not a “contracepted act of intercourse”, I’m having a hard time understanding how using a condom in this case (and potentially only in this case) when conception is already impossible.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The comments to which I’m responding are in bold and my comments are in regular text.

**Herein lays the fatal flaw of your argument. In the case of the hysterectomy and the pill, the condition being treated is the illness/disease. In the case of the couple wanting to use the condom during pregnancy, the “illness/disease” being treated is the potential subsequent health risk to the developing baby only as a result of the couple engaging in the sex act. **

**This same flawed logic/application of moral principles, can justify contraceptive intercourse in the case where a wife is facing serious/life threatening health risk if she becomes pregnant again. In both cases, the rationale for introducing contraceptive intercourse is a potential health risk, not an actual disease of the body. **

I concede that this argument is a distraction from my main points.

I prefer the use of the word “conditions”, versus “rationale “or “intention”, simply because good intentions and rationalizations can lead many into serious sin/objectively sinful acts.

Another good point. I knew that I was creating semantic confusion by using words that were creating the wrong impression.

Again, a potential or possible health problem does not meet the criteria/conditions for introducing contraception into the marital embrace, because the conditions for the principle of totality are lacking.

Disagree with you here. My example of the girl using the pill to prevent ovarian cysts because of the *potential * impact on her future fertility would not be permissible but it is.

**Legitimate (“all important’) intentions on the part of a couple does not change the criteria/conditions to determine whether of an action is “intended to prevent procreation”.; otherwise this would open Pandora’s box to anyone to use contraceptive measures. **

LOL OK, I’ve agreed that intentions aren’t the right word and that conditions are. The conditions in this case are the wife is already pregnant and obviously open to life. The use of the condom is not a contraceptive act. I concede that we have to be very careful here to not open a Pandora’s Box. But I also think we need to be careful that just reacting “wrong/wrong/ALWAYS wrong” everytime the use of a contraceptive device comes up opens up to false teaching, disillusionment, and potentially even a scandal against the faith.

**“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. …The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” **

Totally agree as it is from the Catechism. The only reason that I have been so persistent is to try to help this couple make informed decision and to understand the distinctions between the general teaching (contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is wrong) and that there may be an exception. In the very beginning, I advocated that they needed to do a sincere examination of conscience and to consult their Priest.

**Some rules apply in every case: - One may never do evil so that good may result from it;” **

I totally agree. Again, contraception is wrong. But I believe that if we are talking about something other than contraception, we are doing a disservice to confuse the two.

P.S. I think it is intellectually dishonest and contrary to the intent of the Magisterium to use the above quote to shut down certain discussions. Until I’m convinced in this situation that the couple’s use of a condom is contraception- the act to prevent pregnancy, we are not talking about something evil. I am often told that lying is always wrong. But then I’m reminded that Pope Pius when asked by the Nazi’s if he was harboring any Jews in the Vatican told them that he wasn’t. In this case lying to the Nazi’s was the moral thing to do.

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

Comments to which I’m responding are in bold and my comments are in plain text.

---

Fully understood in its dual meaning as a biological and theological process, then a contracepted act of intercourse (mind you, regardless if naturally fertile or infertile) is an act of intercourse that the spouses defraud of its procreative potential. The sacramental sign of intercourse is based on the faithful and ongoing incarnation of the marriage vows—vows of fidelity, permanence, and openness to children.

Sexual union is not only a biological process; it is also a theological process. When we override the divine Word written in our bodies with contraception, we speak against (we contra-dict) the “great mystery” of God’s life and love that our bodies were created and redeemed to proclaim. Insert contraception into this sacramental symbol of married love, and (knowingly or unknowingly) a couple engages in counter-sign of the “great mystery” of creation and redemption. Their union becomes an objective denial of God’s creative and redemptive love.” (Theology of the Body Explained”, Christopher West, p. 419)

Based on these comments, you should also believe that “an act of intercourse” where a woman is taking the pill for menstrual cycle regularity (your link said this was right which surprises me) or prevention of ovarian cysts is also a “contracepted act of intercourse” and thus should be against Church teaching.

Additionally, since using the pill in the case you use and the one I use is not a “contracepted act of intercourse”, I’m having a hard time understanding how using a condom in this case (and potentially only in this case) when conception is already impossible.

I would think that technically and in effect it is a “contracepted act of intercourse”. However, in the above case cited for hormone treatment, this is morally acceptable treatment with the unintended impediment to procreation as a result of that.

The pill is being used to treat a current/present disease of the body. No where in Catholic teaching does it say that a “potential”, “possible”, “likely”, “probable”, “foreseeable”, … disease of the body as moral justification for introducing contraception or for that matter acting against a healthy body organ function (now, please don’t ask me about a supplementary or accessory part of a bodily organ or structure, i.e., appendix).

 

[Orionthehunter]

I would think that technically and in effect it is a “contracepted act of intercourse”. However, in the above case cited for hormone treatment, this is morally acceptable treatment with the unintended impediment to procreation as a result of that.

In the case we are talking about here, there isn’t even an “intended” much less “unintended” impediment to procreation as the wife is already pregnant.