Condoms during pregnancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter siguatapeque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

siguatapeque

Guest
What is the Church’s teaching on using condoms during pregnancy to reduce the risk of the prostaglandin in the semen causing Braxton Hicks contractions? There is already a barrier against the semen - the closed cervix. And the openess to life has already been established since the woman is pregnant. Would this be allowable?
 
I can’t see why a condom couldn’t be used if the wife was pregnant. i’m not a moral theologian though.

Don’t know about the whole Braxton-Hicks thing linked to sperm. Never heard of it.
 
40.png
siguatapeque:
What is the Church’s teaching on using condoms during pregnancy to reduce the risk of the prostaglandin in the semen causing Braxton Hicks contractions? There is already a barrier against the semen - the closed cervix. And the openess to life has already been established since the woman is pregnant. Would this be allowable?
Click to expand...
Why would it be acceptable?
 
No. Every act between a husband and wife must be life-giving and love-giving. 🙂

However, I have heard that sometimes it is more prudent for a husband to ejaculate very near the opening of the vagina (of his pregnant wife), as far away from the cervix as possible BUT–still in the right place and still being both love and life giving.
 
Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not have an enormously huge manual of do’s and don’t’s to cover every possible situation and set of circumstances that someone can think up. Nor does she claim to be a medical expert. Why would the church have a position specifically on Braxton Hicks contractions, which are NOT harmful in and of themselves, and trying to prevent or encourage them?

Sounds like the real question is more like would it ever be ok to use condoms. The answer to that is YES - they make pretty good water balloons.

If you can answer why you think you need to prevent a natural harmless occurance like Braxton Hicks contractions, then I’ll think about why you may consider this a moral teaching of the church.
 
40.png
siguatapeque:
What is the Church’s teaching on using condoms during pregnancy to reduce the risk of the prostaglandin in the semen causing Braxton Hicks contractions? There is already a barrier against the semen - the closed cervix. And the openess to life has already been established since the woman is pregnant. Would this be allowable?
Click to expand...
Would it be ok for your husband to put earplugs in his ears when you’re talking to him?
 
I would first clarify the risk you undertake by engaging in intercourse. My physicians used to recommend it as a way to promote the onset of labor once you reached full-term. If you are at risk for premature labor–determine whether the exposure to semen is problematic. Obviously you don’t want to jeopardize your pregnancy and I’ve known any number of women who have experienced premature labor and not only had to avoid sex, they’re off their feet and in bed for months. Hardly a walk in the park–but sometimes part of the sacrifice of bringing a healthy child into the world.

You can not be any more life giving than you already are–so that argument seems patently ridiculous. Since this may not be addressed in the Catechism–consult with someplace like Creighton University–which specializes in fertility and related reproductive issues in a Catholic, pro-life centered manner.
 
Island Oak:
You can not be any more life giving than you already are–so that argument seems patently ridiculous. Since this may not be addressed in the Catechism–consult with someplace like Creighton University–which specializes in fertility and related reproductive issues in a Catholic, pro-life centered manner.
Click to expand...
The marital union has two functions: procreation *and *bonding. Just because the procreation end is satisfied does not mean that the bonding requirement is. When a couple engages in marital union it does not necessarily follow that they are “bonded.” It is very possible to use the other person as a means to end and the abuse of such an intimate union is most evident in the use of a condom.

If your spouse was sick, would you wrap a plastic bag around your head so you could still kiss or would you just wait until she felt better? If you *did *opt to put a plastic bag over your head, is the intimacy present in your plastic kiss the same as when your lips actually touch?

The initial question should be rephrased to read: “Can the intimacy of the marital union ever be compromised for personal pleasure?”
 
It seems to me that if it is that much of a concern to you, then you should just avoid sexual intercourse until after the baby is born. That being said, it seems highly unlikely that intercourse well set you into full labor. Peace in Christ
 
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!
 
40.png
siguatapeque:
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!
Click to expand...
As stated earlier, this has little to do with “openess to life.” A pregnancy doesn’t automatically open the flood gates to any form of sexual intercourse.

There are two parts to the marital union; procreation is only one of them.
 
40.png
mike182d:
The marital union has two functions: procreation *and *bonding. Just because the procreation end is satisfied does not mean that the bonding requirement is. When a couple engages in marital union it does not necessarily follow that they are “bonded.” It is very possible to use the other person as a means to end and the abuse of such an intimate union is most evident in the use of a condom.
Click to expand...
What if both spouses feel the need for marital bonding and the only way that can safely be accomplished is through use of the condom? (I’ll duck now as all the rotton tomoatoes come my way) I am not someone who believes holy aims are achieved when intercourse between married partners becomes a death defying experience–whether to an unborn child or because one of the partners, say, has a disease which could be spread through sexual contact to the healthy partner. I understand Church teachings on this issue and the fact that the opinion above conflicts with them–so no need to cite pages of authority trying to set me straight.

Back to the OP…if she is trying to discern an answer consistent with Church teaching…then clearly the condom use will not be condoned.
 
We’re not looking to “open the flood gates to any form of sexual intercourse”. Nor am I looking to “abuse” my wife or “compromise the marital union for personal pleasure”.
We’re diligently checking the veracity of our “Catholic” doctor’s statement. If it is illicit, we won’t use them. We can avoid intercourse and/or have the terbutaline on hand to stop contractions - not a big deal. But please no more insinuations about our intentions, which are only to learn the Church’s teaching. Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut and God bless!
 
40.png
mike182d:
The marital union has two functions: procreation *and *bonding. Just because the procreation end is satisfied does not mean that the bonding requirement is. When a couple engages in marital union it does not necessarily follow that they are “bonded.” It is very possible to use the other person as a means to end and the abuse of such an intimate union is most evident in the use of a condom.

The initial question should be rephrased to read: “Can the intimacy of the marital union ever be compromised for personal pleasure?”
Click to expand...
I’ve read this on this board before and never understood the arguement. Maybe I’m also getting the tomatoes chucked at me, but if a couple is using a condom, and they aren’t “bonded” as you put it, then they shouldn’t be having sex period. Condoms or other forms of BC should never decrease the intimacy. If they do, it was never there to begin with. (I’m not trying to promote the use of ABC here, so please don’t get that idea) The OP is quite open to life, she can’t get pregnant again. I would talk to my priest about the issue and then follow his advice.
 
Island Oak:
What if both spouses feel the need for marital bonding and the only way that can safely be accomplished is through use of the condom?
Click to expand...
Logically, that statement is nonsense. Union with a condom is not “true” marital union, just a relief of sexual tension. Relief of sexual tension is never a virtue but the complete gift of self in the marital embrace is.

Loving your spouse is not just wanting to always be in intimate sexual union with them, but also willing to sacrifice and abstain from that act when necessary. If complications with pregnancy is an issue, the more loving thing to do would be to wait.

Furthermore, what if the condom breaks? A good friend of mine is the product of condom usage. If the pregnancy is truly at stake and one is *truly *concerned about it, abstenance is the *only *solution. Otherwise, you’re saying that the risk of possibly creating complications for the child is not worth sacrificing and “dying to self.” When is that *ever *healthy to one’s marriage?
 
40.png
siguatapeque:
We’re not looking to “open the flood gates to any form of sexual intercourse”. Nor am I looking to “abuse” my wife or “compromise the marital union for personal pleasure”.
We’re diligently checking the veracity of our “Catholic” doctor’s statement. If it is illicit, we won’t use them. We can avoid intercourse and/or have the terbutaline on hand to stop contractions - not a big deal. But please no more insinuations about our intentions, which are only to learn the Church’s teaching. Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut and God bless!
Click to expand...
“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. 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)

“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified.To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

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

“. . .the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children . . . 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)
 
40.png
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!
Click to expand...
I sympathise since I went through potentially dangerous B-H during my first pregnancy. They are not always harmless.

The question I have (that you should pose to your doctor) is a little more delicate. As I understand it, the prostaglandin released when a woman climaxes is much more likely to cause a reaction in the uterine muscles, possibly bringing on early “real” contractions. For a couple to have intercourse and **purposely ** avoid the wife’s climax would seem to me to be problematic from a moral theology perspective. If that is the case (and you don’t need to answer this in a public forum), there may be good reason to practice continence until later in the pregnancy. 😦
 
Thanks kmkTexas – you make good points. Looks like continuing to abstain is best for Mom, Baby, and Dad 🙂

Felra, sorry you missed the point. This wouldn’t have been contraception since we conceived. I wasn’t asking permission to “do evil”, but whether or not our doctor was correct about whether or not it would be.

So it’s a done deal. We wait. Thanks all and goodbye.
 
40.png
siguatapeque:
Felra, sorry you missed the point. This wouldn’t have been contraception since we conceived. I wasn’t asking permission to “do evil”, but whether or not our doctor was correct about whether or not it would be.

So it’s a done deal. We wait. Thanks all and goodbye.
Click to expand...
My apologies siguatapeque for missing the point. I thought that you were asking what the Church teaches about using condoms during pregnancy.
 
40.png
siguatapeque:
Thanks kmkTexas – you make good points. Looks like continuing to abstain is best for Mom, Baby, and Dad 🙂

Felra, sorry you missed the point. This wouldn’t have been contraception since we conceived. I wasn’t asking permission to “do evil”, but whether or not our doctor was correct about whether or not it would be.

So it’s a done deal. We wait. Thanks all and goodbye.
Click to expand...
siguatapeque, I am sorry if I missed your point. I was only trying to give you what the Church teaches pertinent to your presented situation, not to interject my own opinion or ideas.

I thought your question (“point”) was, is it morally okay to use a condom, as prescribed by your “Catholic”] medical doctor, during wife’s pregnancy to avoid/eliminate the risk of causing Braxton Hicks contractions? The simple answer is “No”. The Church does not allow a couple to engage in contraceptive sex for any reason. Period. A couple’s openness to life in the marital embrace is not a variable of whether the couple is naturally infertile (as through pregnancy, breast feeding, menopause, …).

Note that the Church does teach that “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). I would recommend that you consult a [orthodox] priest, or go to the Ask An Apologist forum section and pose the question if your situation qualifies as licit to use a condom to “cure bodily disease”.

As you correctly note, this is more than a simple medical question and that a medical doctor is not qualified to give authoritative advice in matters of morality. There is more theology of the body resource available to better understand and appreciate why contraception (whether a couple is naturally fertile or infertile as during the period of pregnancy) acts against the sacred symbol of married love and the dignity of the person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top