Condoms during pregnancy

[Fergal]

For an act of intercourse to be morally licit 2 criteria must be met.

1. It must be unitive
2. It must be procreative

Even when the wife is pregnant the act must be essentially unitive and procreative and this rules out using condoms.

Look its simple.
Cross condoms and other contraceptives used to prevent life off your list full stop.

By the way whats wrong with braxton hicks? Its not a disease you know! They are actually positive contractions that help refresh the blood supply to the developing baby.

 

[misericordie]

mike182d:

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?

yes. No reason for condoms here. Besides if the wife is pregnant she is pregnant. I can’t see how having sex witha pregnant wife can induce labor as well? And what’s wrong with releasing a little sexual tension with one’s lawful wife?

 

[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.

 

[mike182d]

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 true. The unitive act must be unitive *and *procreative. When a woman is pregnant, there is absolutely no way that she will ever conceive in the marital union.

However, does this not also mean that intercourse with a woman in menopause is wrong too?

 

[felra]

mike182d:

This is true. The unitive act must be unitive *and *procreative. When a woman is pregnant, there is absolutely no way that she will ever conceive in the marital union.

However, does this not also mean that intercourse with a woman in menopause is wrong too?

This is not a prerequisite for having marital relations or for the marital act being open to life (as properly understood in the sacramental meaning).

 

[TAS2000]

Braxton Hicks are a generally harmless natural occurance in pregnancy. When, as the OP said, contractions are coming regularly, that is no longer Braxton Hicks, but pre-term labor, which can be very dangerous. It is very interesting that this was the first post for the OP and they described the “problem” as harmless Braxton Hicks, and not pre-term labor until later. I think it may have been a hit and run.

 

[YinYangMom]

mike182d:

This is true. The unitive act must be unitive *and *procreative. When a woman is pregnant, there is absolutely no way that she will ever conceive in the marital union.

However, does this not also mean that intercourse with a woman in menopause is wrong too?

a) after menopaus the sex fulfills the unitive aspect of the union. A woman who’s body has changed so dramatically inside so as to make her feel not much like a woman at all - thus runs the risk of losing her identity and self-esteem - can benefit from the attention of her spouse as reassurance that he still loves her. Granted this can be done outside the marital embrace, but every once in a while, it’s nice to have that embrace to reinforce the rest.

b) miracles happen. Biologically it may be imposssible for the couple to conceive, but God has the final say at all times.

 

[felra]

TAS2000:

Braxton Hicks are a generally harmless natural occurance in pregnancy. When, as the OP said, contractions are coming regularly, that is no longer Braxton Hicks, but pre-term labor, which can be very dangerous. It is very interesting that this was the first post for the OP and they described the “problem” as harmless Braxton Hicks, and not pre-term labor until later. I think it may have been a hit and run.

And I have to add, the way the OP left it, he persisted in dodging the Church’s teaching and ended up bypassing the morality aspect for the basis of his indicated decision, even though he kept insisting that moral clarification was the reason for seeking forum feedback. Interesting.

 

[AggieMommy]

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?

It is my understanding that semen softens the cervix and that female orgasm causes mild uterine contractions. So, the condom would not help.

It is also my understanding that the condom would be wrong in this case.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Please do not ask how I know this, but I just randomly opened the Old Testament one day, and I saw a law of God forbidding laying in bed with a pregnant woman.

 

[cheddarsox]

felra:

And I have to add, the way the OP left it, he persisted in dodging the Church’s teaching and ended up bypassing the morality aspect for the basis of his indicated decision, even though he kept insisting that moral clarification was the reason for seeking forum feedback. Interesting.

I thought the originators final post said that he and his wife will abstain? how is that dodging teaching? Did I miss something here?

cheddar

 

[amateurthomist]

Servus Pio XII:

Please do not ask how I know this, but I just randomly opened the Old Testament one day, and I saw a law of God forbidding laying in bed with a pregnant woman.

That’s interesting. I would like to find that passage. I’ll do some research.

 

[Aesq]

cheddarsox:

I thought the originators final post said that he and his wife will abstain? how is that dodging teaching? Did I miss something here?

cheddar

You did not miss anything. That is what he said. It seems that he and his wife intend to follow the Church’s teachings and he was simply here trying to get information.

 

[Princess_Abby]

cheddarsox:

I thought the originators final post said that he and his wife will abstain? how is that dodging teaching? Did I miss something here?

cheddar

The OP became a little frustrated by those of us who continued to explain that Church teaching regarding the procreative and unitive aspects of lovemaking cannot be separated, even if his wife is pregnant. The stumbling block for him seemed to be that since his wife is already pregnant, he didn’t consider there to be a life-giving aspect to their marital act and a condom “should” be permissible. In his opinion.

 

[Orionthehunter]

“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)

Websters Dictionary- Contraception- Prevention of the fertilization of an ovum.

Hmmmm. Since one can’t get pregnant if one is currently pregnant, isn’t being pregnant by definition contraception? Does this mean that God is practicing contraception? (I say this rhetorically)

My point is the use of a condom for a purpose other than contraception is similar to the fact that the Church allows women to sometimes use prescriptions/medical procedure that sometimes will render the woman infertile so long as treating the medical condition is the motive for the prescription/medical procedure and still allows the couple to have sex.

Additionally, I have listened to our Diocese’s Marriage expert (a priest) as my wife and I are Marriage Sponsor Couples and he talks about the holines of the congugal act from the day of the wedding until death. He didn’t qualify it by saying that it could only be done when both parties are able to have children. Rather, he talks of the good of a man showing his wife his love even though she is now not as attractive as she was when she was younger. The talks of the good of a woman helping her husband feel vital even though he is no longer the strapping virile man he once was.

The reason that I’m responding is that the Church is very clear in its teaching. Unfortunately, sometimes the matter is so complex that easy answers are not always right. Contraception is an act with the intent of denying God’s role in the creative process. It isn’t defined only by the “instrument” (whether it be a condom, the pill, a hysterectomy) but the intent of the couple (one or both). Only the couple (possibly in consultation with their Priest) can discern their intent.

 

[felra]

cheddarsox:

I thought the originators final post said that he and his wife will abstain? how is that dodging teaching? Did I miss something here?

cheddar

If you reread the post sequentially, the OP never acknowledged what the Church teaching has to say specifically about the morality of introducing condoms into the marital act in his specific situation. He alluded to the medical information (and possible moral implication) of another poster for his indicated final decision to not violate Church teaching by abstaining from the marital act. I did not see where he included the morality of condom use (as was his original question) as a variable in his final decison matrix. He did persist in relabelling/redefining his situation to skirt the anti/contra-ception meaning of introducing condoms into the marital embrace for whatever reason.

 

[felra]

Websters Dictionary- Contraception- Prevention of the fertilization of an ovum.

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.

Hmmmm. Since one can’t get pregnant if one is currently pregnant, isn’t being pregnant by definition contraception? Does this mean that God is practicing contraception? (I say this rhetorically)

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

My point is the use of a condom for a purpose other than contraception is similar to the fact that the Church allows women to sometimes use prescriptions/medical procedure that sometimes will render the woman infertile so long as treating the medical condition is the motive for the prescription/medical procedure and still allows the couple to have sex.

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

“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).

Additionally, I have listened to our Diocese’s Marriage expert (a priest) as my wife and I are Marriage Sponsor Couples and he talks about the holines of the congugal act from the day of the wedding until death. He didn’t qualify it by saying that it could only be done when both parties are able to have children. Rather, he talks of the good of a man showing his wife his love even though she is now not as attractive as she was when she was younger. The talks of the good of a woman helping her husband feel vital even though he is no longer the strapping virile man he once was.

Your point?

The reason that I’m responding is that the Church is very clear in its teaching. Unfortunately, sometimes the matter is so complex that easy answers are not always right. Contraception is an act with the intent of denying God’s role in the creative process. It isn’t defined only by the “instrument” (whether it be a condom, the pill, a hysterectomy) but the intent of the couple (one or both). Only the couple (possibly in consultation with their Priest) can discern their intent.

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:

**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.” (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).

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)

 

[socalcarmelite]

This is a little embarassing. But, I think that there are condoms out there that do not block conception. But they do still block the sperm from entering. They are more for entertainment purposes. I really don’t know too much about this, but I heard once, years ago, that ones that glow are not contraceptive. Please note I am only trying to be helpful here.

 

[cheddarsox]

felra:

If you reread the post sequentially, the OP never acknowledged what the Church teaching has to say specifically about the morality of introducing condoms into the marital act in his specific situation. He alluded to the medical information (and possible moral implication) of another poster for his indicated final decision to not violate Church teaching by abstaining from the marital act. I did not see where he included the morality of condom use (as was his original question) as a variable in his final decison matrix. He did persist in relabelling/redefining his situation to skirt the anti/contra-ception meaning of introducing condoms into the marital embrace for whatever reason.

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

 

[surfinpure]

Siguatapeque,

I admire you and your wife for diligently seeking to know the Church’s teaching instead of just going on what your doctor (who happens to be Catholic) told you. Rather than go on and on about why I believe it is still not acceptable to use a condom (though I am not 100% positive), I would instead encourage you to take this to the apologists here at CA and see what they have to say. Post a forum thread, or give them a phone call if you like. It’s a very important question, and you ought to get your information from the best source possible.

(This is not to discredit the laity who have already written an answer. I agree with many of you, but it’s obvious our opinions are not unanimous and you might be rather frustrated by now! )

Best wishes to you both. And if you should have to abstain, just apply it to purgatory!