Condoms during pregnancy

[felra]

If you are correct, please reconcile this with a woman using the pill for non-contraceptive purposes? Isn’t she also witholding her fertility?

There is nothing to reconcile here. This is an apple and orange comparison. The woman is using the pill to treat a hormone disease, which is morally licit. The person using a condom during his wife’s pregnancy is not treating a disease, and has recourse to abstinence as a morally licit option, (which is not the case with the former).

I have asked repeatedly to address how this is contraception (an act to prevent pregnancy) when the pregnancy already exists. I’m willing to consider your conclusion but you keep avoiding this question. It appears to me that you are expanding the definition of contraception (an act to prevent pregnancy as it says in the catechism) to any act changes the nature of the congugal act itself. And if this is the Church’s intent when defining artificial contraception, they should have said “to change the nature of the congugal act” instead of “to prevent conception”. While meritorious, it still seems to me to be an attempt to expand specific Church teaching to support an individual agenda.

Okay, I concede that I ventured too far beyond my laity expertise in trying to synthesize in brief form the encompass of the unitive and procreative aspect of the marital act and the theology of the body. In a strictly medical/biological sense, I am in total agreement that the condom is not functioning as a contraceptive devise as there is no possibility of the wife becoming pregnant.

It is curious that you make the quantum leap accusation that I am attempting to revise Church teaching to support an “individual agenda”.

I am obediant to the Church and its legitimate authorities. I’m also on the look out for people distorting Church teaching. As someone involved in my parish’s ecumenical and RCIA activities, I deal with misperceptions of Church teaching and such misperceptions (well intentioned or not) adversely impact the effort of the Church to bring more people home to the Catholic Church. I believe that I am just as committed to the Church as you are and I have reached a rational contrary conclusion. In such situations, I’m called to follow my conscience in absence of clarity from such a credentialed source.

Interesting how you parade your own obedience and watchdog “qualifications” to filter out the “misperceptions” of others against authentic Church teaching :getholy: ; and the subtle insinuation that I am in the camp of those who would lead others away from the Church.

I’ve expressed numerous times that I’m willing to change my position if ANYONE would address directly how this is artificial contraception as defined by the Catechism. The following is directly taken verbatum from the glossary- “CONTRACEPTION, ARTIFICIAL: The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love.” To me, the operative words in the definition are “to prevent conception.” In this limited situation that is the subject of the thread, the couple is not trying to prevent contraception as conception has already taken place.

Can you make the case where a husband’s use of a condon during the sexual act with his pregnant wife does not “offends against” “the inner truth of conjugal love”? (Please, no ABC trump card to skirt the theological process aspect of the marital act).

I totally agree if you would just focus on my question on how this is an act to prevent pregnancy.

To the exclusion of the sacramental language and unitive aspect of the marital act?

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

If the Laws of Nature tell us that something is so (it is impossible to become pregnant with a second child if pregnant with a child after a certain point in the development of the in vitro baby), then we can rely on this Truth. And the essence of my argument is that if this is a Truth, by definition, this is not contraception. And any expansion of this definition, may be a distortion.

The “essence” of your argument, that this is not contraception, has the effect of promoting the use of condom during pregnancy if an intended “good” effect (avoiding triggering premature severe contractions) is achieved? (If not, then is your whole argument simple academic without ramifications?) How do you reconcile this with the theological process (the sacramental language of the body) of the marital act? How does this not offend the unitive aspect of the conjugal union? Or of it does, by what moral principle, rationale is this offense licit?

It is important to note, that your exclusive focus/hang-up on the non-contraceptive effect of the condom use in this situation, sets up an invalid basis for your argument—it does meet the third criteria of the Principle of Double Effect: “The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available.”
(www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/double_effect.asp).

 

[TAS2000]

Orion, I’m afraid I do not understand what you are looking for here.

I’ve expressed numerous times that I’m willing to change my position if ANYONE would address directly how this is artificial contraception as defined by the Catechism. The following is directly taken verbatum from the glossary-

I have already pointed out to you numerous sections of the CCC that show contraception is not limited to the definition you provided. But apparently you need someone to show you that the single definition you have cited isn’t correct using only the definition itself? Impossible.
I have a CCC that has NO glossary section, so the part you are reading must not be in the actual Cathechism. I have cited exerpts from the actual Catechism, but you refuse to see them as proof that contraception isn’t merely acting to prevent conception, but intentially interfering with the natural process, whether in the unitive part of the act, OR the procreative part. True, in this case the procreative part is moot since she is already pregnant, but that doesn’t eliminate the unitve part. How can this be a total giving of self if the natural conclusion of the act is withheld?

 

[TAS2000]

Orion, I found a CCC with this gloaasry you mentioned online. It says this:

It is important to remember that this Glossary, like the Catechism’s Indexes, is an additional instrument by which readers may find assistance in their use of the Catechism itself. While the Glossary is faithful to the language of the Catechism, it does not participate in the approval of the text of the Catechism given in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum of Pope John Paul II.

This is from the USCCB website. I should think that would be enough proof to you that this is NOT a comprehensive definition, as well as the fact that it says “Contraception,artificial” for the definition, and doesn’t say anythign about the other types of contraception. No apologist will deny that even NFP can be abused and be used as a contraceptive. In which case, it would be condemed by the church as well.

 

[felra]

TAS2000:

Orion, I found a CCC with this gloaasry you mentioned online. It says this:
This is from the USCCB website. I should think that would be enough proof to you that this is NOT a comprehensive definition, as well as the fact that it says “Contraception,artificial” for the definition, and doesn’t say anythign about the other types of contraception. No apologist will deny that even NFP can be abused and be used as a contraceptive. In which case, it would be condemed by the church as well.

Thank you for clarifying this nuance and differention of “glossary” source.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Do not let the absence of a contraceptive effect make the condoms in this limited discussion confuse the issue at hand.

It would appear that competent medical advice determined that sexual intercourse would be detrimental to this pregnant couple. Further, this couple seems to be uniquely sensitive to the biology of semen in a fashion that many couples are not. Also, it would appear that the detriment could be so great that the life of the child is at stake since premature labor and deliver is fraught with danger. This is a grave issue.

The couple in question, because of health reasons, should abstain from the martial embrace. The use of condoms would be immoral for a number of reasons.

1. 
   *]The use of condoms in an otherwise infertile couple (because of age, injury or condition) is immoral not because of contraception but because it distorts the unity of the act and the total gift of self between the man and the woman. The presence of a contraceptive intent magnifies the improperness of the act; the absence of the contraceptive property does not alter its morality, or the apparently good intentions of all involved.
   *]The martial act is an act that is sacramental. Only those who have received the Sacrament of Marriage may partake in it. Like all sacramental acts, this act has a certain “form” to it. The core essential of the form is a one-flesh unity. The presence of a barrier implicitly prevents and distorts this unity.
   *]In this circumstance, the distortion of the act is apparently the solution to a medical problem. But the principal of the double effect does not apply here. There is an alternative that is equally effective in preventing semen from having an unintended negative consequence on the mother and child and that is abstinence. In fact, given that some condoms break and others fall off, it is SAFER for all involved.
   *]Distorting the act by using condoms is the deliberate intention of the parties involved. Here the specter of moral sin is involved. The act is distorted by altering its expected and normal outcome as designed by God and preventing a one flesh unity.
   *]Catholic priests and bishops do not have the authority to relieve a couple of their responsibility to maintain the normal form of their sacramental rights. This authority is not part of the ordination process.
   *]You can **DEFINATELY **not rely on a Catholic doctor, nurse, PA or other healthcare professional to give you religious advice. In almost every case, that individual is a main contributor of the contraceptive culture that we live in today. Remember they get paid handsomely to distribute this stuff. Catholic medical professionals choose to be the KEY players in the distribution and acceptance of the contraceptive culture that exists today and all of the attendant side effects of such a culture that we experience today. They do this for profit.
   *]The courageous exceptions are the holy NFP only docs of which there seems to be less than 200 nationwide).
   
   I speak from the experience of five pregnancies and abstinence is a normal and expected part of the pregnancy process.

 

[felra]

Where has the poster Orionthehunter disappeared to? This poster is typical of a self-assured “good” Catholic who pushes, probes and pokes for any “exceptions” to a well defined Church teaching. This is all well and good and acts as a for catalyst lively discussion that helps to explicate the depth of the authoritative Church teaching.

Unfortunately, however, **Orionthehunter **is typical of a Catholic who persists in defending a failed position/opinion of “exception”, due to “special circumstances”, often in the name of “compassion”, despite compelling argumentation against the personally held position.

It is interesting to note, as the discussion unfolds, and the basis and rationale for the failed position is eroded, the tactics employed to resist the facts and contrary logic (see highlighted quotes below): allude to the primacy of personal conscience in determining what is morally okay for the particular person (while bypass the responsibility to well inform and *form *one’s conscience); redefine the moral act to a non-moral/pre-moral act; be offended by direct quotes from Church documents that clarify the issue/question of morality; keep repeating the contention that your position/opinion is right regardless of evidence otherwise; reassert your orthodoxy and allegiance to the Magisterium and that those who disagree with you are enemies of the faith and in pursuit of self serving agendas; assert your noble pursuit of the truth, but, as the facts continue to confuse and confound your position, then abruptly disconnect from the discussion. Interesting.

Originally Posted by Orionthehunter

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.

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 have asked repeatedly to address how this is contraception (an act to prevent pregnancy) when the pregnancy already exists. …it still seems to me to be an attempt to expand specific Church teaching to support an individual agenda.

I am obediant to the Church and its legitimate authorities. I’m also on the look out for people distorting Church teaching.

I know it seems like I’m splitting hairs but intellectual nuance and its resolution is also the pursuit of the Truth, a calling for all of us imbued with the gift of intelligence by God.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Where has the poster Orionthehunter disappeared to? This poster is typical of a self-assured “good” Catholic who pushes, probes and pokes for any “exceptions” to a well defined Church teaching.

This is a total cheap shot. I’ve been at World Youth Day for the past two weeks. I am not trying to find exceptions. I’m trying to logically and rationally probe for the Truth. I have asked someone to define how a person can practice artificial contraception when they can’t get pregnant. Words mean something. Contraception isn’t defined as “using a device or practice that commonly is used to prevent conception” but is defined as “an act to prevent conception.”

You Felra have continually avoided this very direct question. Others have legitimately raised other issues that may be legitimate but they are raising issues that I believe are so complex that are beyond the theological knowledge and training of those of us on this thread and I conceded that those issues should be resolved with personal consultation with a Priest. In fact the person right before you properly raised issues that merit serious consideration. However, you felra seem to be your own magisterium as you expand the definition of words and draw your own conclusions.

I want this issue to be properly vetted so that Church teaching is clear. The Magisterium is clear and I fully support them that “artificial contraception” is against Church teaching. I have yet to have anyone clearly explain how it is possible to do a prohibited act when the circumstances are such that it is impossible for the wife to be fertile. Many on this thread have reached contrary conclusions and I believe that they are all good Catholics trying to reach the Truth. Casting aspersions on the character of people is arrogant.

 

[Brendan]

Orionthehunter:

I have asked someone to define how a person can practice artificial contraception when they can’t get pregnant. Words mean something. Contraception isn’t defined as “using a device or practice that commonly is used to prevent conception” but is defined as “an act to prevent conception.”

What the problem is that it removes the Unitive aspect of the marital act.

The maritial act is a complete giving of oneself to your partner, and accepting them fully in return.

When artificial barriers are places, putting things that are not you or your partner in between, you are saying to your partner

" I am giving myself PARTLY to you, and I accept only PART of you in return" It is withholding something critical at a time where there can be no withholding.

In the marital act, we are called to accept the person God gave us as a spouse, as they are created by God. That includes accepting their the God given cycles of fertitily (cycles, pregnacy, menopause). It does NOT include latex, foam, IUD’s or artificial hormones.

 

[felra]

This is a total cheap shot. I’ve been at World Youth Day for the past two weeks. I am not trying to find exceptions. I’m trying to logically and rationally probe for the Truth. I have asked someone to define how a person can practice artificial contraception when they can’t get pregnant. Words mean something. Contraception isn’t defined as “using a device or practice that commonly is used to prevent conception” but is defined as “an act to prevent conception.”

Please don’t take my post too personal. I simply exampled your posting as typical of the tactics employed by previous CA posters who have remained selective in evidence to support their frame of the topical argument/discussion at hand. We are glad to have you back from your sabbatical with the Pope.

You Felra have continually avoided this very direct question.

In other words, if one does not allow you to limit their discussion to your narrowly defined terminology and frame of the argument (exclusively biological), they are avoiding the argument.

Others have legitimately raised other issues that may be legitimate but they are raising issues that I believe are so complex that are beyond the theological knowledge and training of those of us on this thread and I conceded that those issues should be resolved with personal consultation with a Priest.

Yes, lets hide behind the “so complex” and “beyond the theological knowledge and training” when the evidence does not support your advanced position/contention. The issue at hand is all but obvious and simple when taken in its entire context, i.e., one cannot separate the unitive aspect of the conjugal act from its procreative nature. Period. Simple and clear.

Condom use is illicit (whether there is a real possibility for pregnancy or not) because it robs the marital act of its potential fertility, thus going against the very nature of the act. Period. This is not so complex or requiring years of training in application of moral theology to understand. Let’s not throw up our hands and allow ourselves to get confounded or miffed here (as an excuse to unplug from evidence that runs contrary to our held fast personal understanding/logic).

In fact the person right before you properly raised issues that merit serious consideration.

As have numerous other previous posters.

However, you felra seem to be your own magisterium as you expand the definition of words and draw your own conclusions.

Here you go again with a tactical slam dunk insinuation to discard [source cited] evidence presented to you by a poster (me) and side step the full meaning of the marital embrace (hint: the conjugal act is both a biological process and a theological process)

I want this issue to be properly vetted so that Church teaching is clear. The Magisterium is clear and I fully support them that “artificial contraception” is against Church teaching. I have yet to have anyone clearly explain how it is possible to do a prohibited act when the circumstances are such that it is impossible for the wife to be fertile.

Nor will you ever, so long as you continue to segregate, confine and refuse to acknowledge the sacramental totality of the each and every marital act (the fatal flaw of your failed argument).

Many on this thread have reached contrary conclusions and I believe that they are all good Catholics trying to reach the Truth.

Thank you for including me in such good company. Granted, we all arrive at illumination of the mind in different timing and but by the grace of the Holy Spirit (which I need to in humility keep myself reminded of).

Casting aspersions on the character of people is arrogant.

This is but a matter of subtlety, ehhh? I am not beyond reproach, but before calling the kettle black, … (I’ll stop here).

 

[Orionthehunter]

In the marital act, we are called to accept the person God gave us as a spouse, as they are created by God. That includes accepting their the God given cycles of fertitily (cycles, pregnacy, menopause). It does NOT include latex, foam, IUD’s or artificial hormones.

Brendan, I have conceded that you might be onto something here but what you are talking about isn’t artificial contraception (your post recognizes this but the others seem to rely on the fact this is artificial contraception to make it prohibited) but rather whether the congugal act is being denigrated by diminishing the unitive effect. Unfortunately, when I apply the use of Viagra to allow the man to be able to perform, the pill for acceptable medical reasons, when the woman has had a hysterectomy because of cancer to these same arguments, or even when something (medical, psycohological or otherwise) prevents a man from reaching orgasm, these acts would also be prohibited which they are not.

“Humanae vitae does not say that a couple must intend to have a child in each and every marriage act, but that should intercourse take place when conception is possible, the couple must have a respect for this possibility and must not frustrate it through contraceptive means. Natural Family Planning maintains the interrelatedness of the unitive and the procreative aspects of the conjugal act. NFP allows this openness to the transmission of life, while contraception does not. By an act of intercourse, a couple is saying “yes” to life; by an act of contraceptive intercourse, a couple is saying “no” to life. NFP keeps the openness to the child even when a child will not be conceived; contraception separates the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marriage act.” (my emphasis added by bolding)(usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/nfpfws03.htm#4)

In the situation described by this thread, conception is not possible as she is already pregnant so thus there is no contraception or separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act.

So now at least as I see it and Brendan you present, the use of the condom may diminish the unitive effect because it prevents the transmission of sperm to the woman. Wouldn’t it be the same effect if the man had had a medically required procedure that also prevent the transmission of the sperm but the Church wouldn’t prevent this? Using this logic, passage of the sperm isn’t critical to the act being unitive.

My understanding of all the Church’s writings on the unitive nature of the act is about loving each other and expressing that love to your spouse in ways that respect each other’s dignity as a person made in the image of God. While my wife is no longer fertile as a result of a hysterectomy due to cancer, she is still the most beautiful person on the earth. I express my love to her when we hold hands watching a movie, discuss our children and grandchildren, even when we argue, and when we are privately in our bedroom, etc.

I reacted to this thread because I saw in the original poster an anguish that the circumstances of their pregnancy was hindering their ability to express their love by the congugal act. I didn’t sense any illicit lust in this anguish. Granted they could choose to be abstinate during this period and this is probably the choice that we’d make. However, unless it is against Church teaching (and thus my motive for getting into this discussion), I wanted them to be free to make the decision that is best for them (including being in accord with God’s law and plan for them).

So many of the responses seemed to quickly advocate in a tone that appeared to me that indicated a general opposition to sex for any purpose but procreating (born out by the fact that when you review the other posts of many on this thread, there is more than a hint of Puritanism in their posts). This is clearly not Church teaching and in fact contradicts Church teaching. Pope John Paul the Great articulated many times and with great passion the holiness of the congugal act in and of itself so long as it wasn’t contraceptive, which this situation is not since she is already pregnant.

Additionally, while I am able to express my love to my wife in many ways, the congugal act is the only physical act that is preserved exclusively for my wife, i.e. I can hold my neighbor’s hand and hug her in times of stress, etc. Other couples might have other ways that ultimately express their maritial fidelity and love but for this couple the congugal act might be their most treasured expression of their marital bond. For this reason, we need to be sure that in this situation it truly is against Church teaching. It may be because of the impact on the unitive nature (I’m not convinced yet but am open to it) but it may not be.

 

[fix]

Here is a response from a moral theologian from EWTN about condom use even if one is sterile due to age. I cannot see how the same reasoning would not apply to pregnancy:

                                                       **Post Menopausal 
Question from  on 01-06-2004:** The churches stance on the use of contraceptive devices, such as "the pill", diaphragm's, and condoms is easily understood, since, in a women's child bearing years, these devices would not permit conception to take place. This certainly goes against God's plan for mankind. The question that arises is what about women who have passed the child bearing years and are actually post menopausal. The prospect of children being conceived from sexual union with one's spouse is zero. However, a negative attribute of sexual union, the passing of cold and flu bugs to one's spouse, is a very real possibility and certainly has happened in the past. The use of a condom during times of colds or flu like symptoms would prevent the passing along of these "bugs" to your spouse by the intimate contact of bodily fluids. It's use during these times cannot be considered, even remotely, to be contraceptive, as the current church's definition of the use of the word is applied to women of child bearing age. It would not even be contraceptive in thought or motive by either spouse. It would, however, assuming both spouses were agreeable to intimacy during that time, provide a means of giving one's self to their spouse in total love and thus benefit from all the positive attributes of marital intimacy. Has the church considered this particular aspect of life, and if so, what have they said? Is the condom's use permissible, or perhaps, has the decision of use or non-use of the condom's, in right conscience, been left up to the individuals who are living in the later stages of their lives? This subject surely must be of interest to older married couples. Thanks so much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ken B

     **Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 01-06-2004:** Condomistic intercourse is immoral not only because of its contraceptive effect and/or intention, but also because, by its very nature, it contradicts and violates the inner meaning of marital intercourse. Simply put, it is not marital intercourse. It literally inserts a barrier between husband and wife.

EWTN

                                                             [

](http://www.ewtn.com/index.asp)http://www.ewtn.com/general/privacy_policy.asp
[ http://www.ewtn.com/creme2.gif](http://www.ewtn.com/ewtn/login.asp)

 

[BibleReader]

Princess_Abby:

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.

Oh, sheesh. Using a condom during pregnancy is about as immoral as using a condom on a kid’s bicycle to making that motorcycle sound.

Of course it’s not immoral.

 

[felra]

fix:

Here is a response from a moral theologian from EWTN about condom use even if one is sterile due to age. I cannot see how the same reasoning would not apply to pregnancy:

**Post Menopausal **

Question from on 01-06-2004: Is the condom’s use permissible, or perhaps, has the decision of use or non-use of the condom’s, in right conscience, been left up to the individuals who are living in the later stages of their lives?

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 01-06-2004: Condomistic intercourse is immoral not only because of its contraceptive effect and/or intention, but also because, by its very nature, it contradicts and violates the inner meaning of marital intercourse. Simply put, it is not marital intercourse. It literally inserts a barrier between husband and wife.

EWTN

Thank you fix for that information which confirms what I have been presenting as authoritative Church teaching all along.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Condomistic intercourse is immoral not only because of its contraceptive effect and/or intention, but also because, by its very nature, it contradicts and violates the inner meaning of marital intercourse. Simply put, it is not marital intercourse. It literally inserts a barrier between husband and wife.

I said many posts ago that if a Priest in a legitimate teaching role would express this, I would assent gladly to this teaching. Thank you Fix for taking the time to find this.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Since the question has been answered, this thread is now closed. Thank you for your participation in this discussion.