Condoms for illicit affairs

[deb1]

The answer to this question is rather obvious. For any Catholics who voted that the man should use condoms in this case, please take 10 minutes of your time to read the relevant sections of Humanae Vitae.

Adultery is a moral sin, so the hypothetical man that the OP describes is already guilty of that. Contraception, being intrinsically evil, is not validated by intention. So using it in a case of adultery is just adding one sin to another.

It would be shocking to learn that so many Catholics are ignorant of this Church teaching. Perhaps it is safe to assume that the 12 people so far who’ve voted for the wrong option are not Catholic?

I agree but I didn’t vote. The way the poll is worded said to ask if it is more evil or less evil to use the condom during an affair. I certainly don’t think it is less evil but I am confused as to whether it would be more evil. Wouldn’t it all be equally bad?(Hopefully that made sense) I am probably being a bit nitpicky

 

[deb1]

It’s the exact same story. Adultery is committed, and then another intrinsically evil act is committed. What exactly are you asking? Whether someone is justified in performing an objectively evil act in the context of having committed another grave sin?

What do you think?

If you read all my previous post then you will see that I agree with your line of thinking. I know that it is confusing to keep all posters straight on a thread. I have stated that the man is sinning and I would think that the woman is too, condom or not.

But I wondered if some of the men who expressed the opposite view from you would have the same opinion if a woman was having an affair.

 

[Petergee]

It is my thought that the “ban” on condoms only applies to married couples, because it is assumed that unmarried couples are not having sex, thus a ban is irrelevant.

“Assumed” by whom? The Church certainly doesn’t assume it. It is well aware that sins of all types are all too common. The Church clearly teaches that every act of contraception is a sin, regardless of anyone’s marital status.

However, keep in mind that there are other evils than condom use compounded upon fornication: namely, having a child outside of wedlock

I’m shocked that a woman who is with child could make this statement. The existence of a child is never “evil”, regardless of the marital status of his parents. God creates the child, and everything God makes is good.

(or spreading disease). That seems to me to be a greater evil than using a condom. Thus I’d say that it would be less evil to use a condom.

Contrary to the raucously insistent but baseless propaganda of the condom promoters, condoms are far, far from a panacea against diseases. They are unlikely even to be any use at all. Experience and statistics show that at best they are a third-line auxiliary preventative of disease, and at worst they are a form of Russian roulette. When people use condoms they take more risks and catch more diseases. If the man is concerned about spreading disease, the answer is not to commit adultery.

 

[Petergee]

While I agree with the point of the various analogies here (killing grandma etc.), this is actually something that frequently comes up, sombody having having extramarital sex, but refusing to use BC because it’s against church teaching.

The argument against the use of ABC is that it damages or perverts the marital act. An illicit affair is has already destroyed the marital act, by the fact that it is outside marriage.If you throw a rock through a a broken window it doesn’t break anything.

Using contraception as well is throwing another rock through another window. Both adultery and contraception destroy the marital act.

 

[deb1]

". Experience and statistics show that at best they are a third-line auxiliary preventative of disease, and at worst they are a form of Russian roulette. When people use condoms they take more risks and catch more diseases. If the man is concerned about spreading disease, the answer is not to commit adultery.

HPV is one virus that is spread despite condom use. I find it hard to believe that there aren’t other viruses. Plus a condom could be defective, in which case it isn’t going to prevent anything anyway.

 

[Petergee]

Not every man who has an affair is a total moral basket case. There are some men who have a sexual addiction or compulsion, but still care about their wives and children. Maybe the wife has let herself gain 200 pounds and he doesn’t want to dump her, but feels like he needs to gratify his sexual desires. Maybe he doesn’t want a divorce to protect his children. Maybe he’s going through a mid-life crisis and is tempted by a sexy woman, but he really doesn’t want to wreck his family life.

If he thinks he can commit adultery without wrecking his family life he is wrong. Adultery has devastating consequences on a marriage and family even if it were possible for it to be completely secret, sterile and free of disease transmission. Nobody “needs” to gratify their sexual desires. A desire is what he wants, not what he “needs”. A sexual “compulsion” does not equal an “adultery compulsion”. If he desires sexual gratification he should ask his wife. If there really is such a psychiatric condition as “sexual addiction”, he should see a psychiatrist.

Your implication that a woman who has gained 200 pounds deserves to have adultery committed against her, and is not worthy of sexual union with her husband, and that the adultery is her fault, does not even merit an answer.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The answer to this question is rather obvious. For any Catholics who voted that the man should use condoms in this case, please take 10 minutes of your time to read the relevant sections of Humanae Vitae.

Adultery is a mortal sin, so the hypothetical man that the OP describes is already guilty of that. Contraception, being intrinsically evil, is not validated by intention. So using it in a case of adultery is just adding one sin to another.

Every section of Humanae Vitae I can find, that deals with birth control, is about “married love”. Could you direct us to the section that deals with the morality of using birth control for unmarried lust?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Using contraception as well is throwing another rock through another window. Both adultery and contraception destroy the marital act.

It’s not a ‘marital act’ if you do it with someone you aren’t married to. So how can a condom destroy a marital act when there is no marital act.

 

[goodcatholicman]

If a man is having an affair and committing adultery, and has decided that he will definitely continue the affair, and not tell his wife, would it then be the lesser of two evils for him to use a condom to protect himself and his wife from disease?

Sort of like a lawyer asking as the first question, “so mister Jones, how long has been since you stopped beating your wife?”

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It’s not a ‘marital act’ if you do it with someone you aren’t married to. So how can a condom destroy a marital act when there is no marital act.

Fornication is not a distinct act; it’s a perversion of the marital act. Also, ABC isn’t forbidden merely within the context of marriage; it’s forbidden on its on (lack of) merits.

In other words: extra-marital sex is an abuse of the marital act. Using a condom in the OP’s hypothetical situation is committing an additional sin because the use of condoms is absolutely immoral – regardless of the circumstances.

Others have already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: the ends do not justify the means. From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Markstorm]

Every section of Humanae Vitae I can find, that deals with birth control, is about “married love”. Could you direct us to the section that deals with the morality of using birth control for unmarried lust?

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. (16)

Are you ignoring these reasons Humanae Vitae gives? (from 17):

Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Another thing to keep in mind is that yes, as a whole Humanae Vitae teaches on the “moral law of marriage” (18). The conjugal act is part of the Church’s doctrine on marriage, and even when the act is perverted and used outside of marriage, the Church’s doctirne about the act’s own objective immorality is to be kept.

It’s slightly counterintuitive, but that’s because this discussion seems to be on “how should one best commit adultery?” which is already in itself ludicrous.

 

[la_valetta]

I’m not aware of any principle that permits mortal sins to be added and detracted as though they were in a ledger. To approach the issue in that fashion suggests that our hypothetical adulterer could then recant in his condom wearing and seek absolution in that respect while continuing with his adulterous affair.

With respect, while clearly the use of contraception is itself a mortal sin, it is absurd to attempt an analysis of the morality of that act in isolation from the broader moral quagmire this fellow finds himself in.

It really is very simplistic to talk about “evil” versus “more evil” in this scenairo. That is like talking about “dead” versus “more dead”.

Certainly he does not mitigate his situation by wearing a condom, and he defintiely commits a further sin, but I suggest that in the overall picture he doesn’t become “more sinful” by that fact. I agree, lest anyone misunderstand, that he should not use the condom, but my point is that by that stage he has destroyed his moral self to the point were the condom issue becomes irrelevant in analysiing his relationship with God - which after all is the essence of what mortsl sin actually IS. Once that relationship is rejected by him, the condom wearing becomes largely theologically insignificant.

Another issue, which has not been touched on at all, is the interconnection between the adultery and the contraception. Without the availability of contraception, and the protection from discovery that provides, our hero here would have been far less likely to have indulged his passions in the first place. While he might try to rationailse his actions, in practice I suggest the two acts are in fact features of the one moral failure.

I suspect our Blessed Lord is not so legalistic in His Mercy as to approach the issue as an adding exercise.

 

[Markstorm]

It really is very simplistic to talk about “evil” versus “more evil” in this scenairo. That is like talking about “dead” versus “more dead”.

I respectfully disagree. From the CCC:

“The gravity of sins is more or less great… violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.” (1857)

If one sin may be graver than another, and yet both acts are mortal sins (e.g. murder vs. stealing), then it seems that spiritually we can indeed be in greater or lesser sin. To say that one sin is graver than another but not more evil is mere wordplay.

Now, if one act is more evil than another, then certainly committing more than one is worse than committing just one. This truth can be affirmed without speaking of “legalism”, since surely we have a Code of Canon Law despite Our Lord’s mercy. This is because mercy presupposes law.

 

[Petergee]

I’m not aware of any principle that permits mortal sins to be added and detracted as though they were in a ledger. To approach the issue in that fashion suggests that our hypothetical adulterer could then recant in his condom wearing and seek absolution in that respect while continuing with his adulterous affair.

No it doesn’t. If he confessed one mortal sin whilst deliberately concealing the other, his confession would be invalid and neither sin would be forgiven. But there are two distinct mortal sins. That’s why he has to confess them both.

With respect, while clearly the use of contraception is itself a mortal sin, it is absurd to attempt an analysis of the morality of that act in isolation from the broader moral quagmire this fellow finds himself in.

This was the question the OP asked. As yuou too attempted to answer it, your answer too is by your own definition, “absurd”.

It really is very simplistic to talk about “evil” versus “more evil” in this scenairo. That is like talking about “dead” versus “more dead”.
Certainly he does not mitigate his situation by wearing a condom, and he defintiely commits a further sin, but I suggest that in the overall picture he doesn’t become “more sinful” by that fact. I agree, lest anyone misunderstand, that he should not use the condom, but my point is that by that stage he has destroyed his moral self to the point were the condom issue becomes irrelevant in analysiing his relationship with God - which after all is the essence of what mortsl sin actually IS. Once that relationship is rejected by him, the condom wearing becomes largely theologically insignificant.

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no significant theological and moral difference between a man who commits one murder, and a Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot who murdered millions.

Another issue, which has not been touched on at all, is the interconnection between the adultery and the contraception. Without the availability of contraception, and the protection from discovery that provides, our hero here would have been far less likely to have indulged his passions in the first place. While he might try to rationailse his actions, in practice I suggest the two acts are in fact features of the one moral failure.

Very good point.

I suspect our Blessed Lord is not so legalistic in His Mercy as to approach the issue as an adding exercise.

His words in the Gospel indicate very strongly that His justice will be exactly measured out to us in exact accordance to the good and evil that we do. ISTM He is saying that he really does count every one of our sins, and every one of our acts of love (even giving a cup of cold water to someone spreading the Gospel).

 

[Jestocost]

Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.

So, your saying using BC in an adulterous affair can lead to adultry?

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Hasn’t he already reduced her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires by having an affair with her while he’s married to another?

 

[Markstorm]

So, your saying using BC in an adulterous affair can lead to adultry?

Perhaps it will make him commit the adulterous act more often. Or make him less likely to stop. Many seem rather eager to condemn the hypothetical adulterer as beyond hope.

So, yes. Do you deny that an adulterer has free volition to stop, and that external causes may diminish this free volition?

Hasn’t he already reduced her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires by having an affair with her while he’s married to another?

It doesn’t seem obvious that a relationship containing lust is necessarily fully lust. No may should presume to judge the heart of another. As long as there is any love for her in him at all, there is the possibility that ABC will take it away.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

:twocents: This is such a weird concept, but let me add my thoughts anyway.

-For the said man to commit adultery is sinful.
-If it was a fling of passion, it *could *be less sinful.
-If it was pre-meditated then he already sinned when he gave his consent.
-Even if he gave his consent and went to meet this woman and changed his mind, he is still guilty of a grave sin against chastity and marriage and would therefore have to confess it.

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Mt 5:28

I conclude then, that if the man were to commit adultery; using a condom would only prove that he knew what he was doing was wrong, as he was trying to prevent the consequenses. This would also show that he had time to reflect on his actions and the consequences before the act occured. This would raise the level of severity of the original sin of adultery, and would then have to be taken to confession (as well as the rejection of reason while he contemplated his sin).

It’s not the condom that would make the sin worse, but the fact that he ***knew ***that what he was doing was wrong and the fact that he rejected the truth during the time of contemplation given the fact that it was a pre-meditated act.

 

[Jestocost]

Perhaps it will make him commit the adulterous act more often. Or make him less likely to stop. Many seem rather eager to condemn the hypothetical adulterer as beyond hope.

So, yes. Do you deny that an adulterer has free volition to stop, and that external causes may diminish this free volition?

I don’t know where you get that I consider anyone beyond hope. Of course he has free volition and external causes can move him in either direction. Perhaps the decreased sensitivity with a condom makes him enjoy it less and therefore more likely to quit. Perhaps without BC she becomes pregnant and he leaves his wife to be with the child and continue with adultry. Perhaps… perhaps… perhaps… perhaps…

It doesn’t seem obvious that a relationship containing lust is necessarily fully lust. No may should presume to judge the heart of another. As long as there is any love for her in him at all, there is the possibility that ABC will take it away.

I’m not sure that the love/lust ratio in an affair in any way mitigates the sin. Even if it did, continuing in adultry would diminish any love regardless of the use of BC.

The point is that in an adultrous affair, sex it not unitive, since they aren’t united(married), and making it fertile does not make it procreative. If a child is actually wanted from this union, you can bet that it is not for any positive reason. There is nothing for the condom to destroy, therefore any pain to others it prevents is a good thing (relatively speaking of course).

Let’s not forget that there are those who refuse to use BC not on moral grounds, but for selfish reasons (too dificult, diminished pleasure) or to further denigrate their partner (“make her have my babies”).

 

[Jestocost]

I conclude then, that if the man were to commit adultery; using a condom would only prove that he knew what he was doing was wrong, as he was trying to prevent the consequenses. This would also show that he had time to reflect on his actions and the consequences before the act occured. This would raise the level of severity of the original sin of adultery, and would then have to be taken to confession (as well as the rejection of reason while he contemplated his sin).

It’s not the condom that would make the sin worse, but the fact that he ***knew ***that what he was doing was wrong and the fact that he rejected the truth during the time of contemplation given the fact that it was a pre-meditated act.

That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought of that aspect of it.

 

[fix]

If a man is having an affair and committing adultery, and has decided that he will definitely continue the affair, and not tell his wife, would it then be the lesser of two evils for him to use a condom to protect himself and his wife from disease?

I cannot see how it would be morally acceptabe. For one thing it helps further a bad act and would increase the opportunity to continue acting badly.