Condoms for illicit affairs

[Neil_Anthony]

Another way of phrasing this question would be “Does that Church recommend that men who commit adultery, do not use a condom for their adulterous affairs?”

I thought of another similar question, if the man is having a homosexual affair, is it still preferable for him to not use a condom?

 

[deb1]

Another way of phrasing this question would be “Does that Church recommend that men who commit adultery, do not use a condom for their adulterous affairs?”

I thought of another similar question, if the man is having a homosexual affair, is it still preferable for him to not use a condom?

The Church’s recommendation would be that the man NOT commit adultery or have a homosexual affair.

 

[rboo124]

Another way of phrasing this question would be “Does that Church recommend that men who commit adultery, do not use a condom for their adulterous affairs?”

I thought of another similar question, if the man is having a homosexual affair, is it still preferable for him to not use a condom?

Again, I would say the answer is “Do not have adulterous sex” and “Do not have homosexual sex”.

But…my own opinion…a condom should not be used if a man is having an affair. Preventing pro-creation from occuring is wrong. If God allows for a life to be created out of wedlock, then so be it. The act is still a sin on the man’s part, the child conceived is a blessing, not a sin.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Again, I would say the answer is “Do not have adulterous sex” and “Do not have homosexual sex”.

But…my own opinion…a condom should not be used if a man is having an affair. Preventing pro-creation from occuring is wrong. If God allows for a life to be created out of wedlock, then so be it. The act is still a sin on the man’s part, the child conceived is a blessing, not a sin.

Procreation can’t happen in a homosexual affair though.

I’ve read about some parts of the world where monogamy simply wasn’t part of their culture before they became Catholic, and most of the men, even though they are catholic, still have sex with many women. AIDS is rampant there. Does the church recommend to these men, that even if they refuse to stop sleeping around, that they should not use condoms?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Church’s recommendation would be that the man NOT commit adultery or have a homosexual affair.

Well I’m glad that it doesn’t go further and recommend that a person who decides to have such an affair anyway, should not use a condom. I think it’s better that they do, and it seems that the church has chosen not to talk about those situations… maybe it’s just as well.

 

[fix]

Well I’m glad that it doesn’t go further and recommend that a person who decides to have such an affair anyway, should not use a condom. I think it’s better that they do, and it seems that the church has chosen not to talk about those situations… maybe it’s just as well.

How about this reasoning:

"Extrinsically, sodomy with or without a condom is not a moral equivalent. A condom must be obtained and obtaining a condom for sex is a moral evil, both in itself and by support of the condom industry. Obtaining a condom may or may not give scandal. Obtaining a condom makes the sin of sodomy more likely and its repetition more probable. Repetition can lead to a habit of perversion and greater likelihood of loss of faith and damnation. It also leads to greater danger of the physical evil called AIDS. When one is told that condom use is the lesser evil, the advice may be perceived as undue toleration of evil and neglect of proper spiritual direction.

"Heterosexual intercourse: In heterosexual intercourse, and that means 95% of intercourse, the moral evil of using a condom is greater both intrinsically and extrinsically…

"Extrinsically, condom use brings its own train of evils. There is the act of obtaining or receiving a condom. Condom possession may be a constant temptation to sin as well as an instrument of seduction. It may lead to a habit of fornication and a contraceptive mentality that may destroy a future marriage. Another extrinsic possibility is the multiplication of malefactors, not only condom manufacturers and vendors, but school boards, or trustees, or teachers, or counselors, or chaplains, who advise condom use, or neglect the spiritual direction needed by the young. So in heterosexual intercourse, there are both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons to say that to use a condom is never the lesser sin."2 It is clear that support for the use of the condom to prevent spread of HIV is in contradiction to Church teaching…

lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_11condom.html

 

[Jestocost]

How about this reasoning:

"Extrinsically, sodomy with or without a condom is not a moral equivalent. A condom must be obtained and obtaining a condom for sex is a moral evil, both in itself and by support of the condom industry. Obtaining a condom may or may not

It’s more persuasive than what I’ve seen thus far, but it’s esentially a string of maybe’s. As I’ve pointed out, those maybes can go in both directions. Also most of this is directed at it’s use causing adultery/fornication. In the OP’s senario the man had already decided to continue his adulterous affair, so this isn’t really relevant.

 

[fix]

It’s more persuasive than what I’ve seen thus far, but it’s esentially a string of maybe’s. As I’ve pointed out, those maybes can go in both directions. Also most of this is directed at it’s use causing adultery/fornication. In the OP’s senario the man had already decided to continue his adulterous affair, so this isn’t really relevant.

But those maybe’s would be a serious reason to raise doubts. If doubtful why would it be licit to act on such a serious issue? It would seem one would refrain when in doubt?

As for the example of one who refuses to stop such a serious act the condom just reinforces his decsion to act badly. It hurts, not helps.

 

[Jestocost]

But those maybe’s would be a serious reason to raise doubts. If doubtful why would it be licit to act on such a serious issue? It would seem one would refrain when in doubt?

As for the example of one who refuses to stop such a serious act the condom just reinforces his decsion to act badly. It hurts, not helps.

This is such a weird debate. Let me just reiterate that the only truly correct answer here is to stop commiting adultery. Not because I think anyone else is vague on that point, but to reassure others that I’m clear on that.

Without birth control there is a higher likelyhood of a pregnancy. While the creation of a new life is something to rejoice, it is unlikely to be received that way. In this situation there would be a great likelyhood of an abortion being commited. If there isn’t one then the other options are not without heartache and pain for all either. An child unwanted by his parents will have a miserable childhood. There is a greater chance of abuse and a greater chance he will lead a life of crime. There is a greater likelyhood the adulterer will contract a venerial disease and spread it to his wife. He could get greater pleasure from not wearing a condom, which could cause him to expand the relationship. I could go on with this to truely absurd lengths.

Before anyone says “ends don’t justify the means”, let me point out that I’ve already explained why I don’t think the means are evil in this instance (or more evil, anyway). This was to point out that the string of maybes extends in both directions.

Let’s be honest here, what are the chances that someone is going to not wear a condom during an adulterous affair bucause they want to be open to new life and preserve the sanctity of the act? If he doesn’t wear one, the best poosible motive would be legalistic. Far more likely reasons would be personal pleasure, laziness, etc. These show even less respect for his partner and he therefore compound the evil by not using ABC

 

[Markstorm]

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…

Yes. And these possibilities are decreased with the use of ABCs, for reasons that I described before. Thus, ABCs are harmful in the same way as described in Humanae Vitae.

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.

1. It does not mitigate the sin at all.
2. Adultery diminishes love, ABC further objectifies the partner.

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”).

Irrelevant to whether ABCs are sinful.

This is a weird debate, but I am fully justified in maintaining that both adultery and contraception are intrinsically evil. Furthermore, even when one commits grave sin it is always possible to make the situation worse by committing yet more sins. It is ludicrous to suggest that since the hypothetical adulterer is already committing grave sin, that it should be permissible for him to continue sinning since it provides a material benefit. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Jestocost]

Yes. And these possibilities are decreased with the use of ABCs, for reasons that I described before. Thus, ABCs are harmful in the same way as described in Humanae Vitae.

1. It does not mitigate the sin at all.
2. Adultery diminishes love, ABC further objectifies the partner.

Irrelevant to whether ABCs are sinful.

This is a weird debate, but I am fully justified in maintaining that both adultery and contraception are intrinsically evil. Furthermore, even when one commits grave sin it is always possible to make the situation worse by committing yet more sins. It is ludicrous to suggest that since the hypothetical adulterer is already committing grave sin, that it should be permissible for him to continue sinning since it provides a material benefit. The ends do not justify the means.

Nobody is saying that one sin makes another sin ok or that ends justify means. The teaching against ABC is that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. In an adulterous affair there is no marital act, and the act that is there is neither unitive or procreative.

 

[Markstorm]

Nobody is saying that one sin makes another sin ok or that ends justify means. The teaching against ABC is that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. In an adulterous affair there is no marital act, and the act that is there is neither unitive or procreative.

You are taking one reason why ABCs are harmful and claiming that that’s it. There are other reasons, as presented in Humanae Vitae, which I gave.

If you forgot: The hypothetical adulterer doesn’t necessarily fully view his illicit partner as an object, but the ABCs will encourage it. Furthermore since ABCs contribute to the general lowering of morality including the tendency to adultery, they will lessen the possibility of the adulterer changing his ways.

You mock this possibility with your “perhaps, perhaps, perhaps” spiel, but it is very real. The freedom of man’s volition is critical in Catholic doctrine.

 

[bluerose]

I haven’t read every single post, but I’m responding to the original question:

So is this hypothetical guy asking, “If I use a condom, do I get a hotter or cooler place in hell?”

That’s how the question reads to me and my husband.

 

[Jestocost]

You are taking one reason why ABCs are harmful and claiming that that’s it. There are other reasons, as presented in Humanae Vitae, which I gave.

If you forgot: The hypothetical adulterer doesn’t necessarily fully view his illicit partner as an object, but the ABCs will encourage it. Furthermore since ABCs contribute to the general lowering of morality including the tendency to adultery, they will lessen the possibility of the adulterer changing his ways.

You mock this possibility with your “perhaps, perhaps, perhaps” spiel, but it is very real. The freedom of man’s volition is critical in Catholic doctrine.

You know, I’m going to back off here because the situation is a little too contrived. In this situation he decided to continue the affair independent of the issue of birth control. This would of course never happen in real life and the use of ABC would affect the decision in favor of continuing the affair. I was focusing too narrowly on one aspect of it, as you said.

I still hold as despicable, though, those who refuse BC for selfish reasons and blame the Church’s teachings.

 

[Petergee]

I still hold as despicable, though, those who refuse BC for selfish reasons and blame the Church’s teachings.

Sure, but this must surely be extremely rare in the case of consensual sexual activity.

 

[Jestocost]

Sure, but this must surely be extremely rare in the case of consensual sexual activity.

Have you really not heard of anyone who carelessly commits fornication or adultery, yet scrupulously follows the teaching on contraception?

 

[Petergee]

Have you really not heard of anyone who carelessly commits fornication or adultery, yet scrupulously follows the teaching on contraception?

No I haven’t. And I think it would require a lot more than mere carelessness to commit fornication or adultery.

 

[James_Miller]

What a shame we do not have Father Francis Connell CSSR, the great moral theologian, to give his analysis.
I have worried about this question for the last day. I fear the original question is not correctly framed according to Catholic theology.
As I recall “the principle of the lesser evil” can never be used for one’s own case. (the principle of double effect could be but clearly does not apply here) One cannot ever morally will evil. The old textbook examples of “principle of the lesser evil” were cases where one might use his/her influence to mitigate the evil of another’s actions. The text book (half a century ago) gave an example of suggesting that criminals tie up their captives rather than shooting them. Or in Communist Poland voting for the group that promised greater freedom for the rights of Holy Church.
Hence I conclude there is no answer to the poll as thus framed.
It would be another question if one had admonished this man to refrain from such sin and realizing that he was adamant on
continuing his sinful life stye …propose condom use to protect his wife. Perhaps.

 

[fix]

Without birth control there is a higher likelyhood of a pregnancy. While the creation of a new life is something to rejoice, it is unlikely to be received that way. In this situation there would be a great likelyhood of an abortion being commited.

Yes, but the ends never justify the means.

If there isn’t one then the other options are not without heartache and pain for all either. An child unwanted by his parents will have a miserable childhood.

Again, the ends never justify the means.

There is a greater chance of abuse and a greater chance he will lead a life of crime. There is a greater likelyhood the adulterer will contract a venerial disease and spread it to his wife. He could get greater pleasure from not wearing a condom, which could cause him to expand the relationship. I could go on with this to truely absurd lengths.

There is a greater chance the condom will give a false sense of security and allow the man to increase his hardness of heart which is the ultimate problem.

Before anyone says “ends don’t justify the means”, let me point out that I’ve already explained why I don’t think the means are evil in this instance (or more evil, anyway). This was to point out that the string of maybes extends in both directions.

How can the means not be evil? As has been pointed out the means further a bad act. They increase the chance more bad acts will happen.

Let’s be honest here, what are the chances that someone is going to not wear a condom during an adulterous affair bucause they want to be open to new life and preserve the sanctity of the act? If he doesn’t wear one, the best poosible motive would be legalistic. Far more likely reasons would be personal pleasure, laziness, etc. These show even less respect for his partner and he therefore compound the evil by not using ABC

I would agree that it is a silly question as someone who wants to sin will not care about the condom use.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I would agree that it is a silly question as someone who wants to sin will not care about the condom use.

Here’s why I think this question isn’t as absurd as people are making it out to be:

Sins of the flesh are driven by strong passions that people fall prey to. Most people struggle their whole lives to avoid sins related to the sex drive. People do crazy things that they come to regret later.

The decision to use or not use a condom is very much a rational decision. One can sit and think about it and weigh the moral pros and cons without having their thought process hijacked by their sex drive. So even if someone has given in to lust, the lust isn’t telling them whether to use a condom or not. They might still at least respect their spouse enough to not want them to get disease, and they might feel guilty for what they are doing but decide to do it anyway.