Condoms for illicit affairs

[fix]

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.

I stand my point that the reasoning you give is really contrary to charity. The man who claims he wants adultery but has some concern for giving his wife a disease really is choosing the condom simply so he may commit an evil act. He is not protecting anyone. He is trying to get away with sin.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I stand my point that the reasoning you give is really contrary to charity. The man who claims he wants adultery but has some concern for giving his wife a disease really is choosing the condom simply so he may commit an evil act. He is not protecting anyone. He is trying to get away with sin.

Agreed, it’s definitely contrary to charity.

Still, in some cultures, having multiple partners while married is almsot as common as using birth control is common among catholics in the USA, but they believe that condoms are a great intrinsic moral evil, whereas the adultery is just something everyone does.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

Thanks for the very informative response.

 

[deb1]

Agreed, it’s definitely contrary to charity.

Still, in some cultures, having multiple partners while married is almsot as common as using birth control is common among catholics in the USA, but they believe that condoms are a great intrinsic moral evil, whereas the adultery is just something everyone does./quote]

Which cultures view adultery as something everyone does?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil_Anthony;3042288:

Agreed, it’s definitely contrary to charity.

Still, in some cultures, having multiple partners while married is almsot as common as using birth control is common among catholics in the USA, but they believe that condoms are a great intrinsic moral evil, whereas the adultery is just something everyone does.

/quote]

Which cultures view adultery as something everyone does?

Apparently this is a big problem in parts of Africa where the people have been ‘converted’ to Catholicism but polygamy was part of their culture. Now they’re continuing with the polygamy but they see condoms as a intrinsic evil being imposed on them from the West, and AIDS is rampant

I guess when people ask me why the Church tells these people not to use condoms, I’d like to be able to respond “the Church’s teaching on condom use is meant for married couples, it doesn’t condone sex between unmarried people and doesn’t discuss HOW they should practice sex within fornication/adultery”. But after this thread I’m not sure I can honestly say that…

 

[Petergee]

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.

That’s what the contraceptive promoters have been arguing for 40 years, but experience shows the contrary is true. Use of contraceptives increases, not decreases, abortion.

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.

You already have. As mentioned, contraception also increases sexually transmitted diseases.

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.

Not if he is adopted by a loving married couple.

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

Contraception is an intrinsically evil practice which has been conclusively proven to produce evil outcomes. The supposedly “altruistic” use of contraceptives to supposedly “protect” somebody from harmful consequences is an illusion.

 

[Petergee]

Apparently this is a big problem in parts of Africa where the people have been ‘converted’ to Catholicism but polygamy was part of their culture. Now they’re continuing with the polygamy but they see condoms as a intrinsic evil being imposed on them from the West, and AIDS is rampant

I guess when people ask me why the Church tells these people not to use condoms, I’d like to be able to respond “the Church’s teaching on condom use is meant for married couples, it doesn’t condone sex between unmarried people and doesn’t discuss HOW they should practice sex within fornication/adultery”. But after this thread I’m not sure I can honestly say that…

What you say makes no sense. Firstly, AIDS is most rampant in countries like South Africa where condoms are most heavily promoted and used. In countries like Uganda where condoms have been promoted and used far less, AIDS rates have fallen dramatically.

Secondly, you correctly see that Africans reject the intrinsic evil of condoms imposed on them by the West. You claim their conversion to Catholicism is so incomplete that they routinely and blatantly ignore one of the most basic Judaeo/Christian Commandments. Yet for some reason you think that if the Church (which came to them from the West) was to tell them that condoms are OK, they would suddenly decide that condoms are NOT an intrinsic evil being urged on them by the West?

 

[deb1]

deb1;3042449:

Apparently this is a big problem in parts of Africa where the people have been ‘converted’ to Catholicism but polygamy was part of their culture. Now they’re continuing with the polygamy but they see condoms as a intrinsic evil being imposed on them from the West, and AIDS is rampant

I guess when people ask me why the Church tells these people not to use condoms, I’d like to be able to respond “the Church’s teaching on condom use is meant for married couples, it doesn’t condone sex between unmarried people and doesn’t discuss HOW they should practice sex within fornication/adultery”. But after this thread I’m not sure I can honestly say that…

I can not remember the name of the African country but there is one whose rate of aids went drastically down when the government started pushing abstinence.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What you say makes no sense. Firstly, AIDS is most rampant in countries like South Africa where condoms are most heavily promoted and used. In countries like Uganda where condoms have been promoted and used far less, AIDS rates have fallen dramatically.

Secondly, you correctly see that Africans reject the intrinsic evil of condoms imposed on them by the West. You claim their conversion to Catholicism is so incomplete that they routinely and blatantly ignore one of the most basic Judaeo/Christian Commandments. Yet for some reason you think that if the Church (which came to them from the West) was to tell them that condoms are OK, they would suddenly decide that condoms are NOT an intrinsic evil being urged on them by the West?

I agree that promoting condom use also promotes fornication and adultery.

I don’t want to get into a discussion where I have to play devil’s advocate, so I’ll refrain from responding to the second part.

Also I want to clarify that I didn’t generalize about all of Africa. What I said was about certain places in Africa. As I’m sure you know there are many people and cultures on that large continent.

 

[Petergee]

Neil_Anthony;3042475:

I can not remember the name of the African country but there is one whose rate of aids went drastically down when the government started pushing abstinence.

Uganda. Used to have one of the highest AIDS rates in Africa, now it has one of the lowest. But the silence about this from the Western mainstream media is deafening.

 

[Delphinus85]

Imagine a man dissatisfied with his marriage who decides to have an affair. He doesn’t go to church anymore, and hasn’t prayed in years. He’s with his girlfriend, and doesn’t want to use a condom, but he feels guilt about the possibility of bringing home disease to his wife. But then he rationalizes “the church says condoms are immoral, so I won’t use one. No point in compounding evil.”

It’s not that farfetched. There are cultures in parts of the world where cheating is rampant and the people are (at least nominally) catholic and use the church’s ban on condoms as an excuse not to be safe, and are bringing home AIDS to their spouses.

I personally think that condoms are evil when they’re used within a marriage. I think if the sex act is already illicit, then condoms don’t make it any more wrong, and in fact might lessen the wrongness.

(Note, this is hypothetical, it’s not about a decision I’m facing in my own life )

I agree with you here. Contraception is illicit because it violates the marital act. Since the marital act is…well NOT EXISTENT, then harm is already done. ABC (specifically condoms) are evil because you are not giving totally to your spouse. And since this man is ALREADY holding back his heart from his mistress, why should it matter if he holds back his genetic material? The window isn’t broken, it’s not even there. Any decent human being who is out with someone other than his wife needs to use a condom…well he NEEDS to go home to his stinking wife and beg her for forgiveness, but if he won’t, then he needs to either stop having sex with his wife altogether until his heart is right, or wear a condom with his mistress. I am thinking of the poor woman at home (possibly a mother too!) who has a romantic evening with her husband, then feels fluish. She goes to the doctor and finds out she has AIDS.

Think of this as if you were a priest. If this man came into your office saying “I can’t break off this affair, but what should I do? Condom, or no?” obviously you are going to do everything you can to stop this man from cheating on his dear wife, but if it’s obvious he won’t, you need to think about the safety of his wife. Why should she give her life because he’s being a cad?

I’m sorry. I have NO TOLERANCE for the evil of others hurting innocent people. If something can be said or done to get this man to wear a condom with his mistress to save the life of his wife (and children’s mother) he NEEDS to do that. Although we all know coming clean about the affair, getting STD tested, and trying to patch up with his wife is the best idea. That his innocent wife should die so he doesn’t “compound his sins” is a horrible awful thing to do.

 

[Delphinus85]

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

This is true! But the fact is, what if he IS doing it, or it was obvious he was going to do it anyway? Has anyone thought of the welfar of the wife at home? WHy should she get AIDS because he didn’t want to “compound his sin”

 

[Petergee]

This is true! But the fact is, what if he IS doing it, or it was obvious he was going to do it anyway? Has anyone thought of the welfar of the wife at home? WHy should she get AIDS because he didn’t want to “compound his sin”

As I said, him using a condom** increases**, not decreases, the likelihood that his wife will get AIDS.

But even if it didn’t, your argument is analagous to saying, if a man in a moment of anger punches out a very rich man, then he should empty the rich man’s wallet as well, since his wife needs a lifesaving opearation they can’t afford, and the rich man won’t notice the loss.

 

[Delphinus85]

As I said, him using a condom** increases**, not decreases, the likelihood that his wife will get AIDS.

But even if it didn’t, your argument is analagous to saying, if a man in a moment of anger punches out a very rich man, then he should empty the rich man’s wallet as well, since his wife needs a lifesaving opearation they can’t afford, and the rich man won’t notice the loss.

No what I am saying is condoms are illicit because they are created to withold ones self from their spouse. They aren’t giving themselves entirely to their wife. The man isn’t having sex with his wife. He has already done a terrible act. Condoms are illicit for married couples. In this case, it doesn’t matter how much more bad he does to himself, but for pete’s sake he could at least keep himself from killing his wife.

Condoms decrease the spread of AIDS this is a fact. Taking away his condom won’t stop him from cheating on his wife, in the case the OP described to us. All that little thing is doing is decreasing his chance of giving something to his wife. There is no reason she should die so he can sleep better at night knowing that at least he didn’t take his sin one step further

 

[Holly3278]

It would be more evil for him to use a condom because the sex act is not supposed to be contracepted ever. That said, the simple act of adultery would be a grave sin.

 

[Petergee]

No what I am saying is condoms are illicit because they are created to withold ones self from their spouse. They aren’t giving themselves entirely to their wife. The man isn’t having sex with his wife. He has already done a terrible act. Condoms are illicit for married couples.

No. The use of condoms is illicit **by anyone **because they are used to interfere with the natural openness to fertility of sexual intercourse.

In this case, it doesn’t matter how much more bad he does to himself, but for pete’s sake he could at least keep himself from killing his wife.

Using contraception “does bad” (physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually) not only to himself but to his wife and to his partner in adultery.

Condoms decrease the spread of AIDS this is a fact.

“X” number of incidents of promiscuous sexual intercourse using a condom is less likely to result in transmission of AIDS than "X’ numberof incidents of promiscuous sexual intercourse without a condom. But knowledge of human nature, and the unambiguous results of experience in real life, has shown that this does not happen. Invariably those using condoms take more risks and commit a larger number of acts of illicit intercourse, and have a greater number of different partners in adultery. Together with the significant failure rate of condoms in preventing AIDS transmission, the result of using condoms is an increase, not a decrease, in the transmission of AIDS. This is a fact.

 

[fix]

There is no reason she should die so he can sleep better at night knowing that at least he didn’t take his sin one step further

But he does take it further as he continues to act wrongly thinking he is “safe”. It is wrong morally and from a health standpoint as one continues to engage in risky behavior.