Condoms morally justified under certain circumstances?

[Riley259]

Obviously, contraception cannot be morally justified in an objective way when one looks at it from a Catholic perspective. However, what about special circumstances in developing countries (in Africa, for example) where sexual slavery is a problem. Would providing condoms to these individuals in order to reduce risk of STDs or life threatening HIV virus be morally acceptable under those narrow circumstances? Could the same case be made for prostitutes in these same impoverished regions where these individuals are so numbed from abuse and despair from situations they feel they can’t necessarily escape their “profession”…would it be ok for them to use condoms to prevent those same life threatening diseases such HIV and AIDS? How are these thorny problems handled given the Church’s insistance on no contraception ever being morally justified? I’d love to hear some insights on this…thanks!

 

[_L]

Artificial contraception can never be morally justified according to Church teaching. However (I could be wrong)I have heard it said that let’s say for example in the case of rape which is already a reprehensible and despicable act, that if the rapist were to use a condom; the act would be less evil than if he did not because not doing so would pose a greater risk to the victim as far as sexually transmitted diseases go. This doesn’t justify artificial contraception, but in such narrow cases as these I have heard that it lessens the gravity of a particular act and hopefully leads people to the conclusion that whatever illict sex they are doing is wrong to begin with. I believe the Pope made such a statement regarding aids infected male prostitutes in Africa, the media distorted his comments so that he appeared to say that condoms were okay in some circumstances, but Pope Benedict never said this, I believe what he said was that the use of contraception by an aids infected male prostitute would hopefully be an indication to such a man that what he is doing is risky not only health wise but spiritually speaking to both himself and his partners. So in that sense a good could possibly be derived from something bad if such people examine their motives and consciences.

 

[1ke]

Obviously, contraception cannot be morally justified in an objective way when one looks at it from a Catholic perspective. However, what about special circumstances in developing countries (in Africa, for example) where sexual slavery is a problem. Would providing condoms to these individuals in order to reduce risk of STDs or life threatening HIV virus be morally acceptable under those narrow circumstances? Could the same case be made for prostitutes in these same impoverished regions where these individuals are so numbed from abuse and despair from situations they feel they can’t necessarily escape their “profession”…would it be ok for them to use condoms to prevent those same life threatening diseases such HIV and AIDS? How are these thorny problems handled given the Church’s insistance on no contraception ever being morally justified? I’d love to hear some insights on this…thanks!

The Church has spoken on this.

The answer is NO.

 

[slywakka250]

The issue that really confuses me is this. say a man is going to rape a woman he knows is a devout Catholic. The rapist asks her if she would like him to use a condom. can she say yes without sin?? Unlikely situation, I know, but there are lots of situations where the strict no condom rule doesn’t make sense.

 

[thistle]

Obviously, contraception cannot be morally justified in an objective way when one looks at it from a Catholic perspective. However, what about special circumstances in developing countries (in Africa, for example) where sexual slavery is a problem. Would providing condoms to these individuals in order to reduce risk of STDs or life threatening HIV virus be morally acceptable under those narrow circumstances? Could the same case be made for prostitutes in these same impoverished regions where these individuals are so numbed from abuse and despair from situations they feel they can’t necessarily escape their “profession”…would it be ok for them to use condoms to prevent those same life threatening diseases such HIV and AIDS? How are these thorny problems handled given the Church’s insistance on no contraception ever being morally justified? I’d love to hear some insights on this…thanks!

NO! Not under any circumstances.

 

[razredge]

The issue that really confuses me is this. say a man is going to rape a woman he knows is a devout Catholic. The rapist asks her if she would like him to use a condom. can she say yes without sin?? Unlikely situation, I know, but there are lots of situations where the strict no condom rule doesn’t make sense.

Of course she can - its the lesser of two evils.

 

[razredge]

Obviously, contraception cannot be morally justified in an objective way when one looks at it from a Catholic perspective. However, what about special circumstances in developing countries (in Africa, for example) where sexual slavery is a problem. Would providing condoms to these individuals in order to reduce risk of STDs or life threatening HIV virus be morally acceptable under those narrow circumstances? Could the same case be made for prostitutes in these same impoverished regions where these individuals are so numbed from abuse and despair from situations they feel they can’t necessarily escape their “profession”…would it be ok for them to use condoms to prevent those same life threatening diseases such HIV and AIDS? How are these thorny problems handled given the Church’s insistance on no contraception ever being morally justified? I’d love to hear some insights on this…thanks!

Yes, if people are going to sin anyway it is better for them to limit the damage done.

 

[Warrior1979]

Obviously, contraception cannot be morally justified in an objective way when one looks at it from a Catholic perspective. However, what about special circumstances in developing countries (in Africa, for example) where sexual slavery is a problem. Would providing condoms to these individuals in order to reduce risk of STDs or life threatening HIV virus be morally acceptable under those narrow circumstances? Could the same case be made for prostitutes in these same impoverished regions where these individuals are so numbed from abuse and despair from situations they feel they can’t necessarily escape their “profession”…would it be ok for them to use condoms to prevent those same life threatening diseases such HIV and AIDS? How are these thorny problems handled given the Church’s insistance on no contraception ever being morally justified? I’d love to hear some insights on this…thanks!

The issue with this example is that the act in which the contraception is being used is sinful. In layman’s terms, two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[TimothyH]

Yes, if people are going to sin anyway it is better for them to limit the damage done.

No, this is your own opinion. This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches that one cannot commit evil to prevent evil and that one cannot commit one sin to prevent another sin, lessen the gravity of another sin, nor limit the consequences of either. One cannot sin to prevent suffering nor limit the percieved risk of suffering.

Suffering from disease is unfortunate and in the circumstances of sexual slavery and prostitution mentioned, morally reprehensible, but you cannot sin to lessen it. Christ suffered but did not sin. He could have obliterated the entire universe while He hung on the cross but he offered his suffering to God the Father as sacrifice for our souls. He embraced his Cross. We should do the same with Saints Maura and Timothy, both martyrs, as our examples.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, (Colossians 1:24)
This is exactly what I posted about in my thread here about our lack of understanding about the redemptive nature of suffering, our lack of willingness to suffer and how Catholics have forgotten that suffering has value for the Body of Christ.

That’s what the world and satan want’s you to think, that is is better to sin than to suffer.

-Tim-

 

[razredge]

No, this is your own opinion. This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches that one cannot commit evil to prevent evil and that one cannot commit one sin to prevent another sin, lessen the gravity of another sin, nor limit the consequences of either. One cannot sin to prevent suffering nor limit the percieved risk of suffering.

-Tim-

No - Pope Benedict said precisely that in the Light of the World - it is based on a long held Catholic moral principle called the lesser of two evils, where if you are forced to choose between two evils (and have no other choice) it is better to choose the lesser one.

Pope Benedict stated:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

She of course does not regard [the use of condoms] as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

”

The Vatican itself then clarified this saying that "the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but maintains that the use of the condom to diminish the danger of infection may be “a first assumption of responsibility”, as opposed to not using the condom and exposing the other person to a fatal risk.

But at a press conference in the Vatican to mark the launch of the book, the pope’s spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, explained that he had raised this issue with the pope on Sunday.

“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me: ‘No.’”

Lombardi said the key point was: “It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship … This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual.”

As several experts have noted, the book, Light of the World, by German journalist Peter Seewald, cannot alter doctrine. But Father Lombardi’s comments signalled that the pope approved of condom use as a lesser evil where there was a risk of HIV contagion.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/vatican-pope-condom-ruling

 

[mexilad]

The issue that really confuses me is this. say a man is going to rape a woman he knows is a devout Catholic. The rapist asks her if she would like him to use a condom. can she say yes without sin?? Unlikely situation, I know, but there are lots of situations where the strict no condom rule doesn’t make sense.

This is actually a very good question (I’m not kidding). I am no theologian, but I would love to hear a theologian comment on my point.

Under California law when a rape victim, usually a woman, asks, or actually begs the rapist to use a condom, that does not constitute consent on the part of the victim.

Using the same logic, when a woman is raped, she does not sin. I would imagine, a woman, in legitimate fear of her life from an STD would not sin in begging the rapist to use a condom. I would argue it is not different from having a gun to her head and she is begging for her life. Sin requires sufficient knowledge and consent of the will. I believe the duress of sexual assault would constitute a mitigating factor as to consent.

 

[mexilad]

Artificial contraception can never be morally justified according to Church teaching. However (I could be wrong)I have heard it said that let’s say for example in the case of rape which is already a reprehensible and despicable act, that if the rapist were to use a condom; the act would be less evil than if he did not because not doing so would pose a greater risk to the victim as far as sexually transmitted diseases go. This doesn’t justify artificial contraception, but in such narrow cases as these I have heard that it lessens the gravity of a particular act and hopefully leads people to the conclusion that whatever illict sex they are doing is wrong to begin with. I believe the Pope made such a statement regarding aids infected male prostitutes in Africa, the media distorted his comments so that he appeared to say that condoms were okay in some circumstances, but Pope Benedict never said this, I believe what he said was that the use of contraception by an aids infected male prostitute would hopefully be an indication to such a man that what he is doing is risky not only health wise but spiritually speaking to both himself and his partners. So in that sense a good could possibly be derived from something bad if such people examine their motives and consciences.

I would have to say a rapist that has the “Decency” to use a condom the act is no less evil.

 

[FCEGM]

No - Pope Benedict said precisely that in the Light of the World - it is based on a long held Catholic moral principle called the lesser of two evils, where if you are forced to choose between two evils (and have no other choice) it is better to choose the lesser one.
. . .

The Vatican itself then clarified this saying that "the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but maintains that the use of the condom to diminish the danger of infection may be “a first assumption of responsibility”, as opposed to not using the condom and exposing the other person to a fatal risk.

You are reading wrongly if you think this implies allowance for the use of condoms in such situations and an acceptance of the lesser of two evils. What the Holy Father is speaking of is that the particular conscience of the male prostitute who employs a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS has begun to be formed through taking an action of responsibility which nevertheless is sinful in itself. Again, it is not a permission to use condoms to prevent either contraception or communicable diseases.

These two articles clarify the confusion that the media ignorantly perpetuated on this subject:

catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220ope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms?

 

[Barbkw]

Condoms morally justified under certain circumstances?

Only if, you are a noncelibate SSA man with HIV/AIDS selling yourself in acts of prostitution with no intent of stopping this activity or lifestyle.

The immoral use of a condom in that situation is the lesser of two evils - the greater evil being the continued spread of HIV/AIDS through unprotected homosexual prostitution.

 

[manualman]

Rape is fundamentally about power and domination. But for the sake of discussion, let’s look at it.

FIRST, you must step back and comprehend what Church teaching is ACTUALLY about. Contraception isn’t a sin because it’s “on the list”, it’s a sin because it inherently harms a human’s ability to give and receive love as God designed us. When a married couple contracepts, they not only sever the procreative function, but damage the unitive one as well.

When a rape victim begs a rapist to use a condom, she isn’t committing an act that degrades her innate sexuality. She is just trying to protect herself from SOME of the harm her attacker is attempting to inflict. There IS no mutual loving relationship there to be degraded by the act of contraception. However unrealistic the scenario, it would not be a sin. Similarly if there exists (and I’m no expert) a spermicidal treatment that a rape victim could take after the fact that doesn’t also have lethal effects on zygotes, that protective act would be morally justified.

Remember, catholic moral theology is not arbitrary. It is based on underlying principles. Understanding the principles is always better than memorizing the rules. It isn’t the condom that is evil, it is the degradation that it causes to human sexuality that is evil. Blow it up and twist it into an animal shape all you want!

 

[Newbie2]

This is actually a very good question (I’m not kidding). I am no theologian, but I would love to hear a theologian comment on my point.

Under California law when a rape victim, usually a woman, asks, or actually begs the rapist to use a condom, that does not constitute consent on the part of the victim.

Using the same logic, when a woman is raped, she does not sin. I would imagine, a woman, in legitimate fear of her life from an STD would not sin in begging the rapist to use a condom. I would argue it is not different from having a gun to her head and she is begging for her life. Sin requires sufficient knowledge and consent of the will. I believe the duress of sexual assault would constitute a mitigating factor as to consent.

Rape is fundamentally about power and domination. But for the sake of discussion, let’s look at it.

FIRST, you must step back and comprehend what Church teaching is ACTUALLY about. Contraception isn’t a sin because it’s “on the list”, it’s a sin because it inherently harms a human’s ability to give and receive love as God designed us. When a married couple contracepts, they not only sever the procreative function, but damage the unitive one as well.

When a rape victim begs a rapist to use a condom, she isn’t committing an act that degrades her innate sexuality. She is just trying to protect herself from SOME of the harm her attacker is attempting to inflict. There IS no mutual loving relationship there to be degraded by the act of contraception. However unrealistic the scenario, it would not be a sin. Similarly if there exists (and I’m no expert) a spermicidal treatment that a rape victim could take after the fact that doesn’t also have lethal effects on zygotes, that protective act would be morally justified.

Remember, catholic moral theology is not arbitrary. It is based on underlying principles. Understanding the principles is always better than memorizing the rules. It isn’t the condom that is evil, it is the degradation that it causes to human sexuality that is evil. Blow it up and twist it into an animal shape all you want!

Good post, MM.

The argument has been made by some Catholic theologians that using a condom in a drunken “hookup” by a married man with another woman isn’t really an act of contraception.

 

[TrueLight]

I would hope that if a Catholic husband who does not use condoms decides to cheat, that he might as well sin all the way and use a condom with the mistress.

 

[manualman]

Good post, MM.

The argument has been made by some Catholic theologians that using a condom in a drunken “hookup” by a married man with another woman isn’t really an act of contraception.

A married man intending on infidelity and wondering if he compounds his sin with a condom is morally rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic.

 

[sipuf]

A rapist asking his victim if she desires a condom is highly improbable. After all he would be simultaneously dehumanizing (i.e. raping) and respecting (i.e. asking a preference) the victim. However for argument sake we will assume the rapist is utterly insane…

When a married couple contracepts, they not only sever the procreative function, but damage the unitive one as well.

This is the correct interpretation.

When a rape victim begs a rapist to use a condom, she isn’t committing an act that degrades her innate sexuality. She is just trying to protect herself from SOME of the harm her attacker is attempting to inflict. There IS no mutual loving relationship there to be degraded by the act of contraception. However unrealistic the scenario, it would not be a sin. Similarly if there exists (and I’m no expert) a spermicidal treatment that a rape victim could take after the fact that doesn’t also have lethal effects on zygotes, that protective act would be morally justified.

This is partly true but it ignores the creative function of coitus. If the rapist is using a condom, he is committing an additional sin for he is blocking the natural forces that God has designed.

Furthermore rape is clearly a sin and is never virtuous under any conditions. If a man rejects God’s will and rapes, then he sinning. It is important note that unprotected rape does not necessarily result in pregnancy or the spread of STDs. If after rape, God determines that it is within His providence for the victim to bear a child or contract an STD, then that is what will happen. Likewise if He determines His providence does not include the victim bare a child or contract an STD, then it won’t happen.

Under the premises of the catholic church, it is sinful for a rapist to use a condom.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Only if, you are a noncelibate SSA man with HIV/AIDS selling yourself in acts of prostitution with no intent of stopping this activity or lifestyle.

The immoral use of a condom in that situation is the lesser of two evils - the greater evil being the continued spread of HIV/AIDS through unprotected homosexual prostitution.

How is the use of a condom in that case any sort of additional evil?

Condoms (the product) are not evil. The use of a condom to contracept is an evil. But, with same sex “sex” there is no possibility of conception so the condom is not a contraceptive.

Right?