Condoms (not as contraceptive)

[Christopher68]

Janet Smith just published an article in OSV on the subject of contraception. She mentions her position on the question as to whether or not a married couple can use condoms to prevent disease transmission.

“Let me contest the claim the spouses can use a condom and not be contracepting. I believe it to be true and I believe that it is consistent with traditional Thomistic analysis of the moral act to say that the intention of the agent is not the sole or chief determinant of the object of an act… Some “objects” have a per se nature and thus when an agent chooses that act, he chooses all that is included in the nature of that act.”

“An HIV-infected husband using a condom is performing an act that has the per se consequence of preventing conception. He is attempting to prevent semen from entering the vagina: That is by its very nature a conception-preventing action. The means the husband chooses to prevent transmission of the HIV is essentially a means that directly involves an act contraceptive by its nature. One cannot choose a bad means to a good end. The husband has a good end: that of wanting to reduce risk of transmission of a lethal disease, but he is using a means that necessarily has a contraceptive effect. He must intend and therefore must choose that consequence, a consequence that violates the very purpose of the sexual act. Although the husband may not want to violate the procreative purpose of the act he must in fact desire and intend that semen not enter the vagina and that is per se contraceptive. Thus it is immoral to participate in such an action.”

osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7298/A-response-to-Father-Rhonheimer-on-condoms.aspx

The issue I have with blanket statements such as the one above is that they often ignore real world situations. For instance, let’s say that a young married couple just discovered that one of them contracted HIV through a blood transfusion. So instead of wearing a condom to prevent HIV transmission to their spouse - you are saying that they must either risk the danger of transmitting HIV, or abstain from sex altogether for the rest of their lives - not good choices by any standard.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The issue I have with blanket statements such as the one above is that they often ignore real world situations. For instance, let’s say that a young married couple just discovered that one of them contracted HIV through a blood transfusion. So instead of wearing a condom to prevent HIV transmission to their spouse - you are saying that they must either risk the danger of transmitting HIV, or abstain from sex altogether for the rest of their lives - not good choices by any standard.

Ummm. Suppose that this young married couple had one spouse in a motor vehicle accident–or diving accident. Uh-oh–instant paralysis, inability to have sex.

So. . .what then?

You see, the vows are ‘for better or for worse’. Not, “only if we’re able to have sex.”
The problem seems to be that it is assumed that provided the person is physically ABLE to have sex, he or she MUST do so --even if it involves using something intrinsically against the procreative aspect in order to do so.

Here’s another. Suppose one spouse suffers a traumatic event which leaves the spouse emotionally averse to sex (even with much patience, counseling, and treatment.) What now? Do we ignore the emotional distress (because the person is PHYSICALLY capable–and insist on sex?

Funnily enough, the ‘real world scenarios’ never seem to adequately address issues of inability to have sex, either physically or emotionally. In fact, it seems to be a ‘deal breaker’ in that the other spouse is encouraged by most of the people who are all for ‘condom use’ as above to LEAVE such a marriage. Oh no, your spouse ‘won’t’ (can’t) have sex with you, well, you’re entitled to it and if you don’t get it, the marriage is OFF, they say.

What then is really the ‘point’ of marriage? Sex is important but one does not ‘die’ from not having it. . .even if one is married to a loving spouse, If marriage is really for love, the love won’t die because it can’t be expressed in sexual intercourse.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The issue I have with blanket statements such as the one above is that they often ignore real world situations. For instance, let’s say that a young married couple just discovered that one of them contracted HIV through a blood transfusion. So instead of wearing a condom to prevent HIV transmission to their spouse - you are saying that they must either risk the danger of transmitting HIV, or abstain from sex altogether for the rest of their lives - not good choices by any standard.

The morality of an act is not determined solely by the consequences, no matter how good or bad those consequences may be. To be moral, an act must have three good fonts: intention, moral object, circumstances.

“The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 52)

“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

 

[Christopher68]

The morality of an act is not determined solely by the consequences, no matter how good or bad those consequences may be. To be moral, an act must have three good fonts: intention, moral object, circumstances.

“The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 52)

“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

Ron, I’ve read your comments before on this forum, and invariably a number of forum members are quick to point out that your comments do not reflect official church teaching. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but I’ve noticed this quite often.

It is always better if someone consults their priest with any questions they may have, rather than relying on any one us on this forum.

 

[Christopher68]

Ummm. Suppose that this young married couple had one spouse in a motor vehicle accident–or diving accident. Uh-oh–instant paralysis, inability to have sex.

So. . .what then?

You see, the vows are ‘for better or for worse’. Not, “only if we’re able to have sex.”
The problem seems to be that it is assumed that provided the person is physically ABLE to have sex, he or she MUST do so --even if it involves using something intrinsically against the procreative aspect in order to do so.

Here’s another. Suppose one spouse suffers a traumatic event which leaves the spouse emotionally averse to sex (even with much patience, counseling, and treatment.) What now? Do we ignore the emotional distress (because the person is PHYSICALLY capable–and insist on sex?

Funnily enough, the ‘real world scenarios’ never seem to adequately address issues of inability to have sex, either physically or emotionally. In fact, it seems to be a ‘deal breaker’ in that the other spouse is encouraged by most of the people who are all for ‘condom use’ as above to LEAVE such a marriage. Oh no, your spouse ‘won’t’ (can’t) have sex with you, well, you’re entitled to it and if you don’t get it, the marriage is OFF, they say.

What then is really the ‘point’ of marriage? Sex is important but one does not ‘die’ from not having it. . .even if one is married to a loving spouse, If marriage is really for love, the love won’t die because it can’t be expressed in sexual intercourse.

As you have indicated, there are a number of “what if” type of questions that can be raised, and the scenarios you have presented each have their different challenges. However, none of the scenarios you mention provide an answer to the potential scenario that I described.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The morality of human acts depends on: the **object **chosen; the end in view or the intention; the **circumstances **of the action. The object, the intention, and the **circumstances **make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.”

Compendium of the Catechism: “The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the **object **chosen, either a true or apparent good; the **intention **of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the **circumstances **of the act, which include its consequences.”

USCCB Catechism: "Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or **intention **(why we do the act), and the concrete situation or **circumstances **in which we perform the act… **All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective **intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act."

Pope John Paul II: “These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that ‘there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object’.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80; inner quote is from Pope John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, n. 17.)

Pope John Paul II: “It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behavior is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbor.”’ (Veritatis Splendor, n. 52.)

Pope John Paul II: “But the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behavior is ‘according to its species,’ or ‘in itself,’ morally good or bad, licit or illicit.** The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.**” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 77.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

 

[edward42]

no. First, the condom is not 100% effective. Second, it would also have a role in preventing pregnancy. Thus, it separates the procreative aspect from the uniative aspect of sex, which is morally wrong.

Certainly our prayers would be with this woman and her family, and certainly we as christians would along with prayers work toward getting her the medications she would need to help her live as long and productive a life as possible.

Sex is a great gift of the lord. . .but i’m here to tell you nobody ever died of its’ ‘lack’, not even after decades.

i did

 

[ilovegod42]

i did

Well you’re going to hell mate.