C
cathgal
Guest
Duhhhhhh!!! You think I want to get AIDS or what!!
- Status
F
felra
Guest
I second that Duhhhhhh!!! …a no brainer …follow what the Church lovingly teaches, and you are at **no **risk of getting Aids.Duhhhhhh!!! You think I want to get AIDS or what!!
M
marinebiogurl04
Guest
I am not Catholic, but next year I am planing on doing RCIA. This year I was exposed to the Catholic view on contraception and I didn’t really understand it or agree with it because I grew up with an acceptance for it. I myself had already made the descion to wait until marrige, but condoms seemed ok to me. But this past year as I started to learn more about the Catholic faith and the reasons behind the teaching it all started to make sense. NFP is the way to go. People should be able to abstain from sex in that part of the womans cycle. You’re abstaining right now, people do it all the time. Using a condom is denying yourself of God’s gift. And as for STDs, if you fallow the Church’s teachings and wait until marrige, then you don’t have to worry about them. I am still learning about this, but I think that’s the general idea.
S
space_ghost
Guest
…i guess it all depends on what you use them for…
…fill those puppies with water, and “viola” a wepon of self defense!
http://www.shimodate-th.ed.jp/image/fw04s.jpg
…fill those puppies with water, and “viola” a wepon of self defense!
http://www.shimodate-th.ed.jp/image/fw04s.jpg
D
didymus
Guest
Tantum ergo:
In such circumstances, failure to use a condom is tantamount to “felony murder” in addition to fornication (or adultery, depending on your marital status).
Maybe, but once you decide to sin (say pick up a woman in a bar for carnal purposes) you have an obligation not to pile one evil upon another, i.e., to avoid conception (and potentially, abortion) and to prevent the spread of a possibly fatal disease.
In such circumstances, failure to use a condom is tantamount to “felony murder” in addition to fornication (or adultery, depending on your marital status).
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Reading through some of these responses has been very interesting. I can agree with the argument that a condom can be seen as a sign of the reduction of the sex act to mere carnality–but even so it is only that: a sign. The sin, it seems to me, lies not in the use of the condom, but in the giving over of the self to carnality. Whether or not the act results in or is open to children does not redeem the initial sin of carnality. And this raises some points, I think:
If sex, in order to be virtuous, must be open to conception, would not even the rhythm method be considered sinful, if it is engaged in to reduce the chances of offspring, with the hope that a child not be conceived? Is not that hope, then, sinful? Does simply having that hope reduce the act to mere carnality?
If it is possible to engage in a sexual act without the sin of concupiscence–i.e., if it is possible to view the sex act as a mutual act of sharing love and affection–is this enough for it be virtuous (assuming it occurs within wedlock)? Or is it the possibility of conception what makes the sex act virtuous (assuming that no obstacles have been placed in the way of virtue–lust being an obstacle)? Is sex after menopause virtuous? Or because post-menopausal sex is closed to childbirth, is it a sin?
Is it ever possible to use a condom (which is by nature amoral, being an object) to prevent the spread of life-threatening diseases as its primary purpose? Particularly if not using a condom would present the risk of death? If a condom is not used in such a situation and the death of one of the partners and or any resulting child occurs, can the sin of those deaths be related to not using the condom? Particularly if use of a condom was an option?
If a woman is forced to have sex against her will, is it within her rights to attempt (however unsuccessful she may be) to convince her assailant to use a condom, particularly if its use would prevent her from contracting HIV? Or is even the suggestion sinful?
If it is clear, given the persistence of human weakness, that disease and death are proliferating through the engagement of illicit sex without condoms, that children and their parents are dying because of it, would it ever be permissible to sanction the use of condoms to preserve life IF ONLY to preserve it long enough in the hope that those thus preserved will have the opportunity to live a more grace-filled life?
Just some questions I have. It seems many people have made up their minds on the subject, citing church doctrine left and right. I do not think, however, that doctrine is as unforgiving or as unmerciful as so many paint it–or as so many appear to want it to be. I am not asking for doctrine to be permissive–but I also do not think that it is right for anyone to use doctrine as a tool of death. If we wish to claim to belong to a Culture of Life, I think it is incumbent upon us to preserve life in whatever way we can–and, paradoxically enough, I think condoms should be part of this discussion until it is clear that the discussion does not need to be had.
Just my two cents.
–Mark
Deo Gratias!
Reading through some of these responses has been very interesting. I can agree with the argument that a condom can be seen as a sign of the reduction of the sex act to mere carnality–but even so it is only that: a sign. The sin, it seems to me, lies not in the use of the condom, but in the giving over of the self to carnality. Whether or not the act results in or is open to children does not redeem the initial sin of carnality. And this raises some points, I think:
If sex, in order to be virtuous, must be open to conception, would not even the rhythm method be considered sinful, if it is engaged in to reduce the chances of offspring, with the hope that a child not be conceived? Is not that hope, then, sinful? Does simply having that hope reduce the act to mere carnality?
If it is possible to engage in a sexual act without the sin of concupiscence–i.e., if it is possible to view the sex act as a mutual act of sharing love and affection–is this enough for it be virtuous (assuming it occurs within wedlock)? Or is it the possibility of conception what makes the sex act virtuous (assuming that no obstacles have been placed in the way of virtue–lust being an obstacle)? Is sex after menopause virtuous? Or because post-menopausal sex is closed to childbirth, is it a sin?
Is it ever possible to use a condom (which is by nature amoral, being an object) to prevent the spread of life-threatening diseases as its primary purpose? Particularly if not using a condom would present the risk of death? If a condom is not used in such a situation and the death of one of the partners and or any resulting child occurs, can the sin of those deaths be related to not using the condom? Particularly if use of a condom was an option?
If a woman is forced to have sex against her will, is it within her rights to attempt (however unsuccessful she may be) to convince her assailant to use a condom, particularly if its use would prevent her from contracting HIV? Or is even the suggestion sinful?
If it is clear, given the persistence of human weakness, that disease and death are proliferating through the engagement of illicit sex without condoms, that children and their parents are dying because of it, would it ever be permissible to sanction the use of condoms to preserve life IF ONLY to preserve it long enough in the hope that those thus preserved will have the opportunity to live a more grace-filled life?
Just some questions I have. It seems many people have made up their minds on the subject, citing church doctrine left and right. I do not think, however, that doctrine is as unforgiving or as unmerciful as so many paint it–or as so many appear to want it to be. I am not asking for doctrine to be permissive–but I also do not think that it is right for anyone to use doctrine as a tool of death. If we wish to claim to belong to a Culture of Life, I think it is incumbent upon us to preserve life in whatever way we can–and, paradoxically enough, I think condoms should be part of this discussion until it is clear that the discussion does not need to be had.
Just my two cents.
–Mark
Deo Gratias!
S
snowgarden
Guest
I know someone who was pregnant 3 times whose spouse had herpes…she used them just in case to protect her unborn children and I don’t blame her.
P
Pro-Life_Teen
Guest
If you use a condom, it is only mutual masturbation. You are not giving yourself totally to your spouse. After you are wed, you are one flesh with your husband/wife. Using any form of contraception says that ‘I give you myself… except for my fertility.’
Fertility is not an illness, and children are not tumors.
Fertility is not an illness, and children are not tumors.
U
urbana
Guest
First, I agree with Catholic moral theology on the issue, but thought I would post a humorous “exception” to condoms being forbidden.
That being said, I may be one of the few individuals on this forum who for a while could have had a legitimate reason to use a condom (though not in the manner you probably expect). I happen to be a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician, and for a while standard practice for treating a specific lung injury was to insert a syringe needle into the chest, with the needle inserted through a condom (standard drugstore variety) which would act as a one-way valve. (There are now specially made devices that function better.) Therefore, I must admit that I have personally used a condom once, in said fashion in EMT training.
However, I don’t think that was what the original poster was referring to…
That being said, I may be one of the few individuals on this forum who for a while could have had a legitimate reason to use a condom (though not in the manner you probably expect). I happen to be a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician, and for a while standard practice for treating a specific lung injury was to insert a syringe needle into the chest, with the needle inserted through a condom (standard drugstore variety) which would act as a one-way valve. (There are now specially made devices that function better.) Therefore, I must admit that I have personally used a condom once, in said fashion in EMT training.
However, I don’t think that was what the original poster was referring to…
G
Genesis315
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean here about using a condom to protect the unborn children.
Anyway, abstinence would be called for if she did not want to contract the STD.
F
ffinch
Guest
Definately no.
I understand that this topic is very difficult for many married couples to cope with. But, the Church’s teaching on this topic is very clear. To frustrate the will of God with regard to procreation is selfish and intrinsically evil.
Putting it another way, by using barriers like condoms, a married man is simply objectifying his wife. He is not giving completely of himself to her.
I understand that this topic is very difficult for many married couples to cope with. But, the Church’s teaching on this topic is very clear. To frustrate the will of God with regard to procreation is selfish and intrinsically evil.
Putting it another way, by using barriers like condoms, a married man is simply objectifying his wife. He is not giving completely of himself to her.
C
coralewisjr
Guest
You are exactly right!! BTW Kerri, I feel your pain. I had sex with two men outside of marriage and I used to regret that. Now I just pray for both of them and for those who are sexually tempted so they will serve God and others better than I did.
Please read these three webpages about the contraceptive mentality and abortion:
dashjr.is-a-geek.org/~cora-jr/chaste/civil.html (I haven’t worked on this for a while)
dashjr.is-a-geek.org/~cora-jr/chaste/fcta.html
dashjr.is-a-geek.org/~cora-jr/chaste/legacy.html
I also recommend reading Judie Brown’s autobiography, “It Is I Who Have Chosen You” (1997).
my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
H
Holly3278
Guest
No, you shouldn’t use them.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I think a lot of the assumptions here assume two things: a universal sharing of Catholic morality, and an assumption of the best possible conditions. Let me explain–
To insist that folks in countries in which 1 out of 5 people have HIV, and in which practices such as “sexual cleansing” occur–the custom in which a widow must submit to sex with her late husband’s relatives–to insist that these folks not use condoms is really quite destructive. Even from the point of view of evangelisation, it’s much easier to save someone’s soul if they are alive than if they’re dead, and insisting that people in a society which does not share our sexual mores court death by not using condoms is rather uncharitable. I am not suggesting that condoms be presented to anyone as an ideal, or that they be forced on anyone. But it seems to me that it would be a sin not to make them available to people when there is such a crisis, when it does mean the difference between life and death. This is not to suggest that there is a plurality of acceptable social or sexual mores, but it is to suggest that if we are going to expect others to live according to our moral codes, they must first be alive in order to do so.
–Mark
Deo Gratias!
I think a lot of the assumptions here assume two things: a universal sharing of Catholic morality, and an assumption of the best possible conditions. Let me explain–
To insist that folks in countries in which 1 out of 5 people have HIV, and in which practices such as “sexual cleansing” occur–the custom in which a widow must submit to sex with her late husband’s relatives–to insist that these folks not use condoms is really quite destructive. Even from the point of view of evangelisation, it’s much easier to save someone’s soul if they are alive than if they’re dead, and insisting that people in a society which does not share our sexual mores court death by not using condoms is rather uncharitable. I am not suggesting that condoms be presented to anyone as an ideal, or that they be forced on anyone. But it seems to me that it would be a sin not to make them available to people when there is such a crisis, when it does mean the difference between life and death. This is not to suggest that there is a plurality of acceptable social or sexual mores, but it is to suggest that if we are going to expect others to live according to our moral codes, they must first be alive in order to do so.
–Mark
Deo Gratias!
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
I find it helpful to examine some things that the Church teaches that are seemingly contradictory. Yet real close examination reveals an important truth.
There is an underlying factor that connects these Church teachings.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
There is an underlying factor that connects these Church teachings.
- It is morally acceptable to neuter a dog.
- It is morally acceptable to artificially inseminate dairy cattle
- It is morally acceptable to clone sheep.
- It is morally acceptable to kill a pig.
- It is NOT morally acceptable for a man to get a vasectomy
- It is NOT morally acceptable to use invitro fertilization for humans.
- It is NOT morally acceptable to clone humans
- It is NOT morally acceptable murder a human.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
Human life is Sacred.
J
juancross
Guest
Africas aids situation was ignored for far too long, i love the human race and if the condom would have helped to prevent the sorrow that followed i would not have had a problem, if any of us seen first hand the sadness and destruction of this disease would we think harder.Sometimes its hard to be honest with yourself in these delicate matters, i respect all thats been said on this matter most of it excellently put.Please God let Thy Will be done. God Bless
S
Saint_Andrew
Guest
Dear All
If a person as strong self control, then much fruit will grow. A true Christian Catholic should enable to resist the temptation of using one.
God Bless
Saint Andrew.
If a person as strong self control, then much fruit will grow. A true Christian Catholic should enable to resist the temptation of using one.
God Bless
Saint Andrew.
F
felra
Guest
God’s perfect will is expressed through the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals. It takes hard effort sometimes to well inform one’s conscience that one may choose what is right and essential for one’s soul. Seeing realities through the full lens of the spiritual and temporal is a grace and gift from God Himself.
Thy Will be done****]**** – This was the prayer of Jesus Himself (Matt. 26:39) as He agonized over what He fore knew would be the outrageous destruction to His body (temple) and chose to do His father’s perfect and holy will (against human reasoning).
J
juancross
Guest
Very beautifully said, my heart and soul wants what is right for this world i shall pray hard thankyou and God Bless you.
P
PLAL
Guest
If you want a Catholic Answer to your question, then read …
3 Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.”
9
Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.
- Humanae Vitae
- “Contraception Why Not” by Dr. Janet Smith catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
- The Sin of Onan in the Bible
Sin of Onan: Genesis 38 (8-10)
3 Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.”
9
Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.
- Status