Gay men and condom use

[dcana]

Before I ask the question, I’ll make some things clear:

1. I believe homosexual activity is a grave sin against God and nature. There is nothing more depraved that two men could do to each others’ bodies.
2. I understand and accept that the use of artificial contraception (between persons of the opposite sex, married or not) is intrinsically evil. IMO, the use of ABC is the root cause of untold suffering and death and 90% of the problems we see in our society today.
3. I do not think that condoms are a solution to the spread of HIV or other STDs. They: 1. Are not 100% effective and 2. provide a false sense of security and encourage more sexual activity and promiscuity, resulting in - on the contrary - the spread of STDs like HIV.

Having said all that, why is it the teaching of the Church that condom use by gay men, having what they call “sex”, is not allowed? ABC is not allowed when a man and a woman have sex because, to put it simply, it goes against the designs of God and nature for sexual relations between a husband and a wife in artificially separating the two purposes of sex: procreation and the unification of the persons. Properly speaking, two persons of the same sex cannot have sexual intercourse. They can engage in depraved genital sexual activity but what two men or two women do is not sexual intercourse. There is no possibility of the generation of life, so there is no procreative aspect to this behavior to frustrate, and the unitive aspect is…well, let’s just say, false.

So why is condom use morally illicit by two gay men? (not that even 100% consistent and perfect use (which nobody does anyway plus there is the breakage factor) would protect them from STDs over time).

Thanks

 

[Gorgias]

Having said all that, why is it the teaching of the Church that condom use by gay men, having what they call “sex”, is not allowed?

Is that the teaching of the Church? Maybe you have a citation in mind?

So why is condom use morally illicit by two gay men? (not that even 100% consistent and perfect use (which nobody does anyway plus there is the breakage factor) would protect them from STDs over time).

So, just brainstorming… let me ask you a question: would it be morally licit for a person to take an action that encourages or facilitates him to engage (with greater frequency) in other morally illicit activities?

 

[Thorolfr]

1. I do not think that condoms are a solution to the spread of HIV or other STDs. They: 1. Are not 100% effective and 2. provide a false sense of security and encourage more sexual activity and promiscuity, resulting in - on the contrary - the spread of STDs like HIV.

That’s interesting logic. So should people not brush their teeth since it’s probably not going to be 100% effective and they might still get a cavity? And of course brushing one’s teeth might give them a false sense of security and encourage them to eat candy and other things that cause cavities.

How about wearing a seat belt? It’s not 100% effective in preventing death in a car accident, so should we all just skip using seat belts?

 

[dcana]

Is that the teaching of the Church? Maybe you have a citation in mind?

I thought that it was. Maybe I’m wrong. I have no citation.

So, just brainstorming… let me ask you a question: would it be morally licit for a person to take an action that encourages or facilitates him to engage (with greater frequency) in other morally illicit activities?

Clearly no.

 

[dcana]

That’s interesting logic. So should people not brush their teeth since it’s probably not going to be 100% effective and they might still get a cavity? And of course brushing one’s teeth might give them a false sense of security and encourage them to eat candy and other things that cause cavities.

How about wearing a seat belt? It’s not 100% effective in preventing death in a car accident, so should we all just skip using seat belts?

Brushing one’s teeth and driving are things we must do and - more to the point - are quite morally licit. Having sexual relations with people with whom we are not married is something we must not do and should not be encouraged to do. It’s a sin called fornication, sodomy, and/or adultery, as the case may be.

If you follow the Law of God, you have 0% chance of contracting an STD or 0% chance of having a child out of wedlock. That’s the idea. Abstinence. It’s really not hard to figure out.

 

[e_c]

That’s interesting logic. So should people not brush their teeth since it’s probably not going to be 100% effective and they might still get a cavity? And of course brushing one’s teeth might give them a false sense of security and encourage them to eat candy and other things that cause cavities.

How about wearing a seat belt? It’s not 100% effective in preventing death in a car accident, so should we all just skip using seat belts?

If the OP sees this as the extent of why this is not allowed, he has an impoverished view of the issue. It’s wrong for the same reason as normal contraception, even though it is not being used AS contraception per se… It still reorders one’s sexual faculty away from its purpose.

As for the original question, I too would like to see some sort of document about this. It seems like it is a non-issue.

 

[dcana]

If the OP sees this as the extent of why this is not allowed, he has an impoverished view of the issue. It’s wrong for the same reason as normal contraception, even though it is not being used AS contraception per se… It still reorders one’s sexual faculty away from its purpose.

How could their use in this case possibly be wrong for the same reason as normal contraceptive use, given what I said above? The reordering of one’s sexual faculty away from its purpose is in the act of having homosexual sex, condom use or no condom use.

It seems like it is a non-issue.

Maybe so.

 

[Thorolfr]

Brushing one’s teeth and driving are things we **must **do

It’s probably a good idea to brush your teeth but I don’t think that it’s absolutely required. And someone could walk everywhere they went or ride public transportation, so driving and wearing seat belts aren’t necessarily required either. There are lots of people in the world who don’t have or drive cars.

 

[Rau]

…So why is condom use morally illicit by two gay men? (not that even 100% consistent and perfect use (which nobody does anyway plus there is the breakage factor) would protect them from STDs over time).

On what do you base the view that the Church opposes, specifically, the use of condoms by 2 men engaging in sexual activity. What moral wrong would the use of condoms in such a context constitute?

 

[dcana]

It’s probably a good idea to brush your teeth but I don’t think that it’s absolutely required. And someone could walk everywhere they went or ride public transportation, so driving and wearing seat belts aren’t necessarily required either. There are lots of people in the world who don’t have or drive cars.

True - they are not things we absolutely ‘must’ do. The important point is that they are morally licit things to do. I made a mistake in saying we “must” brush our teeth and drive (meaning things most of us pretty much have to do to keep our teeth healthy in the one case and “in today’s modern world” in the other) and then contrasting it with having sexual relations with people with whom we are not married as something we “must not” do (in the sense of it is wrong to do so). I used two different meanings of “must”. Sorry about that. The first “must” is just something most of us have to do and is not absolute. The second, negative one is something none of us should do because it violates God’s Law and is absolute.

Absolutely.

 

[dcana]

On what do you base the view that the Church opposes, specifically, the use of condoms by 2 men engaging in sexual activity.

I base my view on the fact that I thought it was so.

What moral wrong would the use of condoms in such a context constitute?

That’s what I was wondering.

 

[dcana]

So, just brainstorming… let me ask you a question: would it be morally licit for a person to take an action that encourages or facilitates him to engage (with greater frequency) in other morally illicit activities?

No, as I was saying. From Humanae Vitae 17, regarding the use of artificial methods of birth control:

“Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.”

But is that the only reason?

 

[Rau]

No, as I was saying. From Humanae Vitae 17, regarding the use of artificial methods of birth control:

“Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.”

But is that the only reason?

That just says it is evil to support another in breaking the moral law.

 

[Rau]

If the OP sees this as the extent of why this is not allowed, he has an impoverished view of the issue. It’s wrong for the same reason as normal contraception, even though it is not being used AS contraception per se… It still reorders one’s sexual faculty away from its purpose.

In the case of two men, the inclusion of a condom in the context of their sexual acts has no moral meaning whatsoever. That which might be “broken” by inclusion of the condom is not there to be broken in the context of 2 men.

If one uses the condom to encourage the other to do wrong, then the former does wrong by his encouragement, not in the actual act of condom usage. Arguably, absent the condom, sexual sin is being committed in the heart, even if no sexual acts occur, by virtue of a willingness to proceed, were a condom available.

 

[Corki]

On what do you base the view that the Church opposes, specifically, the use of condoms by 2 men engaging in sexual activity. What moral wrong would the use of condoms in such a context constitute?

This is my question too.

The Church opposes condom use based on two concepts. 1) as contraception or 2) as a barrier to the life affirming uinion of a man and wife.

Two men having sex with each other is morally wrong in all cases. Using a condom while doing so does not make the act more or less wrong.

 

[thistle]

Before I ask the question, I’ll make some things clear:

1. I believe homosexual activity is a grave sin against God and nature. There is nothing more depraved that two men could do to each others’ bodies.
2. I understand and accept that the use of artificial contraception (between persons of the opposite sex, married or not) is intrinsically evil. IMO, the use of ABC is the root cause of untold suffering and death and 90% of the problems we see in our society today.
3. I do not think that condoms are a solution to the spread of HIV or other STDs. They: 1. Are not 100% effective and 2. provide a false sense of security and encourage more sexual activity and promiscuity, resulting in - on the contrary - the spread of STDs like HIV.

Having said all that, **why is it the teaching of the Church that condom use by gay men, **having what they call “sex”, is not allowed? ABC is not allowed when a man and a woman have sex because, to put it simply, it goes against the designs of God and nature for sexual relations between a husband and a wife in artificially separating the two purposes of sex: procreation and the unification of the persons. Properly speaking, two persons of the same sex cannot have sexual intercourse. They can engage in depraved genital sexual activity but what two men or two women do is not sexual intercourse. There is no possibility of the generation of life, so there is no procreative aspect to this behavior to frustrate, and the unitive aspect is…well, let’s just say, false.

So why is condom use morally illicit by two gay men? (not that even 100% consistent and perfect use (which nobody does anyway plus there is the breakage factor) would protect them from STDs over time).

Thanks

The Church does NOT teach that.

 

[dcana]

Honestly confused here please clarify. The Catholic church teachings on artificial birth control are all specific to married couples only.

The Catholic church doesn’t have an official teaching on artificial birth control for lesbians, people living out-of-wedlock, gay men, people in multiple-relationships or any of the above because those people are not supposed to be having sexual relationships in the first place.

See posts 4 and 11.

It was something that didn’t make sense to me and by the responses here it seems it wasn’t true in the first place.

Thank you for your response.

 

[e_c]

How could their use in this case possibly be wrong for the same reason as normal contraceptive use, given what I said above? The reordering of one’s sexual faculty away from its purpose is in the act of having homosexual sex, condom use or no condom use.

All of a sudden this has become a hot topic. I’ve posted several times about this in the past 24 hours. One more.

In response to this:

1. I do not think that condoms are a solution to the spread of HIV or other STDs. They: 1. Are not 100% effective and 2. provide a false sense of security and encourage more sexual activity and promiscuity, resulting in - on the contrary - the spread of STDs like HIV.

AND

That’s interesting logic. So should people not brush their teeth since it’s probably not going to be 100% effective and they might still get a cavity? And of course brushing one’s teeth might give them a false sense of security and encourage them to eat candy and other things that cause cavities.

How about wearing a seat belt? It’s not 100% effective in preventing death in a car accident, so should we all just skip using seat belts?

I said:

If the OP sees this as the extent of why this is not allowed, he has an impoverished view of the issue. It’s wrong for the same reason as normal contraception, even though it is not being used AS contraception per se… It still reorders one’s sexual faculty away from its purpose.

Use of a barrier to prevent AIDS is unjustifiable. In doing so one reorders the sexual faculty away from one of its primary purposes, procreation, by attempting to destroy the MEANS of conception (as distinguished from trying to destroy the possibility of conception, which is simply the next link in the metaphysical chain). It is therefore a direct affront against God, who uses this means at His discretion, to bring new life into the world. It just so happens that the intent is different from normal contraception, and it is a good intent (avoiding AIDS or Zika or syphilis), just as normal contraception can be for a good intent (avoiding a pregnancy one can’t handle well at this point in life).

As for the morality of condom use between men, B16 mentioned this in Light of the World, didn’t he? It is healthier, so it implies one is beginning to have some minimal care for the other. FWIW.

 

[Thorolfr]

Use of a barrier to prevent AIDS is unjustifiable. In doing so one reorders the sexual faculty away from one of its primary purposes, procreation, by attempting to destroy the MEANS of conception (as distinguished from trying to destroy the possibility of conception, which is simply the next link in the metaphysical chain). It is therefore a direct affront against God, who uses this means at His discretion, to bring new life into the world. It just so happens that the intent is different from normal contraception, and it is a good intent (avoiding AIDS or Zika or syphilis), just as normal contraception can be for a good intent (avoiding a pregnancy one can’t handle well at this point in life).

So it’s better to not use a condom when there is a risk of AIDS or Zika because procreation is more important even if one gets infected with AIDS or Zika in the process?

 

[dcana]

Use of a barrier to prevent AIDS is unjustifiable. In doing so one reorders the sexual faculty away from one of its primary purposes, procreation, by attempting to destroy the MEANS of conception (as distinguished from trying to destroy the possibility of conception, which is simply the next link in the metaphysical chain). It is therefore a direct affront against God, who uses this means at His discretion, to bring new life into the world. It just so happens that the intent is different from normal contraception, and it is a good intent (avoiding AIDS or Zika or syphilis), just as normal contraception can be for a good intent (avoiding a pregnancy one can’t handle well at this point in life).

As for the morality of condom use between men, B16 mentioned this in Light of the World, didn’t he? It is healthier, so it implies one is beginning to have some minimal care for the other. FWIW.

I was only considering their use between gay men. To quote myself, “I understand and accept that the use of artificial contraception (between persons of the opposite sex, married or not) is intrinsically evil. IMO, the use of ABC is the root cause of untold suffering and death and 90% of the problems we see in our society today.”

According to Monicad, I was wrong to say “married or not”. According to her, “The Catholic church teachings on artificial birth control are all specific to married couples only. The Catholic church doesn’t have an official teaching on artificial birth control for lesbians, people living out-of-wedlock, gay men, people in multiple-relationships or any of the above because those people are not supposed to be having sexual relationships in the first place.”