Infertile couple with condom...forbidden?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Newbie2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Newbie2

Guest
Before anyone jumps on me, no, I’m not trying to wriggle out of Church teaching on contraception, and yes, this an unusual manufactured situation for the sake of discussion. I’d like to see what comes out of this scenario:

Married couple; wife has ovariohysterectomy. Wife is prone to vaginal infections, which are lessened/eliminated by use of a condom by her husband.

Is a condom use prohibited or not in this scenario, since it is not being used as a contraceptive and is being used as a “medical” device?
 
I would be inclined to say no.

Since the moral opposition of condoms stems from the decreased openness to conceiving a child, and this couple is already unable to conceive a child short of a miracle, the moral qualms seem to be rendered moot.

This question seems to be along the lines of women who use birth control pills for pure medical reasons, such as hormone regulation.

A very interesting question. This should be an interesting discussion.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen
 
Not positive but… since Life is not a factor here (no chance of getting pregnant anyway) I would say that it would be ok.

JMHO

Paul
 
How about if the woman is post menopausal, therefore unable to concieve any longer. Can a condom be used as prevention against a communicable disease the husband has?

Or would this still be a sin?
 
I’d say yes to the OP,

but no to the guy who followed up with the post-menopausal wife and husband with the STD. Condoms really aren’t very reliable for preventing STD transmission. Not very charitable to play Russian Roulette with one’s wife with a few less bullets in the revolver…
 
I woud say that it wouldn’t really matter. Especially in the case of a hysterectomy, since there is NO CHANCE of conception, since there is no place for the child to grow, and no chance of ovulation.

Although one could question the “withholding” factor, when it comes to openness to life, this is obviously beyond a moot point.

I can say though, that if one is worried about infection, there are things a woman can do to lessen her chances. If it’s a bladder infection, she can drink more cranberry juice, eat healthier, and make sure she urinates/showers after intercourse. If it’s a yeast infection, eating more yogurt and avoiding anti-bacterials and using a mild, unscented soap is a good prevention method. A condom wouldn’t necessarily help the situation, especially since there is a chance to an allergic reaction to latex. (And if she’s prone to infection, putting all the chemicals that come on condoms can’t be good either)

I think there isn’t anything morally wrong with it, but I think using a condom in the marriage act is more trouble than it’s worth when there are dietary and hygeine prevention methods than can be done that are far easier, and ultimately healthier for the woman. Especially since these are helping her body work better 🙂 Oh!! also, excercise and eating right can help boost her body’s defenses, always a good thing!
 
If there is any doubt, then they should not use the condom. Doubting is a red flag from our conscience. Or, they could consult with their priest on this matter.
 
Condom use is never acceptable, even in the situation described by the OP.

Even if there is no chance of conception, the man’s seed must end up inside his wife for the act to be properly ordered. If he were to use a condom, his seed would end up in the trash can, which would violate the sanctity of the ability to create life.
 
Caesar517 said:
…which would violate the sanctity of the ability to create life.
Click to expand...
But with a 100% probability of NOT conceiving with or wothout the condom… they are not blocking the path of life and it wouldn’t matter. The condom is not being used as a contraceptive and as far as it being “a unitive order” , that is not a factor again since life is not a possibility. Perhaps this should be forwarded over to an apologist or to Fr. Serpa for a definitive answer.

Paul
 
The marital act has a meaning. The couple is saying something with their bodies when they engage in it. Condomistic sex damages this meaning.
Jimmy Akin wrote this-
To my mind, the unitive aspect of sex is not just the sense of emotional closeness or shared sexual sensations that the spouses get from the act. They could get such things through mutual masturbation. In order for the unitive aspect of the act to exist, the relevant bits of their anatomy must be united in a specific way.
That doesn’t happen if you put a piece of plastic between them.
What happens in that case is the two people are really uniting themselves to a piece of plastic and not to each other. They are then manipulating the piece of plastic in a way that brings about sexual pleasure and release, which thus appears to turn the conjugal act into an act of mutual masturbation with a piece of plastic in the middle and not a unitive sexual act of husband and wife.
So it seems to me that, regardless of whether double-effect (and self-defense) could make the loss of the procreative aspect of the act tolerable, the destruction of the unitive aspect is something that cannot be gotten around.
Click to expand...
Remember each and every marital act needs to be unitive and procreative in meaning and action. Whether the couple is fertile or not.

William May wrote this-
When spouses choose to use condoms
they change the act they perform from
one of true marital union (the marriage
act) into a different kind of act. The ‘language
of the body’ [to use Pope John
Paul II’s way of speaking] is changed.
In the marital act their bodies speak the
language of a mutual giving and receiving,
the language of an unreserved and
oblative gift. Condomistic intercourse
does not speak this language; it mutilates
the language of the body, and the
act chosen is more similar to masturbation
than it is to the true marital act.
Click to expand...
2

americanpapist.com/ncbq/CondomLetter.pdf
 
Paul2274 said:
But with a 100% probability of NOT conceiving with or wothout the condom… they are not blocking the path of life and it wouldn’t matter. The condom is not being used as a contraceptive and as far as it being “a unitive order” , that is not a factor again since life is not a possibility. Perhaps this should be forwarded over to an apologist or to Fr. Serpa for a definitive answer.

Paul
Click to expand...
How about Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist and Sarah the mother of Isaac. They were both old women when they conceived.
Married couples must always be open to life.
 
thistle said:
How about Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist and Sarah the mother of Isaac. They were both old women when they conceived.
Married couples must always be open to life.
Click to expand...
And they each had had hysterectomies prior to becoming pregnant, right? Honestly, trotting out Elizabeth and Sarah everytime a question about medical infertility - in the absence of a uterus no less ! - comes up sure gets old. I think the OP deserves a more reasoned response than that.

To say that a condom is not allowable in the described circumstance seems tantamount to saying that intimacy after such radical surgery isn’t allowed – which certainly isn’t Church teaching. I can’t believe what the Church - or God - wants is a lifetime of infections for this woman as a price of loving her husband. Post-hysterectomy and post-menopausal are very different situations. Some of these responses seem to come close to demanding that God grow a baby without a uterus, just to prove a point.
 
A condom is not allowed because it separates the procreative aspect of the marital embrace from the unitive. Procreative doesn’t mean fertile, it means the act is unaltered. Even infertile couples can have procreative relations. Reread Seatuck’s post, it’s spot-on!

If the woman is getting infections from the martial embrace, both wife and husband should be seen by a doctor, because something is going on and a doc should be able to correct whatever it is–through meds, hygene discussion or whatever.
 
FM927 said:
How about if the woman is post menopausal, therefore unable to concieve any longer. Can a condom be used as prevention against a communicable disease the husband has?

Or would this still be a sin?
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Elizabeth in advanced years? It can not be known for sure if she is truly infertile, at least without a serious study using NFP. Even then, there has to be the openness to life. Artificial contraception acts as a barrier to that, and is therefore forbidden.

So, in the case of age, I think the argument falls short.

In the case of a hysterectomy, this might be different however.
 
Well, I actually had an issue very similar to this…but it involved the use of birth control pills.

I have PCOS…in 9 years of marriage, I have yet to concieve. My doctor has suggested the pill to help correct some of the hormonal imbalances the PCOS causes…I figure it would be ok because my husband isn’t even in the country right now but I talked to my priest first. Father said that since it was for medical purposes and not to prevent pregnancy (quite the opposite-if we could reverse some of the effects, then maybe I could actually GET pregnant) that it would be ok, even when my husband comes back.

I haven’t decided if I will continue taking them when he gets back in six months or so…but I’m pretty sure my husband will object so I won’t have to decide!
😉
 
Mattapoisett64 said:
And they each had had hysterectomies prior to becoming pregnant, right? Honestly, trotting out Elizabeth and Sarah everytime a question about medical infertility - in the absence of a uterus no less ! - comes up sure gets old. I think the OP deserves a more reasoned response than that.

To say that a condom is not allowable in the described circumstance seems tantamount to saying that intimacy after such radical surgery isn’t allowed – which certainly isn’t Church teaching. I can’t believe what the Church - or God - wants is a lifetime of infections for this woman as a price of loving her husband. Post-hysterectomy and post-menopausal are very different situations. Some of these responses seem to come close to demanding that God grow a baby without a uterus, just to prove a point.
Click to expand...
A condom is NOT allowed under any circumstances (except a perforated one for collecting a sperm sample for testing). If infections are to be prevented, this would have to be done either by preventive medication or abstention.

The people who argue that if God is a loving merciful God why would he object etc etc. These are the arguments of people who want to bend God to their will because they don’t want to obey God’s will.
 
Seatuck said:
The marital act has a meaning. The couple is saying something with their bodies when they engage in it. Condomistic sex damages this meaning.
Jimmy Akin wrote this-

Remember each and every marital act needs to be unitive and procreative in meaning and action. Whether the couple is fertile or not.
Click to expand...
Interesting discussion so far.

I’d have to say that the in the scenario set forward, the notion that using a condom somehow is contraceptive is…shall we say…absurd, since there is no possible way that we know of for conception to occur. In other words, if conception is impossible, contraception is also impossible.

Perhaps as has been mentioned, there may be ways to get around condom use in this scenario, i.e. to prevent discomfort or infection, but I purposely set up the scenario so that condom use is sort of necessary for this hypothetical couple as the only way to prevent infection for the sake of discussion. Also, I purposely avoided giving one of the hypothetical couple an STD or HIV in order to avoid the argument that condom use does not provide complete protection against these diseases.

One notion that I find interesting is that condoms, as implied by Thistle, cannot be used as “preventive medication”.

The other is that the unitive nature of marital relations is negated by condom use i.e. that the male and female parts must be in direct contact or there is no unity (especially in this hypothetical scenario).

Good discussion so far. 👍
 
I find the ‘nay’ votes hard to understand. One of the problems with faithful catholics is that it is awfully easy to fall into a pattern of following rules instead of understanding and embracing the principles that lead to the rules in the first place.

As far as I understand, the issue with contraception is that it:
  1. Blocks the procreative potential and that deliberate action inherently damages the unitive action as well.
  2. Some forms function in abortifacient ways.
Neither of those issues apply here.

The ones who say that the physical presence of the condom separates the couples flesh from contact and thereby blocks the unitive don’t seem to have pondered that thought much. Natural and artificial lubricants do much the same thing by establishing thin films to reduce friction and discomfort - are THOSE prohibited as well? no way. Natural Law shows those to be acceptable.

The damaging aspect of contraception is the diser to grasp the pleasure of sexual relations while simultaneously, intentionally sterilizing the fertility of it. That is NOT what is happening in the hypothetical scenario, so I don’t see the immorality in the OP’s hysterectomy example.
 
sarah_anne_628 said:
Well, I actually had an issue very similar to this…but it involved the use of birth control pills.

I have PCOS…in 9 years of marriage, I have yet to concieve. My doctor has suggested the pill to help correct some of the hormonal imbalances the PCOS causes…I figure it would be ok because my husband isn’t even in the country right now but I talked to my priest first. Father said that since it was for medical purposes and not to prevent pregnancy (quite the opposite-if we could reverse some of the effects, then maybe I could actually GET pregnant) that it would be ok, even when my husband comes back.

I haven’t decided if I will continue taking them when he gets back in six months or so…but I’m pretty sure my husband will object so I won’t have to decide!
😉
Click to expand...
The scenario is not similiar to this. The condom will not “treat” a disease at all. You are using hormonal birth control to “treat” a disease that you already have. Humana Vitae says that we can do treatments for illness that we already have that might as a secondary effect cause contraception or sterilization. An example of this is a woman with cancer of the uterus. She can have a hysterectomy despite the sterilization which will occur.

Now you probably already have heard that NFP only doctors say that the pill is not the best treatment in most cases and they do not use it. They do very specific testing to devise a treatment plan that accurately addresses the hormonal deficiencies particular to each woman. You might want to contact the Paul VI Center to see if they can offer you a better treatment plan. You are not required to do this if it would cause you undue burden.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top