Infertile couple with condom...forbidden?

[Seatuck]

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.

Why don’t you ask the NCBC in an email consultation? It would be helpful to know what they say.

informationsecured.com/ncbc2/consultation.asp

 

[rpp]

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?

The problem of infection can also be effectively addressed if the husband would use proper personal hygiene and wash himself before contact. Condom (condem?) not needed.

 

[Newbie2]

Perhaps, but I set up a very specific scenerio to stimulate discussion. If you want to change the scenario, please start a new thread.

I was thinking about this a bit…for those who would say that condoms are absolutely prohibited in this scenario, what if the couple were to use a perforated condom; poke a tiny pinhole in the condom. Would this change the acceptablilty of using a condom…in this specific scenario only, please…and why or why not?

 

[thistle]

Perhaps, but I set up a very specific scenerio to stimulate discussion. If you want to change the scenario, please start a new thread.

I was thinking about this a bit…for those who would say that condoms are absolutely prohibited in this scenario, what if the couple were to use a perforated condom; poke a tiny pinhole in the condom. Would this change the acceptablilty of using a condom…in this specific scenario only, please…and why or why not?

How would a perforated condom stop an infection? Even unperforated ones are not guaranteed to do that.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The Church teaches that the marital act is designed or ordered a certain way. When you interfere with that order then the act becomes disordered. To be morally consistant, then the fertility of the couple has nothing to do with your question. The Church could care less if a couple is fertile or not. The important aspect is to keep the marital act whole and ordered in the proper way. A condom doesn’t do this, it removes part of the equation of the properly ordered marital act.

My second point is that a condom is NOT going to keep a woman from getting UTI’s or vaginal infections so it isn’t an effective “medical device”. This is a hygene issue. Infact, the condom can make such things WORSE.

 

[Seatuck]

Perhaps, but I set up a very specific scenerio to stimulate discussion. If you want to change the scenario, please start a new thread.

I was thinking about this a bit…for those who would say that condoms are absolutely prohibited in this scenario, what if the couple were to use a perforated condom; poke a tiny pinhole in the condom. Would this change the acceptablilty of using a condom…in this specific scenario only, please…and why or why not?

Put that hypothesis in your request to the NCBC. I’ve wondered about that since that procedure is allowed for medical testing. Perhaps for lessening the possibility of infection? Perhaps not since abstinence would do that. We could dance around this question all day but we are not moral theologians and really cannot reason this properly.

This question has been discussed on this board before. Perhaps someone had actual church teaching to offer.

I agree with Jennifer that the condom probably wouldn’t help for infection.And it might cause more harm than good physically. It would only help for a semen allergy. There are other treatments for that these days.

 

[Newbie2]

How would a perforated condom stop an infection? Even unperforated ones are not guaranteed to do that.

Infection, irritation, whatever. Let’s say reduce the frequency or severity. I bring that up to discuss the question that if a perforated condom is acceptable for semen collection and analysis, why would it not be in this such circumstance.

The Church teaches that the marital act is designed or ordered a certain way. When you interfere with that order then the act becomes disordered. To be morally consistant, then the fertility of the couple has nothing to do with your question. The Church could care less if a couple is fertile or not. The important aspect is to keep the marital act whole and ordered in the proper way. A condom doesn’t do this, it removes part of the equation of the properly ordered marital act.

My second point is that a condom is NOT going to keep a woman from getting UTI’s or vaginal infections so it isn’t an effective “medical device”. This is a hygene issue. Infact, the condom can make such things WORSE.

Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical situation, created to discuss the moral theology of condom use. You cannot make a blanket statement that condoms are not or would not be useful for the couple in this scenario, because it is part of the scenario! This is not a commonplace or even expected occurance; it’s just for the sake of discussion. It’s a possible, though highly unlikely scenario.

Jennifer, can you further explain your statement in red above, in terms of what the condom removes from the marital act? Specifically, in terms of why a perforated condom would be acceptable for semen collection and evaluation while for the couple, if using a perforated condom in this instance, it would not.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Infection, irritation, whatever. Let’s say reduce the frequency or severity. I bring that up to discuss the question that if a perforated condom is acceptable for semen collection and analysis, why would it not be in this such circumstance.

Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical situation, created to discuss the moral theology of condom use. You cannot make a blanket statement that condoms are not or would not be useful for the couple in this scenario, because it is part of the scenario! This is not a commonplace or even expected occurance; it’s just for the sake of discussion. It’s a possible, though highly unlikely scenario.

Jennifer, can you further explain your statement in red above, in terms of what the condom removes from the marital act? Specifically, in terms of why a perforated condom would be acceptable for semen collection and evaluation while for the couple, if using a perforated condom in this instance, it would not.

The marital act is ordered toward both procreation and unity/pleasure. Procreation doesn’t mean fertility it means that the act is engaged and completed in the way ordained by God (tab A, slot B, with the “completion” within the woman). A woman is not always fertile, while a normaly man is, however the Church doesn’t say WHEN we are to engage in the marital act, only that it be done in a way that, if conditions are right, a pregnancy could result–that’s the natural end. A condom interferes with the act. It is a physical barrier to the “completion”. This fact is one reason that infertile couples can marry licitly in the church–they aren’t doing anything to stop their fertility, that’s just their state. Their marital embrace is properly ordered.

Now, a perferated condom may be morally okay in this instance, but I don’t think that takes care of the “infection” part of your hypothetical question. What you don’t seem to GET is that any infection (barring sexually transmitted disease, which condoms are horrible at stopping) a woman gets after intercourse is caused by poor hygene by the man and woman. Your hypotherical question falls apart because of this. There are other alternatives and therefore a condom is not needed. One more thought, a perferated condom is used ONLY for a medical test. It is not used for any other purpose and shouldn’t be used for every instance of intercourse. The purpose of a condom, in general, is to keep the sperm out of the vagina. Could it have other medical uses? I’m not so sure. We know that they do a terrible job at stopping pregnancy, AIDS, and other sexually transmitted disease. They aren’t MADE to stop infection, they are made to stop sperm and don’t do that all that well.

 

[thistle]

Infection, irritation, whatever. Let’s say reduce the frequency or severity. I bring that up to discuss the question that if a perforated condom is acceptable for semen collection and analysis, why would it not be in this such circumstance.

Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical situation, created to discuss the moral theology of condom use. You cannot make a blanket statement that condoms are not or would not be useful for the couple in this scenario, because it is part of the scenario! This is not a commonplace or even expected occurance; it’s just for the sake of discussion. It’s a possible, though highly unlikely scenario.

Jennifer, can you further explain your statement in red above, in terms of what the condom removes from the marital act? Specifically, in terms of why a perforated condom would be acceptable for semen collection and evaluation while for the couple, if using a perforated condom in this instance, it would not.

A perforated condom is for the one-time collecting of a sample for sperm testing.
The idea that a perforated condom could prevent an infection or irritation is ridiculous.
Why are you so doggedly pursuing this.
The Church has spoken. No condoms. End of story.

 

[Apryl]

As far as I know condomistic sex is not unitive so no it would not be allowed

Um… did you make that word up???

 

[Seatuck]

Um… did you make that word up???

'Course not, silly. Which you would have know if you had read the link I went to so much trouble to provide.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

The Church has spoken. No condoms. End of story.

Actually this isn’t really the case. “The church has spoken. No contraception. End of story” would probably be more accurate.

 

[Apryl]

'Course not, silly. Which you would have know if you had read the link I went to so much trouble to provide.

Oh.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I would ask a good orthodox priest about this if I were in this situation.

 

[Lujack]

This is an interesting hypothetical. Unlikely and probably unrealistic, but the point, I suppose, is not to discuss a real situation but to examine a “corner case” and gain a better understanding of why the Church teaches what it teaches.

My best guess would be yes, the condom is permitted in this situation. My reasoning is that condoms are not permitted because of their contraceptive function. In an ordinary case, their intended usage is irrelevant because they still serve a contraceptive function. In this case, though, it isn’t contracepting anything.

 

[Jennifer_J]

This is an interesting hypothetical. Unlikely and probably unrealistic, but the point, I suppose, is not to discuss a real situation but to examine a “corner case” and gain a better understanding of why the Church teaches what it teaches.

My best guess would be yes, the condom is permitted in this situation. My reasoning is that condoms are not permitted because of their contraceptive function. In an ordinary case, their intended usage is irrelevant because they still serve a contraceptive function. In this case, though, it isn’t contracepting anything.

No, not contracepting, but interfering with the intention of the marital act. The properly ordered marital act must be both procreative (not necessarily fertile, but as God designed it) and unitive. When you interfere with the act, it changes the act. It is no longer sacramental, it is no longer life giving (even if a couple is infertile, the act is still life giving in it’s intention).

 

[thistle]

Actually this isn’t really the case. “The church has spoken. No contraception. End of story” would probably be more accurate.

That’s true! I just used condoms because its what the thread is about.

 

[Seatuck]

This is an interesting hypothetical. Unlikely and probably unrealistic, but the point, I suppose, is not to discuss a real situation but to examine a “corner case” and gain a better understanding of why the Church teaches what it teaches.

My best guess would be yes, the condom is permitted in this situation. My reasoning is that condoms are not permitted because of their contraceptive function. In an ordinary case, their intended usage is irrelevant because they still serve a contraceptive function. In this case, though, it isn’t contracepting anything.

Go read my links and see if you can expand your understand on how condoms also damage the untive aspect of the marital act . They don’t just stop a conception they distort the meaning of the conjugal act.

 

[Newbie2]

The marital act is ordered toward both procreation and unity/pleasure. Procreation doesn’t mean fertility it means that the act is engaged and completed in the way ordained by God (tab A, slot B, with the “completion” within the woman). A woman is not always fertile, while a normaly man is, however the Church doesn’t say WHEN we are to engage in the marital act, only that it be done in a way that, if conditions are right, a pregnancy could result–that’s the natural end. A condom interferes with the act. It is a physical barrier to the “completion”. This fact is one reason that infertile couples can marry licitly in the church–they aren’t doing anything to stop their fertility, that’s just their state. Their marital embrace is properly ordered.

Now, a perferated condom may be morally okay in this instance, but I don’t think that takes care of the “infection” part of your hypothetical question. What you don’t seem to GET is that any infection (barring sexually transmitted disease, which condoms are horrible at stopping) a woman gets after intercourse is caused by poor hygene by the man and woman. Your hypotherical question falls apart because of this. There are other alternatives and therefore a condom is not needed. One more thought, a perferated condom is used ONLY for a medical test. It is not used for any other purpose and shouldn’t be used for every instance of intercourse. The purpose of a condom, in general, is to keep the sperm out of the vagina. Could it have other medical uses? I’m not so sure. We know that they do a terrible job at stopping pregnancy, AIDS, and other sexually transmitted disease. They aren’t MADE to stop infection, they are made to stop sperm and don’t do that all that well.

Yes, I GET it, no need for sarcasm

In this instance, the marital act cannot be oriented toward procreation, right? No ovaries, no uterus…heck, go ahead and change the scenario to where the man has had both testicles removed. Impossible to have procreation; that leaves the unitive aspect, right? So explain why a perforated condom for semen collection is unitive when used in a fertile couple and not in this instance.

A perforated condom is for the one-time collecting of a sample for sperm testing.
The idea that a perforated condom could prevent an infection or irritation is ridiculous.
Why are you so doggedly pursuing this.
The Church has spoken. No condoms. End of story.

One time? Got a reference for that? What if the man needs to be sampled more than once i.e. equivical test results in motility or morphology of the spermatozoa?

Reduce inflammation/irritation? How about if the man has some sort of chronic dermatitis “there”? A condom certainly has the possibility of reducing irritation.

The reason I’m doggedly pursuing this is that you have not addressed the question as to why a perforated condom preserves the unity of the marital act when used for semen analysis and negates it during such use as in my proposed scenario.

“The Church has spoken” does not address this apparent inconsistancy. If you have an answer in regards to how unity is preserved during condom use during semen collection and not preserved during use as in the hypothetical scenario, I’d like to hear it.

I’m not arguing against the prohibition of condom use, but trying to understand this inconsistancy in a logical reasoned manner beyond “The Church has spoken”. Give me an reasonable explanation and that will be the end of story.

 

[thistle]

Yes, I GET it, no need for sarcasm

In this instance, the marital act cannot be oriented toward procreation, right? No ovaries, no uterus…heck, go ahead and change the scenario to where the man has had both testicles removed. Impossible to have procreation; that leaves the unitive aspect, right? So explain why a perforated condom for semen collection is unitive when used in a fertile couple and not in this instance.

One time? Got a reference for that? What if the man needs to be sampled more than once i.e. equivical test results in motility or morphology of the spermatozoa?

Reduce inflammation/irritation? How about if the man has some sort of chronic dermatitis “there”? A condom certainly has the possibility of reducing irritation.

The reason I’m doggedly pursuing this is that you have not addressed the question as to why a perforated condom preserves the unity of the marital act when used for semen analysis and negates it during such use as in my proposed scenario.

“The Church has spoken” does not address this apparent inconsistancy. If you have an answer in regards to how unity is preserved during condom use during semen collection and not preserved during use as in the hypothetical scenario, I’d like to hear it.

I’m not arguing against the prohibition of condom use, but trying to understand this inconsistancy in a logical reasoned manner beyond “The Church has spoken”. Give me an reasonable explanation and that will be the end of story.

Its a PERFORATED condom. That means it has HOLES in it so the couple are still open to life while some semen remains in the condom for testing. Why one-time? Once the test is done and the semen analysed the result is known. If the man has a normal sperm count then okay. If he has a low sperm count that’s unfortunate but nothing can be done for that. There is no need for more tests.

By the way the Church does NOT allow the use of condoms for situations where one spouse has HIV/AIDS, for example, so why on earth would you think they would be allowed in the scenario you are putting forward.