Infertile couple with condom...forbidden?

[Newbie2]

I understand the reproductive aspect, and that’s why the couple is infertile in the scenario, to leave that out of the discussion. The infertile couple in this scenario is not doing anything contraceptive, since there is no possible way to be “conceptive”. I even modified the scenario to add that they would use a PERFORATED condom (that means it has holes in it ).
Sarcasm intentional I know what perforated means.

“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.”

And you did your reproductive residency at which hospital? Sarcasm intentional, again

This is not always the case; it may be that plenty can be done to raise the count; increasing, decreasing, or changing the exercise level (some bicycle seats can affect sperm production), hormone therapy, etc…so please don’t say that there nothing can be done or that a man undergoing therapy to raise his sperm count will not have a second, third or fourth sample analyzed to assess the effect of the therapy.

So, let’s get back to the moral theology of this hypothetical situation. The couple is doing nothing contraceptive; the condom use in this couple is not closing the act to conception. The reproductive aspect is not in question. What is left to question, then, is the unitive aspect.

If a condom, destroys the unitive nature of the act, and all such marital acts must be unitive, why is the unitive nature of the act preserved when used diagnostically i.e. obtaining a semen sample? The question remains unanswered.

The HIV argument is not relevant to this case since neither partner has a life-threatening communicable disease.

 

[Jennifer_J]

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.
QUOTE]

Let me try again. The natural order of sex is tab A, slot B and the man finishes within the woman. This is the design of sex. It is designed this way for procreation and for unity/pleasure. PROCREATION, however, doesn’t meant FERTILE. When sex is ordered toward procreation, that means it’s properly done so that IF fertility is there, then a baby results. HOWEVER, the Church doesn’t teach that married couples may ONLY have sex when there is natural fertility. We may have relations anytime we want (within reason ). This is why NFP can be used licitly. HOWEVER, a condom interferes with the procreative order of the act. It interferes both physically by creating a barrier AND it stops the normal order of the marital act. I tried to explain why a perferated condom used on a continuing basis would still be a problem in my post above. I don’t think there is a convincing argument for the condom being used as a medical treatment (unlike the pill, though I disagree with that as a treatment for anything because it just masks symptoms and creating other problems, been there, done that). It may be used for a diagnosis–to catch a few sperm for testing–but not to stop infection. They are too poor at stopping infections. If a man has a problem with his sexual organs, he should see a doc and get treated and NOT cover it with latex. When used for diagnosis, the act is kept unitive, because it’s perferated, but I think using such on a routine basis WOULD be interfereing with the unitve aspect. I imagine couples that submit to these tests aren’t real thrilled about it. They do it to get a diagnosis. They WANT to be pregnant and using a condom, even one with holes–is probably a bit “painful” because they may loose yet another opportunity at a baby.

 

[Newbie2]

Let me try again. The natural order of sex is tab A, slot B and the man finishes within the woman. This is the design of sex. It is designed this way for procreation and for unity/pleasure. PROCREATION, however, doesn’t meant FERTILE. When sex is ordered toward procreation, that means it’s properly done so that IF fertility is there, then a baby results. HOWEVER, the Church doesn’t teach that married couples may ONLY have sex when there is natural fertility. We may have relations anytime we want (within reason ). This is why NFP can be used licitly. HOWEVER, a condom interferes with the procreative order of the act. It interferes both physically by creating a barrier AND it stops the normal order of the marital act. I tried to explain why a perferated condom used on a continuing basis would still be a problem in my post above. I don’t think there is a convincing argument for the condom being used as a medical treatment (unlike the pill, though I disagree with that as a treatment for anything because it just masks symptoms and creating other problems, been there, done that). It may be used for a diagnosis–to catch a few sperm for testing–but not to stop infection. They are too poor at stopping infections. If a man has a problem with his sexual organs, he should see a doc and get treated and NOT cover it with latex. When used for diagnosis, the act is kept unitive, because it’s perferated, but I think using such on a routine basis WOULD be interfereing with the unitve aspect. I imagine couples that submit to these tests aren’t real thrilled about it. They do it to get a diagnosis. They WANT to be pregnant and using a condom, even one with holes–is probably a bit “painful” because they may loose yet another opportunity at a baby.

Yes, I understand and agree with this. And in this scenario, fertility isn’t possible, so that takes the procreative aspect out of the discussion, leaving us with the unitive…which is my purpose in creating such a scenario to answer a specific question.

What if the prefered treatment IS to use a condom? Your argument seems to be conditional on the effectiveness of the treatment here.

OK, here’s where the question still remains unanswered; ***if ***the use of the condom for semen collection is unitive because it’s perforated, as you stated, then the hypothetical couple or any other couple for that matter could use a perforated condom and the act would still be unitive; this doesn’t make sense.

As well, the **frequency **(once or a couple of times for diagnosis vs. everytime) doesn’t legitimize condom use; it’s either forbidden (based on the unity factor) or not, no? If it frequency related, then every couple, sterile or not, would be permitted to use a perforated condom ONCE or so, which clearly is not the case.

So we still haven’t adequately answered the question as to why perforated condom use is considered unitive with a potentially fertile couple and not with a couple that is sterile.

Again, please don’t get the impression that I’m arguing for condom use; I would like to get an explanation for apologetic purposes.

For exmple, if the explanation is that in the case of a couple’s “diagnostic” use of the condom, the procreative intent of the couple trumps the temporary loss of unity of the act, I could maybe buy that, but to my knowledge there is nothing “official” on that position.

However, that explanation would open up a whole new can of worms, so to speak, in that it might suggest that procreation always trumps unitive value, which would seem to go against the notion of NFP being acceptable.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Yes, I understand and agree with this. And in this scenario, fertility isn’t possible, so that takes the procreative aspect out of the discussion, leaving us with the unitive…which is my purpose in creating such a scenario to answer a specific question.

What if the prefered treatment IS to use a condom? Your argument seems to be conditional on the effectiveness of the treatment here.

OK, here’s where the question still remains unanswered; ***if ***the use of the condom for semen collection is unitive because it’s perforated, as you stated, then the hypothetical couple or any other couple for that matter could use a perforated condom and the act would still be unitive; this doesn’t make sense.

As well, the **frequency **(once or a couple of times for diagnosis vs. everytime) doesn’t legitimize condom use; it’s either forbidden (based on the unity factor) or not, no? If it frequency related, then every couple, sterile or not, would be permitted to use a perforated condom ONCE or so, which clearly is not the case.

So we still haven’t adequately answered the question as to why perforated condom use is considered unitive with a potentially fertile couple and not with a couple that is sterile.

Again, please don’t get the impression that I’m arguing for condom use; I would like to get an explanation for apologetic purposes.

For exmple, if the explanation is that in the case of a couple’s “diagnostic” use of the condom, the procreative intent of the couple trumps the temporary loss of unity of the act, I could maybe buy that, but to my knowledge there is nothing “official” on that position.

However, that explanation would open up a whole new can of worms, so to speak, in that it might suggest that procreation always trumps unitive value, which would seem to go against the notion of NFP being acceptable.

Oye, Vey, I have a headache… I’ll have to get back to you on this…

 

[Newbie2]

OK.

Lots of things to think about with all those kids. I have 2 and they’re older…and have discovered girls. We don’t see them around the house as much as we used to.

But no procreation going on there! LOL

 

[thistle]

Just a suggestion to Newbie and Jennifer. Please don’t use all these colours. They are hard on the eyes and difficult to read. We want to focus on your comments instead of the colour of your comments.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Just a suggestion to Newbie and Jennifer. Please don’t use all these colours. They are hard on the eyes and difficult to read. We want to focus on your comments instead of the colour of your comments.

I didn’t use ANY color—that’s whoever is replying to me!!! and it is annoying

 

[thistle]

I didn’t use ANY color—that’s whoever is replying to me!!! and it is annoying

Okay. My apologies.

 

[Newbie2]

Hey, it’s Christmastime…I like color.

 

[adelore]

What if the infection the person is talking about could be AIDS and not a yeast infection. People have been known to get AIDS from tanted blood transfusions.

With that thought in mind, surely, since there is no chance at creating life, a condom wouldn’t be wrong.

Or what the married couple should restrain from the matiral act the rest of their life? I doubt that the Catholic Church would say such a thing.

 

[thistle]

What if the infection the person is talking about could be AIDS and not a yeast infection. People have been known to get AIDS from tanted blood transfusions.

With that thought in mind, surely, since there is no chance at creating life, a condom wouldn’t be wrong.

Or what the married couple should restrain from the matiral act the rest of their life? I doubt that the Catholic Church would say such a thing.

Condoms are NOT allowed under any circumstances. That is the Church teaching. If one spouse has AIDS then the only way not to infect the other spouse is to abstain for life.

 

[nilofc]

People persist in their sin. They will try to make way to legitimize a sin.

Condom use is evil…It snuffs out the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life, from marital embrace which is suppose to be a life-giving love.

You want to be holier? Then abstain… God communicates His nature not through copulation but through the sacraments. God can make sons fo Abraham from mere stones.

 

[graceandglory]

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… 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.

While I agree with what Father told this poster, if I were “the exception to the rule” I would take that as a challenge to find out why… Wouldn’t you want to know the teaching behind why Father said it was okay?

Shouldn’t any of us entering or in a Catholic marriage learn what it means for sex to be unitive and procreative? This is the “age of information.” I think “Father said so” is kind of a weak reason for anyone to do something these days. How do you know if your priest is giving you correct information? A lot of priests say a lot of things. Just because a priest says so, doesn’t make it so.

I would take up the challenge to read up or listen to tapes on Sacramental theology and what did Seatack mean when quoting Pope John Paul II,
***“The body speaks a language.” ***

 

[LittleDeb]

Yes, I understand and agree with this. And in this scenario, fertility isn’t possible, so that takes the procreative aspect out of the discussion, leaving us with the unitive…which is my purpose in creating such a scenario to answer a specific question.

What if the prefered treatment IS to use a condom? Your argument seems to be conditional on the effectiveness of the treatment here.

OK, here’s where the question still remains unanswered; ***if ***the use of the condom for semen collection is unitive because it’s perforated, as you stated, then the hypothetical couple or any other couple for that matter could use a perforated condom and the act would still be unitive; this doesn’t make sense.

As well, the **frequency **(once or a couple of times for diagnosis vs. everytime) doesn’t legitimize condom use; it’s either forbidden (based on the unity factor) or not, no? If it frequency related, then every couple, sterile or not, would be permitted to use a perforated condom ONCE or so, which clearly is not the case.

So we still haven’t adequately answered the question as to why perforated condom use is considered unitive with a potentially fertile couple and not with a couple that is sterile.

Again, please don’t get the impression that I’m arguing for condom use; I would like to get an explanation for apologetic purposes.

For exmple, if the explanation is that in the case of a couple’s “diagnostic” use of the condom, the procreative intent of the couple trumps the temporary loss of unity of the act, I could maybe buy that, but to my knowledge there is nothing “official” on that position.

However, that explanation would open up a whole new can of worms, so to speak, in that it might suggest that procreation always trumps unitive value, which would seem to go against the notion of NFP being acceptable.

Okay Newbie2, I’ll bite. Since you are looking for apologetic responses it is worth my time. If you were just here to battle, it isn’t. I will give you kudos. This is the very first question in this arena that has ever made me pause. So thanks. You are keeping me thinking.

So I look at this from a different POV. What you have presented here is a possible impediment to entering marriage. BUT, since we wouldn’t know that until after marriage (supposed to save the marital act for marriage) it wouldn’t be an actual impediment.

The question of the inability to participate in the marital act is really what we have to look at here. Since we wouldn’t know about it until after marriage it wouldn’t be an actual impediment to marriage. But, it would need to be treated as a case of “impotency” to the marital bed that was discovered after. Impotency is not just defined by the Church as a male thing. It is not just defined as an inability to maintain an erection or inability to ejaculate. There are criteria for female impotency too. If a woman is unable to engage in the marital act without serious repercussions she would most likely be considered impotent by that definition.

The couple who uses a perforated condom for collection purposes is capable of engaging in the act without the condom. They do not have an impediment to the marital bed. The “collection couple” would have no impediment to that particular marital act if the condom were to break. The “infection couple” would. In the case of the former, they may likely continue their act. The latter couple would not. The condom seems to be a deciding factor of being able to engage in the act. (The wording used by theologians is that “each and every act must be ordered towards its natural end”.)

So the questions you are asking are actually closer to the questions relating to viagra and what not. Is the condom assisting the couple in engaging in an otherwise normal marital act? So far it looks like that is not the case. With medication, the normal activity of intercourse takes place. Is the suggestion that a condom now be considered medication? That is what appears to be the argument.

The couple using a a perforated condom for collection purposes is capable of engaging in normal relations. The couple using it for “medication” doesn’t appear to be on the same grounds. The assistance argument of viagra stands on the grounds that it makes the normal (an erection) happen. It doesn’t actually do anything to the act itself.

As I said, it appears that the woman would be in a state of impotency as defined by the Church. And yes, I do have resources for these statements, but I am not going to all the trouble to look them up unless it is a direction people would like to discuss. We had a thread years ago linking the canon law defining the marital act. That thread was 1000 posts, but I can’t remember the name.

Okay, I’m here. I hope another one of my long-winded posts doesn’t frighten people away.

 

[LittleDeb]

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.

So I disagree on part of your point here. The argument is a about true barrier. Artificial lubricants are not in place to barricade. They assist a healthy body to do what it is designed to do.

In the hypothetical scenario, what is the purpose of the condom? What does it protect against? When people ask why are certain forms of reproductive assistance allowed and not others, the short answer is those methods that assist the normal process are allowed. Those that *change *the normal process are not.

That seems to be the case here. Lubricant assists. Condoms change. The argument is ‘does a condom objectively prevent unity?’ The Church says each and every act must be objectively procreative and unitive. The example you are using could be argued for condoms in post-menopausal couples too. From that slippery slope comes the argument for condoms with STDs.

The need for a condom is what prevents unity in the first place. If a couple has a need to be protected from each other, for whatever reason, it is an impediment to unity.

 

[Newbie2]

Okay Newbie2, I’ll bite. Since you are looking for apologetic responses it is worth my time. If you were just here to battle, it isn’t. I will give you kudos. This is the very first question in this arena that has ever made me pause. So thanks. You are keeping me thinking.

Aw shucks… Apologetics is quite the motivation here, I assure you, and the reason for making up such a limited hypothetical situation is to attempt to answer the question: What is different about a sterile couple who “must” or “pretty well has to” use a condom for a comfortable act. An uncomfortable act, we know, isn’t exactly unitive.

So I look at this from a different POV. What you have presented here is a possible impediment to entering marriage. BUT, since we wouldn’t know that until after marriage (supposed to save the marital act for marriage) it wouldn’t be an actual impediment.

Right. We’re assuming that this condition developed sometime after the couple has been married, and up to that point they were able to participate in a normal sexual manner.

The couple who uses a perforated condom for collection purposes is capable of engaging in the act without the condom. They do not have an impediment to the marital bed. The “collection couple” would have no impediment to that particular marital act if the condom were to break. The “infection couple” would. In the case of the former, they may likely continue their act. The latter couple would not. The condom seems to be a deciding factor of being able to engage in the act. (The wording used by theologians is that “each and every act must be ordered towards its natural end”.)

Exactly; we can substitute “infection”, dermatitis, allergy, what-have-you, but you hit the nail on the head for the proposed situation.

So the questions you are asking are actually closer to the questions relating to viagra and what not. Is the condom assisting the couple in engaging in an otherwise normal marital act? So far it looks like that is not the case. With medication, the normal activity of intercourse takes place. Is the suggestion that a condom now be considered medication? That is what appears to be the argument.

That would cetainly be a way to look at it, yes.

The couple using a a perforated condom for collection purposes is capable of engaging in normal relations. The couple using it for “medication” doesn’t appear to be on the same grounds. The assistance argument of viagra stands on the grounds that it makes the normal (an erection) happen. It doesn’t actually do anything to the act itself.

As I said, it appears that the woman would be in a state of impotency as defined by the Church.

That’s an interesting way of looking at the situation.

In the hypothetical scenario, what is the purpose of the condom? What does it protect against? When people ask why are certain forms of reproductive assistance allowed and not others, the short answer is those methods that assist the normal process are allowed. Those that *change *the normal process are not.

That seems to be the case here. Lubricant assists. Condoms change. The argument is ‘does a condom objectively prevent unity?’ The Church says each and every act must be objectively procreative and unitive. The example you are using could be argued for condoms in post-menopausal couples too. From that slippery slope comes the argument for condoms with STDs.

The need for a condom is what prevents unity in the first place. If a couple has a need to be protected from each other, for whatever reason, it is an impediment to unity.

Again, interesting thoughts. I guess the question is also what can be used to help remove those impediments to unity. Lubricants can do so, in certian couples, as you mentioned.

There would also seem to be a line between, for example, protecting against non-life threatening infections/irritations, as in the hypothetical couple and more serious ones such as STDs/HIV/etc.

 

[Seatuck]

That’s an interesting way of looking at the situation.

Again, interesting thoughts. I guess the question is also what can be used to help remove those impediments to unity. Lubricants can do so, in certian couples, as you mentioned.

There would also seem to be a line between, for example, protecting against non-life threatening infections/irritations, as in the hypothetical couple and more serious ones such as STDs/HIV/etc.

There would also seem to be a line between, for example, protecting against non-life threatening infections/irritations, as in the hypothetical couple and more serious ones such as STDs/HIV/etc.

Where in church teaching do you see this line? I don’t see it in any of the writings I provided. If condoms are anti -unitive in one instance then they are so in another. The church doesn’t allow condoms for preventing STD’s or HIV .
For most women who get infections due to intercourse it is from the irritation that happens. Lubrication works very well for that.Condoms are know to chafe a woman and lubrications are usually necessary when they are used. If it is something on the husbands person then hygiene would work very well for that. If it is as I said the husbands semen then we have some allergy treatment for that.

Have you considered writitng to the moral theologians at the National Catholic Bioethics Center?

 

[LittleDeb]

There would also seem to be a line between, for example, protecting against non-life threatening infections/irritations, as in the hypothetical couple and more serious ones such as STDs/HIV/etc.

I agree with Seatuck. I don’t see a line. If there is an impediment to unity, there is an impediment to the marital act.

I do want to clarify though. If a man were to prevent his wife from being lubricated, ie lack of foreplay, early penetration, it would be he who is creating the impediment. If there was sin, it would rest solely on him.

I can agree that a perforated silicone condom for collection purposes could be considered “medicine” since it is being used for a medical procedure. That is how I come to the conclusion that a collecting couple (sorry I don’t have a better term) can be objectively unitive but, sadly, mechanically is not. As in, the mechanisms of the marital act are subjectively not touching, through no fault of the couple. The couple who uses that same type of condom for protection is both objectively and subjectively dis-unitive. Again, it is a barrier to what?

Manualman’s comparison to lubricants might need more exploration. I mean it does need to be addressed. At present the condom manufacturers are working to develop a condom that is applied in a liquid state that solidifies into a perfect sheath. Is this the future of artificial lubrication? Could a condom just be considered another form of artificial lubrication?

 

[Newbie2]

I can understand why condoms are “non-unitive”. So use with semen collection should be disallowed, since it is therefor non-unitive, yet it is allowable. EVERY act must be unitive, no?

That’s the inconsistancy which I would like to resolve. It would seem that the greater good of diagnosing and hopefully correcting an infertility situation would be the answer, but if condom use is intriniscally non-unitive, that wouldn’t make sense…as well that would mean that the procreative value of that act would trump the unitive act, which again doesn’t make sense.

I could see, LittleDeb that collection condom use could be considered “medicine”, but then that would be inconstant with condom use as “preventive medicine” for infections, irritations, what have you, leading to the slippery slope of use in HIV, STDs, etc. Note that preventive medicine isn’t always 100% effective to be considered preventive.

Now I’m not arguing for condom use with STDs/HIV; quite to the contrary. Why would one potentially expose one’s spouse to a potentially life-threatening act. Not that the severity of the disease should be a measuring stick; that would be proportionalism.

 

[Newbie2]

Have you considered writitng to the moral theologians at the National Catholic Bioethics Center?

You wouldn’t happen to have a link handy, would you, S?