Infertile couple with condom...forbidden?

[Seatuck]

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

Try post 21.

 

[Newbie2]

:doh2:

 

[Seatuck]

:doh2:

Don’t worry abouddit!

Make sure you ask them for the rationale behind allowing the perforated condoms for medical testing also .I’ve never seen it written up. Just seen it allowed. I think it’s a good question.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

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.” ***

I agree that just because the priest says so doesn’t make it so. My husband and I are new converts and I wasn’t clear on church teaching so I asked my priest about it. It was kind of moot anyway because my husband and I were thinking that we didn’t want to take it anymore once he gets back from Afghanistan.

Honestly, I am not quite sure what Seatack meant.

 

[Seatuck]

I agree that just because the priest says so doesn’t make it so. My husband and I are new converts and I wasn’t clear on church teaching so I asked my priest about it. It was kind of moot anyway because my husband and I were thinking that we didn’t want to take it anymore once he gets back from Afghanistan.

Honestly, I am not quite sure what Seatack meant.

You should do some studying on what the role our bodies play in the sacraments. John Paul 2 spent the bulk of his pontificate teaching us these concepts. Various people have been trying to bring the ideology down to layments terms.Marriage is especially related to the Eucharist so that is an area to explore that I hope you will find beautiful and meaningful .

You could dive right in and go for Theology of the Body by John Paul 2.I didn’t do that I find the Pope talks over my head at first until I know the more basic theology. I wasn’t educated well in religion matters so I’m still catching up.

I’ll set you up with some other resources-

Christopher West is doing a lot of work with this. He has several books/audio/studies in this area. I recommend The Good News About Sex and Marriage . Goes over all areas of marital sex and morality and meaning.

Some fairly easy to read articles-
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0112.html

His Website

christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=76

But of course you can find his books such as Theology of the Body for Beginners or Handbook of Theology of the Body at bookstores, amazon etc.

Marriage and the Eucharist- This understanding is actually very important for the conversation in this thread as to why condoms aren’t allowed in marriage. An element for the marital act to be good is when the husband gifts his wife with a part of his body much in a reflection of how Christ gifts us with part of his body in the Eucharist. Sounds a little strange at first I know.

Free CD-

catholicity.com/cds/west.html

From the Black Congress-
nbccongress.org/black-catholic-sprituality/sacramental-marriage-01.asp

John Martignoni has some audio on marriage and the Eucharist-

catholicmentoday.org/2008/09/04/marriage–the-eucharist-the-two-shall-become-one.aspx

Greg Popcak wrote a book called Holy Sex… which I just received in the mail yesterday but have heard good things about. He goes over what is allowed/not allowed , some advice on what will make our marital lives good etc.

That’s probably enough for now.
BTW , nothing wrong with asking your priest as long as he is informed about these things or will look stuff up with you when he is not. And these resources do not change the answer to your question. We can use treatments/ medicines that also happen to be contraceptive if they are necessary to cure us as Humana Vitae says.

I was worried about the abortions caused by the pill so I wrote to the same folks I’m telling Newbie 2 to write to. The response I got on pill use in marriage when there is a physical ailment was this-

Insofar as the pill is medically indicated for treatment of a specific and serious ailment, the unintended loss of fertility is not a problem from the moral angle, because this represents an instance of the application of the principle of double effect, assuming that all the requirements of the principle are met. If there were to be an effect on rates of miscarriage (and there is considerable controversy and doubt regarding whether the pill has that effect), it would still be permissible to take the pill under such circumstances, in virtue of the same principle, again assuming the conditions for its application were validly met. The activity of shared marital intimacy would not be causing the miscarriages (if they, in fact, occurred), because the kind of action that marital intercourse represents is not a miscarrying kind of act, but rather a kind of act that engenders new life. Whether that life, after having been engendered, is enabled to implant or not does not depend on the decision to engage in the sexual act itself, but may depend on another act, namely, the taking of the contraceptive pill. The taking of the contraceptive pill will not be licit for contaceptive purposes, but may be licit for the abovementioned therapeutic purposes, and the couple would be free to participate in conjugal relations in that properly therapeutic scenario. I hope this is helpful.

I’m not putting his name down as he has not given me permission to do so.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Aha.

Will have to check those out.
Thanks.

 

[manualman]

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.

Color me STILL not convinced. I’ve not seen the argument you are making anywhere ("has a need to be protected from one another…) authoritative. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t quite click for me. I’ll perk on it.

My principle is NOT a slippery slope for hopelessly infertile STD couples using condoms. THAT one is inherently wrong because of the substantial risk of transmission that remains even with the condom. REAL love doesn’t play Russian roulette with ones beloved - not even with fewer bullets in the pistol. Placing ones beloved at risk of the STD is inherently selfish, not self-giving.

 

[LittleDeb]

Color me STILL not convinced. I’ve not seen the argument you are making anywhere ("has a need to be protected from one another…) authoritative. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t quite click for me. I’ll perk on it.

Neither have I. I don’t have an authoritative link to hand you. “Unitive” is such a vague term. Please do think on it and see where it leads you. As I said, I think your argument about artificial lubricants is a good one.

My principle is NOT a slippery slope for hopelessly infertile STD couples using condoms. THAT one is inherently wrong because of the substantial risk of transmission that remains even with the condom. REAL love doesn’t play Russian roulette with ones beloved - not even with fewer bullets in the pistol. Placing ones beloved at risk of the STD is inherently selfish, not self-giving.

I knew that you, personally weren’t trying to argue this point. But many people do. Where is the definitive line? It seems that in Newbie2’s example is that the woman is protecting herself from herself and not her husband. Is that the definitive line?

Are condoms an impediment to the marriage act objectively? Is it like the so called “exception clause” that Protestants read into Scripture about marriage and divorce? Or is there really a state that would require a barrier and still be an authentic marital act?