Infertile married couple condom use

[Newbie2]

There was some discussion in the Married - Pregnant - Sex OK? thread that brought up this question:

Is it licit for a married couple who are infertile to use a condom, let’s say for prevention of infection or disease. I’m assuming for this discussion that the couple is unquestionably infertile, such as the woman having had a hysterectomy.

If it is not permitted, why not and what are your references?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

There was some discussion in the Married - Pregnant - Sex OK? thread that brought up this question:

Is it licit for a married couple who are infertile to use a condom, let’s say for prevention of infection or disease. I’m assuming for this discussion that the couple is unquestionably infertile, such as the woman having had a hysterectomy.

If it is not permitted, why not and what are your references?

Simply put:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

 

[lizaanne]

Simply put: No - the couple may not use a condom. It negates the unitive aspect of the act.

~Liza

 

[CuriousInIL]

Simply put: No - the couple may not use a condom. It negates the unitive aspect of the act.

~Liza

But I believe that I have seen that a perforated condom does not do so.

 

[duskyjewel]

But a perforated condom won’t prevent infection either, so what would be the point?

 

[lizaanne]

But I believe that I have seen that a perforated condom does not do so.

The situation the OP gives us is of an infertile couple, as in the case of hysterectomy. In that situation pregnancy would never result, so there would be no use in perforating the condom. I am talking about the unitive aspect, not the procreative aspect, which does not apply in this case.

~Liza

 

[CuriousInIL]

The situation the OP gives us is of an infertile couple, as in the case of hysterectomy. In that situation pregnancy would never result, so there would be no use in perforating the condom. I am talking about the unitive aspect, not the procreative aspect, which does not apply in this case.

~Liza

I understand that and I understand that it is your understanding that use of a condom negates the unitive aspect. However, because a perforated condom may be used in a morally acceptable way, and non-unitive sex would not be morallly acceptable, it must be the case that a perforated condom does not negate the unitive aspect.

 

[CuriousInIL]

But a perforated condom won’t prevent infection either, so what would be the point?

If you are interested in my answer to this question, PM me, I think the answer would be both TMI and off-topic here.

 

[hasikelee]

Um…how come no one has talked about the elephant sitting on this thread…

Namely, what in the world kind of STD could you possibly have that can be prevented only be a condom? Every STD I can think of is spread by genital contact…meaning the entire area, not just a 4-8 inch piece of it.

Furthermore, examining the structure of the condom and the various kinds of viruses (noted in science books as the smallest organisms) we can use our reasoning to see that the viruses fit through the naturally occurring holes in the latex.

Oh, and on top of that, various STDs are transmissable through many other methods due in part to their mutation. Thus, fluids such as saliva, tears and blood can transmit the disease.

 

[KCT]

Is it licit for a married couple who are infertile to use a condom, let’s say for prevention of infection or disease.

If one spouse has an infection or disease, why would they put their beloved at ANY risk?

“I love you enough to reduce the risk of you getting sick, but not enough to protect you completely.” (by abstaining)

I hope my husband would love me enough not to put me at risk at all.

 

[duskyjewel]

The only reason I mentioned disease was because the OP did.

 

[Newbie2]

Simply put:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

These would apply if the act were contraceptive…which it cannot be since the couple is unquestionably infertile.

Simply put: No - the couple may not use a condom. It negates the unitive aspect of the act.

~Liza

References that a condom negates the unitive aspect of such an act under the given circumstance, please?

But a perforated condom won’t prevent infection either, so what would be the point?

Exactly.

If one spouse has an infection or disease, why would they put their beloved at ANY risk?

“I love you enough to reduce the risk of you getting sick, but not enough to protect you completely.” (by abstaining)

I hope my husband would love me enough not to put me at risk at all.

My point was not that the man have an infection that he would pass on to the wife (HIV, herpes, etc.) rather that the wife would be (abnormally, let’s say) susceptable to infection by the resident bacteria that normally inhabit the husband i.e. that a condom would prevent infection that the wife would most certainly get (let’s again say, historically, she gets an infection every time).

Secondly, I’m looking for church teaching that says that a condom negates the unitive nature of intercourse between a husband and wife.

 

[Seatuck]

The perforated condom is allowed as a rare usually one time thing in order to diagnose a disease. It is understood that there is a deficit to the unitive aspect but it is allowed under the principal of double effect.

 

[Seatuck]

The church has been clear that condoms are not allowed in married couples where one has a disease. The UN for instance has been very outspoken that the Vatican is enabling the spread of HIV because it continues to disallow the use of condoms. They put a barrier between the couple preventing the full gift of self which must occur when the husband gifts his wife during the marital act. The unitive aspect involves the one flesh union of spouses. This cannot be accomplished with a barrier.

Contraception damages the integrity of the full gift of self, which is intrinsic to the sexual act.

One article on HIV and condoms.

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06050502.html

 

[Newbie2]

The church has been clear that condoms are not allowed in married couples where one has a disease. The UN for instance has been very outspoken that the Vatican is enabling the spread of HIV because it continues to disallow the use of condoms. They put a barrier between the couple preventing the full gift of self which must occur when the husband gifts his wife during the marital act. The unitive aspect involves the one flesh union of spouses. This cannot be accomplished with a barrier.

One article on HIV and condoms.

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06050502.html

OK, let me be clear on my question again…it does not involve contraception or one spouse passing their “disease” to the other. Assume again that the wife is maybe susceptable to vaginitis if the husband does not use a condom; nothing life-threatening like AIDS or STDs.

What I would like to see is a reference, not opinion, that condoms negate the unitive aspect of intercourse; i.e. that there are no procreative aspects to complicate the question. I’m not arguing for or against, but looking for a teaching that states, without reference in context to contraception, that marital intercourse with a condom is not unitive.

 

[mark_a]

There was some discussion in the Married - Pregnant - Sex OK? thread that brought up this question:

Is it licit for a married couple who are infertile to use a condom, let’s say for prevention of infection or disease. I’m assuming for this discussion that the couple is unquestionably infertile, such as the woman having had a hysterectomy.

If it is not permitted, why not and what are your references?

Because its like washing your feet with your socks on.

 

[lizaanne]

Because its like washing your feet with your socks on.

Thank you! I was trying so hard to think of how to say this - and you hit it on the head.

OP - what he’s saying is that, when you put a barrier between you and your wife, I don’t care how thin or “natural feeling” it might be, it is a barrier. Not only a physical barrier, but it is also an emotional barrier that says that “I will give you all of me, but you can’t have this one part which I withhold” and conversely “I accept all of you, but that bit, I don’t accept” . The reasons are irrelevant - such a barrier is an impediment to the unitive aspect of the act.

This is not my opinion - it’s just the way it is. You can say you don’t want to accept it because I have not provided chapter and verse with footnotes - but it is the truth.

Sometimes we are called to sacrifice. Sometimes that means abstaining for the good of one’s spouse, sometimes it means enduring some discomfort for the good of one’s spouse. Sometimes it means abstinence. Marriage is a sacrifice - not a “let’s just do it this way because it’s easier and we don’t have to think about it” sort of deal.

~Liza

 

[CuriousInIL]

The perforated condom is allowed as a rare usually one time thing in order to diagnose a disease. **It is understood that there is a deficit to the unitive aspect **but it is allowed under the principal of double effect.

Do you have any support for this?

 

[Seatuck]

OK, let me be clear on my question again…it does not involve contraception or one spouse passing their “disease” to the other. Assume again that the wife is maybe susceptable to vaginitis if the husband does not use a condom; nothing life-threatening like AIDS or STDs.

What I would like to see is a reference, not opinion, that condoms negate the unitive aspect of intercourse; i.e. that there are no procreative aspects to complicate the question. I’m not arguing for or against, but looking for a teaching that states, without reference in context to contraception, that marital intercourse with a condom is not unitive.

Condoms negate the unitive aspect the same way ejaculating outside the wife does. There is no one flesh union , there is no full gifting of the man.It also damages the procreative aspect.I’m sure you 've seen the recommendation of the Christopher West stuff and Theology of the Body ad nauseum. They have your resources for the meaning of the sexual union of spouses.

With regard to vaginitis a lubricant might be helpful.

 

[Seatuck]

catholic.org/views/views_news.php?id=19836

Here’s an article for you .

Indeed, irrespective of whether a married couple can conceive a child, their marital relations are designed not only to signify but concretely express total and mutual self-giving (cf. CCC, nos. 2360-71). In other words, because marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion (cf. Gen. 2:23-24, Mt. 19:5-6), the marital act has an essential, bodily aspect to it. To suggest otherwise is to commit the error of dualism, as if a husband and wife are not truly human, are not body-soul composites (cf. CCC, nos. 362-66), and that the bodily expression of human choices is irrelevant in considering the morality of human actions.
It is true that condom use to prevent disease is not contraception. Nevertheless, such an act is still intrinsically immoral because a married couple cannot, as indicated, truly become one flesh. A couple’s participating in such an act is morally tantamount to their engaging in mutual masturbation to completion, as distinguished from morally licit foreplay. Yet, a common misunderstanding among the faithful is that sex involving the use of a condom is an authentic expression of marital love, apparently because it shares superficial similarities with a genuine marital act.

And-

In summary, the Catholic Church cannot condone, let alone sanction, the use of condoms among married couples, even if one spouse has AIDS. Regardless of one’s intention, condoms invariably render immoral the consensual relations between husband and wife.