Infertile married couple condom use

[KathleenElsie]

May I ask why this situation was even brought up except for the argumentative value?

 

[lizaanne]

May I ask why this situation was even brought up except for the argumentative value?

I suppose it is a plausible situation - I am giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that he has a true concern for this and is not just baiting contention.

~Liza

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

not by catholic teaching

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?

The simple answer is it “disordors” the relations. This is laid out in the primary teaching which is PPIV (1968) Humanae Vitea

A quick summary is sex is designed for us to perform two functions neither can be achieved with ABC. STDs are to be contained by monogamy.

 

[Listener]

This is an interesting question. I know of another medical reason for condom use. If a man has prostate cancer, and he decides to get radioactive seed implants to cure the cancer, he is told that he should use a condom for awhile. The reason is that there is a very small chance that one of the radioactive seeds would leave his body and enter into his wife’s body. This would apparently cause her some harm.

In a case like this, I don’t think the possibility of pregnancy even exists because the seeds destroy the sperm-producing mechanism in the man.

I guess I kind of wonder about this. If a woman can use birth control pills for medical reasons, why couldn’t a man use a condom for medical reasons? I suppose the Church knows best, but I sure have trouble understanding it all sometimes.

 

[Seatuck]

Do you have any support for this?

I’m looking. I’m thinking it’s something I heard on Catholic Radio.
It’s common sense though. It does provide a barrier to the one flesh union aspect but it is a secondary effect. It is allowed because the intent is medical and limited by the perforations. Not to be used as a routine thing. I haven’t seen a thing on line explaining it only that it is.

 

[Seatuck]

This is an interesting question. I know of another medical reason for condom use. If a man has prostate cancer, and he decides to get radioactive seed implants to cure the cancer, he is told that he should use a condom for awhile. The reason is that there is a very small chance that one of the radioactive seeds would leave his body and enter into his wife’s body. This would apparently cause her some harm.

In a case like this, I don’t think the possibility of pregnancy even exists because the seeds destroy the sperm-producing mechanism in the man.

I guess I kind of wonder about this. If a woman can use birth control pills for medical reasons, why couldn’t a man use a condom for medical reasons? I suppose the Church knows best, but I sure have trouble understanding it all sometimes.

Women are permitted to use hormonal birth control in an attempt to treat disease. What disease is treated by use of a condom? In the example you describe above abstaining is best. Condoms have been know to tear as many people can attest to. Why would a man take that risk with his wife?

 

[Seatuck]

I suppose it is a plausible situation - I am giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that he has a true concern for this and is not just baiting contention.

~Liza

The majority of the world has a disordered approach to sexuality. We can’t help it. We have been bombarded with it. It’s a good day when we at least question those disordered thoughts and impulses to seek the truth. Nothing wrong with looking for the churches words on the matter. I like it myself for the majority of things.

 

[Newbie2]

Because its like washing your feet with your socks on.

Does the Church have any definitive teachings on the use of socks?

May I ask why this situation was even brought up except for the argumentative value?

Because I’d like to be able to refer to a specific church teaching to address the non-unitive nature of condom use aside from the reproductive aspect when I defend the Church’s teaching on this matter.

I suppose it is a plausible situation - I am giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that he has a true concern for this and is not just baiting contention.

~Liza

Thank you.

not by catholic teaching The simple answer is it “disordors” the relations. This is laid out in the primary teaching which is PPIV (1968) Humanae Vitea

A quick summary is sex is designed for us to perform two functions neither can be achieved with ABC. STDs are to be contained by monogamy.

Do you happen to know specifically where in HV that is addressed. (I’m lazy LOL)

This is an interesting question. I know of another medical reason for condom use. If a man has prostate cancer, and he decides to get radioactive seed implants to cure the cancer, he is told that he should use a condom for awhile. The reason is that there is a very small chance that one of the radioactive seeds would leave his body and enter into his wife’s body. This would apparently cause her some harm.

In a case like this, I don’t think the possibility of pregnancy even exists because the seeds destroy the sperm-producing mechanism in the man.

I guess I kind of wonder about this. If a woman can use birth control pills for medical reasons, why couldn’t a man use a condom for medical reasons? I suppose the Church knows best, but I sure have trouble understanding it all sometimes.

This is an excellent question and is directly related to what I’m looking for in terms or a reference i.e. to be able to answer and explain this very question in more detail and using different terms than “it destroys or negates the unititive aspect of spousal intercourse”.

Women are permitted to use hormonal birth control in an attempt to treat disease. What disease is treated by use of a condom? In the example you describe above abstaining is best. Condoms have been know to tear as many people can attest to. Why would a man take that risk with his wife?

The scenario I created in the OP deliberately avoided the factor of having a serious disease (HIV/AIDS or other STD) in order to avoid putting the wife at a risk for serious disease.

Again, I’m not spoiling for an argument, just want to have a “better answer”.uch:

What it seem to come down to is that, pardon the language, the objection of the Church is that condom use in such an instance is forbidden because the sex organs of the married partners are not in direct contact, correct?

 

[fbl9]

May I ask why this situation was even brought up except for the argumentative value?

there are more than a few couples in the world who are in this postion. my wife and i are.at one time i felt we shouldn’t engage in marital relations because we couldn’t pro-create. but with the help of our pastor i got things figured out . we are still very much in love with on another.

 

[CuriousInIL]

May I ask why this situation was even brought up except for the argumentative value?

This is the moral theology portion of an Apologetics board. What is wrong with questions that are posed for the “argumentative value” (although I would use thought-provoking or discussion values as more correct assessments of such questions)?

 

[newbetx]

Does the Church have any definitive teachings on the use of socks?

Because I’d like to be able to refer to a specific church teaching to address the non-unitive nature of condom use aside from the reproductive aspect when I defend the Church’s teaching on this matter.

Thank you.

Do you happen to know specifically where in HV that is addressed. (I’m lazy LOL)

This is an excellent question and is directly related to what I’m looking for in terms or a reference i.e. to be able to answer and explain this very question in more detail and using different terms than “it destroys or negates the unititive aspect of spousal intercourse”.

The scenario I created in the OP deliberately avoided the factor of having a serious disease (HIV/AIDS or other STD) in order to avoid putting the wife at a risk for serious disease.

Again, I’m not spoiling for an argument, just want to have a “better answer”.uch:

What it seem to come down to is that, pardon the language, the objection of the Church is that condom use in such an instance is forbidden because the sex organs of the married partners are not in direct contact, correct?

Newbie2,
You keep asking “where exactly does the church say under certain circumstance” and even if someone comes up with a reference, you claim it does not fit exactly… and then you make fun of our faith.

You state you are looking for a better answer and you are lazy. Then please go read about TOB and you’ll be able to get the whole picture. Without the whole picture you will not be able to understand via the tiny window you are attempting to see the world through.

There is NO moral reason anyone should ever have to touch a condom, much less use one. You keep looking for a loophole. The problem with a hole in the dam is eventually all the water thinks it has the right to go through it. As awful as it seems, even to the extent of death, the church does not condone their use under any circumstance. No. None. Ever.

 

[Seatuck]

Does the Church have any definitive teachings on the use of socks?

Because I’d like to be able to refer to a specific church teaching to address the non-unitive nature of condom use aside from the reproductive aspect when I defend the Church’s teaching on this matter.

Thank you.

Do you happen to know specifically where in HV that is addressed. (I’m lazy LOL)

This is an excellent question and is directly related to what I’m looking for in terms or a reference i.e. to be able to answer and explain this very question in more detail and using different terms than “it destroys or negates the unititive aspect of spousal intercourse”.

The scenario I created in the OP deliberately avoided the factor of having a serious disease (HIV/AIDS or other STD) in order to avoid putting the wife at a risk for serious disease.

Again, I’m not spoiling for an argument, just want to have a “better answer”.uch:

What it seem to come down to is that, pardon the language, the objection of the Church is that condom use in such an instance is forbidden because the sex organs of the married partners are not in direct contact, correct?

The flesh is not in direct contact and the husband is not giving his full gift to his wife. The meaning of the marital act is damaged when it is held back by the use of the condom and is therefore immoral.

If you want to know more on the meaning of the marital act then you should look into The Good News about Sex and Marriage or Theology of the Body studies .Many have been recommended in the past few threads on this topic.

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie2,
You keep asking “where exactly does the church say under certain circumstance” and even if someone comes up with a reference, you claim it does not fit exactly… and then you make fun of our faith.

You state you are looking for a better answer and you are lazy. Then please go read about TOB and you’ll be able to get the whole picture. Without the whole picture you will not be able to understand via the tiny window you are attempting to see the world through.

There is NO moral reason anyone should ever have to touch a condom, much less use one. You keep looking for a loophole. The problem with a hole in the dam is eventually all the water thinks it has the right to go through it. As awful as it seems, even to the extent of death, the church does not condone their use under any circumstance. No. None. Ever.

Number one, I’m not making fun of my own faith. You’re assuption is somewhat less than charitable. :tsktsk:

Number two, the reference to lazy was tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I’m looking for a specific reference within JPIIs theology of the body. I could go and read it myself (again), but am appealing to the good forumites who know it much better than I do :bowdown2: to find specifics.

Number three, the “tiny window I’m seeing through” is playing devil’s advocate; I’m looking for a different way to explain Catholic theology to someone who might be struggling with it.

Number four, no, I’m not looking for a loophole.

Number five, your post has done nothing to help me. double , but thank you to those who have actually tried to help me address this topic. :clapping:

See the thread “Interpreting the Bible literally” in Apologetics-Sacred Scripture to see what sort of answers I was hoping to get.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

Because I’d like to be able to refer to a specific church teaching to address the non-unitive nature of condom use aside from the reproductive aspect when I defend the Church’s teaching on this matter.

…

Do you happen to know specifically where in HV that is addressed. (I’m lazy LOL)…

I too am confused by your responses? It is difficult to cut HV to a minor phrase however here is a rather direct cutting.

*Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)*vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Hope that helps

 

[seekerz]

I have to say that this is one of the teachings I have most trouble seeing the reasoning for, though accept it I will.

To my mind, long term abstinence between married people (especially young ones) where one is not disabled by illness, is just impractical. But then, I’ve never been in the situation. It just seems to me that this could not be any healthier for a marriage than using condoms.

People get STD’s from causes other than sex or they live wild lives before settling down and getting married or they have non-STD infection issues. For any of the above reasons they may be rendered sterile as well so it is not a stretch to imagine a couple in the situation the OP suggested.

I just have a hard time imagining any couple spending a lifetime in separate bedrooms…

 

[hasikelee]

 

[KathleenElsie]

http://fohn.net/elephant-pictures-facts/images/elephant_ear_twitch_lb.gif

Quote of the month:

"I’m on Yasmin; it prevents implantation, not ovulation. Ow, I can feel my ovulation!"
:banghead:

Yes that big animal in the room tends to be ignore by many even many Catholics.

Yasmin kills it does not prevent. :banghead: Yasmin is the private abortion that the liberals have been praying to their leaders for.

 

[Newbie2]

I too am confused by your responses? It is difficult to cut HV to a minor phrase however here is a rather direct cutting.

*Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation*—whether as an end or as a means. (16)vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Hope that helps

Actually, no. This addresses the procreative objection, not the unitive objection. Thanks anyway.

Yes that big animal in the room tends to be ignore by many even many Catholics.

Yasmin kills it does not prevent. :banghead: Yasmin is the private abortion that the liberals have been praying to their leaders for.

True, but I’m missing how this relates to the OP.

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.

~Liza

Liza, the reasons are relevant to me, as I want to be better able to defend the teachings of the Church against those who are looking for loopholes. I never wrote that I don’t accept those teachings, as a matter of fact, I do.

Perhaps I’m one of those who wants more fully developed explanation of such reasons than others. Some people accept Church teachings blindly, some need minimal explanation, others like me like to know all there is to know about such things (a very difficult thing, given time and resource considerations). That’s why I’m looking for chapter and verse (with footnotes! ).

Maybe I grew up as that child who said “Allright, I’ll do it, but tell me why?”

 

[KCT]

Perhaps I’m one of those who wants more fully developed explanation of such reasons than others. Some people accept Church teachings blindly, some need minimal explanation, others like me like to know all there is to know about such things

You sound like the kind of person who will have to reasearch it yourself. Find the resources others have suggested, read them, talk to a trusted priest and work through it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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 I’d like to be able to refer to a specific church teaching to address the non-unitive nature of condom use aside from the reproductive aspect when I defend the Church’s teaching on this matter.

Thank you.

**Do you happen to know specifically where in HV that is addressed. ** (I’m lazy LOL)
…

I too am confused by your responses? It is difficult to cut HV to a minor phrase however here is a rather direct cutting.

*Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation*—whether as an end or as a means. (16)vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Hope that helps

…Actually, no. This addresses the procreative objection, not the unitive objection…

There are a couple of possibilities here

1. A lack of understanding of Church teaching which results in a belief that the “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of sex can be separated.
2. A misunderstanding of intents with regard to drugs, condoms, or birth control pills.

So for #1 the church teaches sex is restricted to the married couple who are to have as the PRIMARY function of this action to bring the new humans into the world. The church recognizes that the “unitive” bonding which occurs between these two people creates a “unity” which does not stop after the birth of children. This “unity” may drive sexual activity even when no further pregnancies appear possible.

Now for #2 a drug or a piece of latex are not “intrinsically evil” they just like most any other item can be used for moral, or morally neutral, or immoral means. So the women taking birth control pills for acme while celibate has no intrinsically evil item, or any immoral intent. Similarly the man wearing a condom while celibate is in the same condition. However when either of the two practices relations in the same condition they have “disordered” the relation by preventing natural design. The natural design is both procreative and unitive

hope that helps