Infertile married couple condom use

[Formosus]

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?

The Church does not allow infertile couples to marry to begin with. I suppose we can assume you mean they became infertile after being married for a presumably licit reason(aka they didn’t purposefully make themselves that way). If there is the issue of a diesease, then I would say abstaining is the moral choice here. The risks of infecting your loved one are too great , even with a condom. Not to mention that sex should only be done when its open to life (and in the case of NFP without a contraception mentality). The fact that the couple is infertile significantly reduces the chances of conception to almost zero, but I am willing to allow that miracles are possible , so why would the infertile couple wish to physically stop a potential miricale God may desire to perform?

 

[Lady_D_I]

The Church does not allow infertile couples to marry to begin with.

This is not my understanding. The question was asked here:
If a person is infertile, may that person marry?

 

[Listener]

The Church does not allow infertile couples to marry to begin with. I suppose we can assume you mean they became infertile after being married for a presumably licit reason(aka they didn’t purposefully make themselves that way). If there is the issue of a diesease, then I would say abstaining is the moral choice here. The risks of infecting your loved one are too great , even with a condom. Not to mention that sex should only be done when its open to life (and in the case of NFP without a contraception mentality). The fact that the couple is infertile significantly reduces the chances of conception to almost zero, but I am willing to allow that miracles are possible , so why would the infertile couple wish to physically stop a potential miricale God may desire to perform?

What you say here is definitely an error. I think you are getting infertility mixed up with being impotent. There is some rule that a permanently impotent man isn’t supposed to get married, but that’s about it. Infertile people have always been able to marry, and women past the age of menopause have always been able to marry in the Catholic Church, as long as there are no other problems like a former marriage that hasn’t been annuled.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Thanks, but this is a hypothetical situation only…sorry, I didn’t spell that out clearly in the OP. My boys and my wife’s girls are working just fine.

Yeah, I’ll keep looking for answers.

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

Thanks, TR, but in this scenario the procreative*** is ***separated from the unitive in this case, by the presence of, let’s say, a ovariohysterectomy. I understand and can explain the procreative/unitive relationship otherwise, as you have.

I think you are getting infertility mixed up with being impotent. There is some rule that a permanently impotent man isn’t supposed to get married, but that’s about it. Infertile people have always been able to marry, and women past the age of menopause have always been able to marry in the Catholic Church, as long as there are no other problems like a former marriage that hasn’t been annuled.

True, infertility isn’t a roadblock to marriage, but is impotence considered a functional form of infertility by the Church? I can’t find a reference for this.

Is there a searchable Canon Law database online somewhere?

 

[Seatuck]

The Church does not allow infertile couples to marry to begin with. I suppose we can assume you mean they became infertile after being married for a presumably licit reason(aka they didn’t purposefully make themselves that way). If there is the issue of a diesease, then I would say abstaining is the moral choice here. The risks of infecting your loved one are too great , even with a condom. Not to mention that sex should only be done when its open to life (and in the case of NFP without a contraception mentality). The fact that the couple is infertile significantly reduces the chances of conception to almost zero, but I am willing to allow that miracles are possible , so why would the infertile couple wish to physically stop a potential miricale God may desire to perform?

The church does allow infertile couples to marry. The church does not allow those who without a doubt cannot participate in the marital act due to impotence or another impediment marry.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think the Church teaches that contraception has anything to do with the unitive nature, its the procreative that is effected by contraception. I don’t know of any authority that contraception effects the unitive aspect, and its hard to imagine how it would.

As for what couples that are in special circumstances should do, this is a complex moral question that cannot be answered in the abstract. If such a couple is concerned about the morality of their sex lives, they should discuss it with their priest or spiritual advisor. We cannot say sitting here if it is moral or immoral for a couple with special circumstances to do things that might be condemned by the Church for another couple.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I don’t think the Church teaches that contraception has anything to do with the unitive nature, its the procreative that is effected by contraception. I don’t know of any authority that contraception effects the unitive aspect, and its hard to imagine how it would.

As for what couples that are in special circumstances should do, this is a complex moral question that cannot be answered in the abstract. If such a couple is concerned about the morality of their sex lives, they should discuss it with their priest or spiritual advisor. We cannot say sitting here if it is moral or immoral for a couple with special circumstances to do things that might be condemned by the Church for another couple.

Well kind of, sort of, the church teaches the unitive and procreative nature are combined thus one can not be separated from the other. The issue is the concept that one can rebuke the unitive aspect by having a sex partner which is not a life long spouse. This action is clearly outside the church teaching and thus would not directly be addressed. A study of Humanae Vitea actually does address this subject quite well. After consummating a marriage when one spouse loses ability the other spouse - loses ability, or said another way - the spouses are unitive, as united as one.

The problem in this thread is a requirement to start with the idea the church’s teachings can not be followed then (in a backward way) ask for a blessing on the desired practice. It will not happen

hope that explains it

 

[Seatuck]

I don’t think the Church teaches that contraception has anything to do with the unitive nature, its the procreative that is effected by contraception. I don’t know of any authority that contraception effects the unitive aspect, and its hard to imagine how it would.

As for what couples that are in special circumstances should do, this is a complex moral question that cannot be answered in the abstract. If such a couple is concerned about the morality of their sex lives, they should discuss it with their priest or spiritual advisor. We cannot say sitting here if it is moral or immoral for a couple with special circumstances to do things that might be condemned by the Church for another couple.

See post #20.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think the Church teaches that contraception has anything to do with the unitive nature, its the procreative that is effected by contraception. I don’t know of any authority that contraception effects the unitive aspect, and its hard to imagine how it would.

As for what couples that are in special circumstances should do, this is a complex moral question that cannot be answered in the abstract. If such a couple is concerned about the morality of their sex lives, they should discuss it with their priest or spiritual advisor. We cannot say sitting here if it is moral or immoral for a couple with special circumstances to do things that might be condemned by the Church for another couple.

See post #20.

Post #20 is a quote from Tom Nash, a Catholic journalist with theological training (I don’t know if he considers himself a theologian or not). I agree that it is an orthodox interpretation of Church teaching. But the world is not a simple place, and human relationships are not simple either. The Church recognizes that this is true. One cannot simply plug in (name removed by moderator)uts A and B and chug moral decision C out of a theological block box.

When Pope Benedict was still Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he was asked about contraception and the pastoral problem of dealing with couples that do not want to have more children. Here is excerpt:

Q. Your Eminence, many Christians do not understand the Church’s position on contraception. Do you understand that they don’t understand it?

A. Yes, I can understand that quite well; the question is really complicated. In today’s troubled world, where the number of children cannot be very high given living conditions and so many other factors, it’s very easy to understand. In this matter, we ought to look less at the casuistry of individual cases and more at the major objectives that the Church has in mind.

I think that it’s a question of three major basic options. The first and most fundamental is to insist on the value o£ the child in society. In this area, in fact, there has been a remarkable change. Whereas in the simple societies of the past up to the nineteenth century, the blessing of children was regarded as the blessing, today children are conceived of almost as a threat. People think that they rob us of a place for the future, they threaten our own space, and so forth. In this matter a primary objective is to recover the original, true view that the child, the new human being, is a blessing. That by giving life we also receive it ourselves and that going out of ourselves and accepting the blessing of creation are good for man.

Q. The question remains whether you can reproach someone, say a couple who already have several children, for not having a positive attitude toward children.

A. No, of course not, and that shouldn’t happen, either.

Q. But must these people nevertheless have the idea that they are living in some sort of sin if they …

A. I would say that those are questions that ought to be discussed with one’s spiritual director, with one’s priest, because they can’t be projected into the abstract.

I edited this for length, it comes from Salt of the Earth. There is more available here:

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0633.html

The point is that its easy to sit at our keyboards and declare this and that moral or immoral. But those that have had to deal day in and day out with seriously moral questions involving real people do not find it that simple.

 

[Newbie2]

After consummating a marriage when one spouse loses ability the other spouse - loses ability, or said another way - the spouses are unitive, as united as one.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. Can you rephrase?

The problem in this thread is a requirement to start with the idea the church’s teachings can not be followed then (in a backward way) ask for a blessing on the desired practice. It will not happen

Not exactly…the intent was to be able to explain why condoms destroy the unitive aspect of the marital act aside from the procreative, when the procreative is impossible (i.e. no uterus or ovaries). Any other circumstance would of course include the inseparability of unity and procreativity, including menopause, since there would be still a very remote chance of ovulation, conception, etc and using a condom would be considered at least potentially contraceptive.

Another way of asking the OP question is:

Is the loss of the unitive value of the marital act, simply by the matter of the use of a condom (not in any sense for contraception in this scenario) more, less or the same as the loss of unitive value by having a condom barrier between the spouses.

The Church answer would seem to be more, right?

Yes, I realize this may be a rationalist argument, but one cannot deny the loss of at least some of the unitive value of the marital act, even with a condom. (This also assumes that there is not serious risk of HIV, STDs, etc, which has been addressed.)

Again, I’m not looking for an out or a loophole, just anticipating arguments against Church teaching in this specific circumstance.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

: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…

The church teaching is use of a condom for relations is illicited always and everywhere

Post #20 is a quote from Tom Nash, a Catholic journalist with theological training (I don’t know if he considers himself a theologian or not). I agree that it is an orthodox interpretation of Church teaching. But the world is not a simple place, and human relationships are not simple either. The Church recognizes that this is true. One cannot simply plug in (name removed by moderator)uts A and B and chug moral decision C out of a theological block box.

When Pope Benedict was still Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he was asked about contraception and the pastoral problem of dealing with couples that do not want to have more children. Here is excerpt:

I edited this for length, it comes from Salt of the Earth. There is more available here:

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0633.html

The point is that its easy to sit at our keyboards and declare this and that moral or immoral. But those that have had to deal day in and day out with seriously moral questions involving real people do not find it that simple.

Okay but the author did echo the church teachings

I don’t understand what you’re saying. Can you rephrase?

Unitive means the two have become one.

Not exactly…the intent was to be able to explain why condoms destroy the unitive aspect of the marital act aside from the procreative, when the procreative is impossible (i.e. no uterus or ovaries). Any other circumstance would of course include the inseparability of unity and procreativity, including menopause, since there would be still a very remote chance of ovulation, conception, etc and using a condom would be considered at least potentially contraceptive.

Another way of asking the OP question is:

Is the loss of the unitive value of the marital act, simply by the matter of the use of a condom (not in any sense for contraception in this scenario) more, less or the same as the loss of unitive value by having a condom barrier between the spouses.

The Church answer would seem to be more, right?

Yes, I realize this may be a rationalist argument, but one cannot deny the loss of at least some of the unitive value of the marital act, even with a condom. (This also assumes that there is not serious risk of HIV, STDs, etc, which has been addressed.)

Again, I’m not looking for an out or a loophole, just anticipating arguments against Church teaching in this specific circumstance.

I do not know how to make it more clear (sorry) The church teaching is use of a condom for relations is illicit always and everywhere. If a ninety year old man who had parts removed during a cancer surgery has relations with is 90 year old wife 50 years after her hysterectomy the use of a condom is illicit

The church teaches sex has a purpose and is restricted to only married people. Thus the Church does not, will not, and should, not address the recreational aspects of relations. In this thread the idea is for recreational aspects as relations free of procreations and unity could we………

I understand your question similar to” Since procreation appears impossible what is the difference if I………” The Church teaches this is “disordered logic” meaning it sins against the Natural Moral Law which designs a man to take (and give) to a single woman in a life long bond fully (in all aspects) thus they are never to barrier even with barriers which are other than latex. They should not use anger as a barrier, separation as a barrier, methods of pleasure as a barrier, etc, etc…

Hope that helps

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, very good answer.

 

[TMC]

The church teaching is use of a condom for relations is illicited always and everywhere

Okay but the author did echo the church teachings

Unitive means the two have become one.
I do not know how to make it more clear (sorry) The church teaching is use of a condom for relations is illicit always and everywhere. If a ninety year old man who had parts removed during a cancer surgery has relations with is 90 year old wife 50 years after her hysterectomy the use of a condom is illicit

The church teaches sex has a purpose and is restricted to only married people. Thus the Church does not, will not, and should, not address the recreational aspects of relations. In this thread the idea is for recreational aspects as relations free of procreations and unity could we………

I understand your question similar to” Since procreation appears impossible what is the difference if I………” The Church teaches this is “disordered logic” meaning it sins against the Natural Moral Law which designs a man to take (and give) to a single woman in a life long bond fully (in all aspects) thus they are never to barrier even with barriers which are other than latex. They should not use anger as a barrier, separation as a barrier, methods of pleasure as a barrier, etc, etc…

Hope that helps

But Humanae Vitae does not say that contraception destroys the unitive significance. Your barrier comments are interesting on a surface level, but they do not address how non-barrier methods destroy unity, or even why barrier methods do so. My reading of HV is that one should not use the marital act to achieve the unitive without being open to the procreative. You seem to be saying that one cannot access the unitive without the procreative. Clearly many many people do so every day. HV is not saying it can’t be done, its saying its wrong to do so.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But Humanae Vitae does not say that contraception destroys the unitive significance. Your barrier comments are interesting on a surface level, but they do not address how non-barrier methods destroy unity, or even why barrier methods do so. My reading of HV is that one should not use the marital act to achieve the unitive without being open to the procreative. You seem to be saying that one cannot access the unitive without the procreative. Clearly many many people do so every day. HV is not saying it can’t be done, its saying its wrong to do so.

*Consequences of Artificial Methods

1. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.** Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. *** - PPIV vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[TMC]

*Consequences of Artificial Methods

1. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.* Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.** Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. ** - PPIV vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

OK. I have read HV. The areas you highlight do not address how the use of contraception directly interferes with the unitive significance. Paul says that uncharitable demands for sex are not good for couples, which seem obvious. He assumes that men will become overly demanding if they use contraceptives, which does not necessarily follow. But HV does not say that contraceptives necessarily interfere with the unitive aspect. A few paragraphs above it seems to assume the opposite:

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, 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.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

I agree that Paul VI says that using contraceptives can lead to unhealthy sexual practices, which can reduce or eliminate the unitive aspect. But I thought you were saying that each individual act of contraception necessarily blocks the unitive significance of that act, not that the practice can eventually lead to a breakdown in the relationship.

 

[CHCatholic]

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

I would say it would
Sex is a FULL giving of self just like Jesus FULLY gave Himself up for us

Jesus didnt go “Ok, nail me up, but not the left hand”

 

[Newbie2]

Thus the Church does not, will not, and should, not address the recreational aspects of relations. In this thread the idea is for recreational aspects as relations free of procreations and unity could we………

Recreational meaning aside from procreative? Isn’t “recreational” sex unitive?

I disagree that the Church does not address “recreational” sex between married couples; otherwise the Church would state that sex is only for procreation, no?

What was the end of your thought “…unity could we…”?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Recreational meaning aside from procreative? Isn’t “recreational” sex unitive?

See the third person posts below

I disagree that the Church does not address “recreational” sex between married couples;

I do not know of such, please post that teaching, I know of the teachings which make that not an option

otherwise the Church would state that sex is only for procreation, no?

many have put forth such a belief but I do not know of a church teaching which directly matches such. It seems the Church teachings are clear that the natural design of a man and woman pairs them to become one whether procreative or not. And this appears where many are lost:

“I [third person] would like relations which are not procreative but unitive” - The Church teaches these relations can only be attempted through naturally infertile periods and must remain open to life.

“I [third person] would like relations which are procreative but not unitive” - The Church teaches these relations do not exist, natural law unites the man and woman.

*“I [third person] would like relations which are not procreative and not unitive” *- The Church teaches these relations are immoral and equal to adultery and fornication, this is recreational relations which are derived from man’s weakness and misuse of natural design.

*“I [third person] do not believe a difference exists between artificial birth control(abc) and planning infertile periods”- *The Church teaches moral relations are confined to married people who become through this process one, the unity and procreation aspect are intrinsic to the process. The abc is disordered allowing either party to walk away with no children to abandon, additionally it allows (particularly the man) to have relations with out discerning as there will be no deep lifelong commitment. These recreational activities live many empty people, lives, houses, and eventually some abandon children. The fault was in the idea the abc prevented a need to discern whether the full commitment needed to be made prior to relations

What was the end of your thought “…unity could we…”?

I did not have an end, it is an example of disordered logic. If the question makes sense the logic is disordered.

It requires :
assume we can separate the natural design of the woman
assume we can separate the natural design of the man
assume we can separate the procreations
assume we can add or subtract the unity

These can not be done (look at the paternity cases) thus the disordered logic leads the person to bad consequences.

Hope that helps

 

[hasikelee]

See the third person posts below I do not know of such, please post that teaching, I know of the teachings which make that not an option many have put forth such a belief but I do not know of a church teaching which directly matches such. It seems the Church teachings are clear that the natural design of a man and woman pairs them to become one whether procreative or not. And this appears where many are lost:

"I [third person] would like relations which are not procreative but unitive" - The Church teaches these relations can only be attempted through naturally infertile periods and must remain open to life.

“I [third person] would like relations which are procreative but not unitive” - The Church teaches these relations do not exist, natural law unites the man and woman.

"I [third person] would like relations which are not procreative and not unitive" - The Church teaches these relations are immoral and equal to adultery and fornication, this is recreational relations which are derived from man’s weakness and misuse of natural design.

*“I [third person] do not believe a difference exists between artificial birth control(abc) and planning infertile periods”- *The Church teaches moral relations are confined to married people who become through this process one, the unity and procreation aspect are intrinsic to the process. The abc is disordered allowing either party to walk away with no children to abandon, additionally it allows (particularly the man) to have relations with out discerning as there will be no deep lifelong commitment. These recreational activities live many empty people, lives, houses, and eventually some abandon children. The fault was in the idea the abc prevented a need to discern whether the full commitment needed to be made prior to relations I did not have an end, it is an example of disordered logic. If the question makes sense the logic is disordered.

It requires :
assume we can separate the natural design of the woman
assume we can separate the natural design of the man
assume we can separate the procreations
assume we can add or subtract the unity

These can not be done (look at the paternity cases) thus the disordered logic leads the person to bad consequences.

Hope that helps

I’m confused. Are you saying the Church does not have a theological basis to argue for unity and procreation within the marital embrace? And thus, you conclude that condoms used for reasons other than preventing procreation are therefore allowable?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m confused.

You always confuse me too

Are you saying the Church does not have a theological basis to argue for unity and procreation within the marital embrace?

no

And thus, you conclude that condoms used for reasons other than relations -]preventing procreation/-] are therefore allowable? make all the balloon animals you would like