Infertile married couple condom use

[Seatuck]

Try Fr.Joe’s Blog for a discussion on this topic. Of course he uses HIV as the catalyst. But it is about a older reproductively sterile couple with HIV who wants to use the condoms.

fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2006/05/12/condoms-intercourse-aids-among-infertile-couples/

He quotes William May- noted Catholic Moral Professor-

“be morally wrong to use condoms in this way. Using them would not violate some of the conditions of the principle of double effect…but it would violate the first condition of this principle, which requires that the act chosen, prescinding from its evil effect, must either be morally good or at least morally indifferent. But condomistic intercourse is not morally good in itself, nor is it morally indifferent.”
Such intercourse, I went on to say, is “an ‘unnatural’ or perverted sexual act, and cannot be regarded as a true act of marriage.” The moral object here is “to have condomistic intercourse,” and this is a morally bad object specifying the act. “The Catholic tradition,” I noted in my 1988 essay, “repudiated condomistic intercourse not only because it was usually chosen as a way of contracepting but also because it was ‘against nature’. Older theologians judged that in such intercourse the male’s semen was deposited in a vas indebitum or ‘undue vessel.’ Although this language is not in favor today [and it may reflect an understanding of natural law I do not share] the judgment embodied in it, I am convinced, is true. When spouses choose to use condoms they change the act they perform from one of true marital union (the marriage act) into a different kind of act. The ‘language of the body’ [to use Pope John Paul II’s way of speaking] is changed. In the marital act their bodies speak the language of a mutual giving and receiving, the language of an unreserved and oblative gift. Condomistic intercourse does not speak this language; it mutilates the language of the body, and the act chosen is more similar to masturbation than it is to the true marital act.”

May even goes on to say such condomistic sex on the wedding night would not even consummate the marriage. Pretty serious stuff. He’s talking about a naturally infertile couple engaging in a conjugal act apt for the generation of offspring. In other words the husband must gift his wife physically from his body during the marital act for it to qualify.

Today I would add some of the following considerations. Such a condomistic act would not, I believe, “consummate” the marriage. According to the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law, marriage is not consummated by any kind of sexual act. According to the new Code a valid marriage between baptized persons is “consummated if the spouses have in a human manner (humano modo) engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring” (canon 1061, par. 1).

He quotes Pius XII in his address to Midwives-

Condomistic sex is not unitive. In and through it husband and wife do not become “one flesh.” Husbands and wives have the right to engage in the conjugal or marital act, one not intentionally “closed” to either the unitive or procreative goods of marriage. They have no right to condomistically facilitated sexual activity, which is intentionally closed to the unitive, one-flesh good of marriage. Condoms do not make them one flesh.

 

[hasikelee]

You always confuse me too
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

Aww, c’mon, Texas I really was confused.

What you’re saying is since the condom in this case would be to cover 4-6 inches of flesh, thus providing a sense of security against viruses and bacterium, it should be permissable?

 

[Newbie2]

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?

I’m a little confused to the response as well. TR, in what sense are you using the term “recreational” sex? Are you referring to sex that is not intentionally to be procreative i.e. we want to have another baby?

Balloon animals. I get it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Aww, c’mon, Texas I really was confused.

What you’re saying is since the condom in this case would be to cover 4-6 inches of flesh, thus providing a sense of security against viruses and bacterium, it should be permissable?

I’m a little confused to the response as well. TR, in what sense are you using the term “recreational” sex? Are you referring to sex that is not intentionally to be procreative i.e. we want to have another baby?

Balloon animals. I get it.

I am confused how you are confused (really) ?

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/-] leave 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

May be you did not catch the earlier post, which repeatly read

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

btw - your husband claims you misread the measurement ( wow talk about bad timing )

 

[Princess18]

There is NO moral reason anyone should ever have to touch a condom, much less use one. As awful as it seems, even to the extent of death, the church does not condone their use under any circumstance. No. None. Ever.

Ooh this brought up another point. (I promise I am not hijacking the thread.) The only scenario for “OK” condom use that I can see, other than perforated ones for semen sample collection, is anal stimulation (by anything) during foreplay. Nothing should be going in back there without some sort of covering. If the encounter will end PIV (condom-free) with full gift of seed, the whole act is still procreative and unfavorable bacteria stays out of the equation, so to speak.

Back to the OP’s original post. I had a friend that was in a similar scenario. She constantly had yeast infections which her doctor determined were caused by her husband and he was encouraged to wear a rubber, as the doctor decreed she was “allergic” to his semen. This is not correct labeling because there is probably not an allergy involved here, but he was trying to imply that she was doomed to infection every time they had full-contact sex. They tried maintaining a prescription for a yeast pill, which they both took regularly, but it had horrible side effects.

Unwilling to accept the “use a condom” diagnosis, my friend went to another doctor - a naturopath or homeopath I believe. She focused more on diet and herbs that help the body naturally fight infection. She also did a quite a bit of counseling on the sex act itself, since inadequate amounts of foreplay and rushing things in general does not allow the female body time to prepare with adequate lubrication, suggested by another poster already. The doctor encouraged them to spend more time in foreplay, discovering new ways of stimulating each other (which brings me back to the condom suggestion above) so that her body would have time to prepare for the act and decrease chances of problems due to infection later.

I vote that the person in the hypothetical scenario focus on other options rather than just resolving to condom usage. Get a second opinion.

 

[TMC]

Try Fr.Joe’s Blog for a discussion on this topic. Of course he uses HIV as the catalyst. But it is about a older reproductively sterile couple with HIV who wants to use the condoms.

fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2006/05/12/condoms-intercourse-aids-among-infertile-couples/

He quotes William May- noted Catholic Moral Professor-

May even goes on to say such condomistic sex on the wedding night would not even consummate the marriage. Pretty serious stuff. He’s talking about a naturally infertile couple engaging in a conjugal act apt for the generation of offspring. In other words the husband must gift his wife physically from his body during the marital act for it to qualify.

He quotes Pius XII in his address to Midwives-

This is indeed consistent the Church’s current teaching. I really wonder if it will survive much longer, even through the current Papacy. Much of the difficulty arise because Pope John Paul II appears to have defined contraceptive use as intrinsically evil in Veritatis Splendor 80. I say appears because he does not include it in the list of intrinsically evil acts earlier in that section, but provides it as an example later. He also condtions it as: “contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertileand adds the condition.”

Not many things are defined as intrinsically evil, and the definition exempts contraception from double use analysis. But if we keep the caveat “intentionally rendered” double use comes back into play.

I’m not saying a major shake up is coming, but if for those that read the interview with Card. Ratzinger I linked to in post 55, note that he recasts the contraception argument completly, making it about valuing children and recognizing that not all of our problems are susceptible to technological solutions. A re-explanation of this doctrine from this Pope would not surprise me.

 

[hasikelee]

I am confused how you are confused (really) ?

May be you did not catch the earlier post, which repeatly read

btw - your husband claims you misread the measurement ( wow talk about bad timing )

Oh, I’m sorry, my sincerest apologies. I forgot your posting history until now. I knew I knew you, I just didn’t remember how.

Have a good one, Texas.

 

[Newbie2]

I am confused how you are confused (really) ?

OK, lemme splain. Better yet, let’s start with what exactly do you mean by “recreational” sex?

btw - your husband claims you misread the measurement ( wow talk about bad timing

I missed that one completely.

 

[newbetx]

Ooh this brought up another point. (I promise I am not hijacking the thread.) The only scenario for “OK” condom use that I can see, other than perforated ones for semen sample collection, is anal stimulation (by anything) during foreplay. Nothing should be going in back there without some sort of covering. If the encounter will end PIV (condom-free) with full gift of seed, the whole act is still procreative and unfavorable bacteria stays out of the equation, so to speak.

Back to the OP’s original post. I had a friend that was in a similar scenario. She constantly had yeast infections which her doctor determined were caused by her husband and he was encouraged to wear a rubber, as the doctor decreed she was “allergic” to his semen. This is not correct labeling because there is probably not an allergy involved here, but he was trying to imply that she was doomed to infection every time they had full-contact sex. They tried maintaining a prescription for a yeast pill, which they both took regularly, but it had horrible side effects.

Unwilling to accept the “use a condom” diagnosis, my friend went to another doctor - a naturopath or homeopath I believe. She focused more on diet and herbs that help the body naturally fight infection. She also did a quite a bit of counseling on the sex act itself, since inadequate amounts of foreplay and rushing things in general does not allow the female body time to prepare with adequate lubrication, suggested by another poster already. The doctor encouraged them to spend more time in foreplay, discovering new ways of stimulating each other (which brings me back to the condom suggestion above) so that her body would have time to prepare for the act and decrease chances of problems due to infection later.

I vote that the person in the hypothetical scenario focus on other options rather than just resolving to condom usage. Get a second opinion.

I’ve heard the thing about semen testing, but other than on this forum, I’ve seen nothing official on that either.

Well, as I understand things, even the threat of death does not justify wearing a condom… You bring up some scenarios that have been discussed before. I’ve never seen an official “exception”. I’d welcome one if there is one. And it’s not that I’m heartless. Really. I’m refering to what I understand is the church’s official stance. At some point, some people will just have to know that they are sinning and pray for mercy, I guess. (Please don’t jump me because you think I’m recommending it) Or, like many, refuse to believe it applies to them.

 

[Newbie2]

I guess an understandable objection stems from the comparison (from a relativistic perspetive, anyway) of what’s worse, the loss of any marital union through intercourse without a condom or the loss of union through the loss of direct contact by the use of a condom.

 

[Seatuck]

I’ve heard the thing about semen testing, but other than on this forum, I’ve seen nothing official on that either.

Well, as I understand things, even the threat of death does not justify wearing a condom… You bring up some scenarios that have been discussed before. I’ve never seen an official “exception”. I’d welcome one if there is one. And it’s not that I’m heartless. Really. I’m refering to what I understand is the church’s official stance. At some point, some people will just have to know that they are sinning and pray for mercy, I guess. (Please don’t jump me because you think I’m recommending it) Or, like many, refuse to believe it applies to them.

There is no official exception except for condoms except for the use in medical testing. Which of course can only be used my a married man. The link I provided a few posts up clearly show the reasoning that their use is problematic for both the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act.
Here’s the link to the US Bishop’s site listing the use for medical testing. I have never seen a Vatican reference.Would love to see one as well.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

 

[Seatuck]

This is indeed consistent the Church’s current teaching. I really wonder if it will survive much longer, even through the current Papacy. Much of the difficulty arise because Pope John Paul II appears to have defined contraceptive use as intrinsically evil in Veritatis Splendor 80. I say appears because he does not include it in the list of intrinsically evil acts earlier in that section, but provides it as an example later. He also condtions it as: “contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertileand adds the condition.”

Not many things are defined as intrinsically evil, and the definition exempts contraception from double use analysis. But if we keep the caveat “intentionally rendered” double use comes back into play.

I’m not saying a major shake up is coming, but if for those that read the interview with Card. Ratzinger I linked to in post 55, note that he recasts the contraception argument completly, making it about valuing children and recognizing that not all of our problems are susceptible to technological solutions. A re-explanation of this doctrine from this Pope would not surprise me.

I don’t see how permission could be granted if condom use negates the unitive aspect as Pius XII taught. A nice re-explanation by Pope Benedict XVI would be helpful.

 

[Princess18]

Just a thought.

I have a hard time believing that EVERY drop of semen must always end up deposited in the approved female orifice. To reduce it to that seems to be nitpicking the rule to death. As I see it, you’re not supposed to have a contraceptive mentality - that is the bigger picture.

Let’s say you’re having a hard time conceiving and you need a semen sample for testing. If a husband and wife engage in lovemaking activities, get his sample in some sort of container, take it to the clinic, and return home to their lovemaking which ends in full-contact, seed-giving intercourse, I can’t see how anything bad has happened. The sample was collected with the goal of producing a child (obviously not a contraceptive intent) and the couple still ensured that overall act which produced the sample was procreative - even if it took several hours. This is a great deal different then a man scooting off to a private room in a bleak clinic with a girly magazine and a beaker.

Similarly with foreplay and lovemaking. If you are engaging in foreplay with no intent to inhibit pregnancy, and at some point during the next hour or two you will have complete intercourse, why freak out if something ends up outside?

I have a hard time believing that a loving God who wishes us to share our bodies with our spouse to the fullest is going to sit and judge over each movement of our bodies and say “nope, sinful”. I think the idea was to prevent us from abusing sex and leaving God out of the equation, not to torture us with incessant detail.

Sorry I kind of got off topic. Just the more I read about these super-defined rules, the more it sounds like scruples and OCD to me.

Happy Valentines Day

 

[TMC]

I don’t see how permission could be granted if condom use negates the unitive aspect as Pius XII taught. A nice re-explanation by Pope Benedict XVI would be helpful.

I think the re-explanation may reveal that double use can justify condom use. I really don’t think HV or VS rules out double use, but I understand that it appears to be the current teaching of the Church that it does. Card. Ratzinger’s remarks lead me to believe that, without denying the unitive/procreative dichotomy in any way, he does not see that as the root of the teaching.

 

[CuriousInIL]

“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.

The contra to this that I have often seen is that rape is procreative but not unitive.

 

[newbetx]

Just a thought.

I have a hard time believing that EVERY drop of semen must always end up deposited in the approved female orifice. To reduce it to that seems to be nitpicking the rule to death. As I see it, you’re not supposed to have a contraceptive mentality - that is the bigger picture.

Let’s say you’re having a hard time conceiving and you need a semen sample for testing. If a husband and wife engage in lovemaking activities, get his sample in some sort of container, take it to the clinic, and return home to their lovemaking which ends in full-contact, seed-giving intercourse, I can’t see how anything bad has happened. The sample was collected with the goal of producing a child (obviously not a contraceptive intent) and the couple still ensured that overall act which produced the sample was procreative - even if it took several hours. This is a great deal different then a man scooting off to a private room in a bleak clinic with a girly magazine and a beaker.

Similarly with foreplay and lovemaking. If you are engaging in foreplay with no intent to inhibit pregnancy, and at some point during the next hour or two you will have complete intercourse, why freak out if something ends up outside?

I have a hard time believing that a loving God who wishes us to share our bodies with our spouse to the fullest is going to sit and judge over each movement of our bodies and say “nope, sinful”. I think the idea was to prevent us from abusing sex and leaving God out of the equation, not to torture us with incessant detail.

Sorry I kind of got off topic. Just the more I read about these super-defined rules, the more it sounds like scruples and OCD to me.

Happy Valentines Day

Howdy, Princess! How goes it?

As most of us know, all semen doesn’t “end up there” under normal circumstances, anyway. So that’s not it.

It seems to be the whole exception thing… once you have one exception, others follow, like a dam burst. In fact that is exactly what happened with the protestants and ABC. Several posts about that so I won’t repeat.

We all tend to look for reasonableness for exceptions. We’re all a bunch of Jailhouse lawyers, I guess. Fact of the matter comes down to not what is reasonable for us… it’s what is the intent in God’s eyes…

In general, part A in part B is all that is required. Sometimes more is required and within reason, it’s acknowledged as OK… however not every combination of parts under all kinds of conditions is required to acheive the goal of the act.

As I understand things, each is entitled to the euphoria of climax… (not all women can, I understand). God gave us a natural, “low tech” solution. I understand that we were born with what we have and need for this act. What we get is what we get. In a safe and loving manner, of course. Does this make sense?

The exceptions to “normal” relations is where things get dicey… like a partner with an STD, someone who fears getting pregnant (for any reason), and on and on… God gave us a low tech solution… abstenance. As awful as it appears to us in our present culture, it’s been effective for eons. And not many have parished because of it.

God gives most of us a normal happy set of circumstances. Sometimes, we are given challenges. We are called to face those in a manner God will appreciate. We may be poor, or have poor health, loose a limb or become blind, or any of a myriad of what I call “tests”. Sometimes it’s sexual. The Church does not grant exceptions. We are expected to continue “normal” execution of our faith. Going to Mass even though we are in a wheelchair, or need someone to guide us there. If my wife would go into a coma, certainly I wouldn’t have sex. Other conditions are no different.

Does this make sense? Or did I ramble too much?

 

[Seatuck]

I think the re-explanation may reveal that double use can justify condom use. I really don’t think HV or VS rules out double use, but I understand that it appears to be the current teaching of the Church that it does. Card. Ratzinger’s remarks lead me to believe that, without denying the unitive/procreative dichotomy in any way, he does not see that as the root of the teaching.

I’m missing something here. What do you mean by “double use”?

 

[Seatuck]

Just a thought.

I have a hard time believing that EVERY drop of semen must always end up deposited in the approved female orifice. To reduce it to that seems to be nitpicking the rule to death. As I see it, you’re not supposed to have a contraceptive mentality - that is the bigger picture.

Let’s say you’re having a hard time conceiving and you need a semen sample for testing. If a husband and wife engage in lovemaking activities, get his sample in some sort of container, take it to the clinic, and return home to their lovemaking which ends in full-contact, seed-giving intercourse, I can’t see how anything bad has happened. The sample was collected with the goal of producing a child (obviously not a contraceptive intent) and the couple still ensured that overall act which produced the sample was procreative - even if it took several hours. This is a great deal different then a man scooting off to a private room in a bleak clinic with a girly magazine and a beaker.

Similarly with foreplay and lovemaking. If you are engaging in foreplay with no intent to inhibit pregnancy, and at some point during the next hour or two you will have complete intercourse, why freak out if something ends up outside?

I have a hard time believing that a loving God who wishes us to share our bodies with our spouse to the fullest is going to sit and judge over each movement of our bodies and say “nope, sinful”. I think the idea was to prevent us from abusing sex and leaving God out of the equation, not to torture us with incessant detail.

Sorry I kind of got off topic. Just the more I read about these super-defined rules, the more it sounds like scruples and OCD to me.

Happy Valentines Day

Hey Princess,

The church allows for two methods of semen collecting.

1. 
   *]Post-coital test to assess sperm number and viability in “fertile type” mucus. These tests are undertaken after normal intercourse.
   *]Appropriate evaluation and treatment of male factor deficiency. Seminal fluid samples can be obtained from a non-lubricated, perforated condom after normal intercourse.
   
   Christ did say the way to heaven was through the narrow gate. So , yeah we have some pretty narrow rules to follow about things.
   
   No one is saying every single drop of the male fluid must end up inside the woman. Every married couple knows that’s not really possible. Not really sure where you are getting that from.You really should consider reading a moral theology book or Theology of the Body or The Good News about Sex and Marriage. I think you would enjoy reading about the wonderful connection between what the husband and wife share and how it relates to God’s relationship with his church and within the Trinity.

 

[Newbie2]

God gives most of us a normal happy set of circumstances. Sometimes, we are given challenges. We are called to face those in a manner God will appreciate. We may be poor, or have poor health, loose a limb or become blind, or any of a myriad of what I call “tests”. Sometimes it’s sexual. The Church does not grant exceptions. We are expected to continue “normal” execution of our faith. Going to Mass even though we are in a wheelchair, or need someone to guide us there. If my wife would go into a coma, certainly I wouldn’t have sex. Other conditions are no different.
Does this make sense? Or did I ramble too much?

Well, some sense…

I would argue that not having sex with one’s wife that is in a coma is a far, far different scenario than posed in the OP.

The big question in this thread is how to best answer the objection that says, “The unitive value of no marital union through intercourse is worse than that of the unity lost through use of a condom”.

It only took me 5 or so pages of replies to distill down my OP to the question at hand.

 

[TMC]

I’m missing something here. What do you mean by “double use”?

Oops, I said double use several times, but I MEANT double effect – the theory that an act that has both a good and an evil effect can be morally justified under certain circumstances.