Infertile married couple condom use

[seekerz]

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”.

Thanks for stating it so succinctly. That is exactly the point I can’t get straight in my head, how can interfering with union be worse than no union for a couple affected by a non-debilitating but incurable medical condition?

 

[seekerz]

Just want to add that this question is also what gives me problems with our stand on HIV and condom use. Intercourse, unlike many other areas of life, does not just depend on the beliefs or values of one partner.

I may be a devout Catholic wife with a husband who only attends weddings and funerals. For so countless couples, this disparity in faith and spiritual maturity exists. Is every such wife supposed to leave her husband if he refuses to abstain or vice versa?

What about when cultural/social/economic factors make this route of resolving the issue impractical? Remember that this issue affects millions of Catholics the world over, in all social and cultural settings. In some cultures for for example, there are Catholic wives who still will not sit to eat with their husbands but will stand and serve them for the entire meal. Is such a wife, raised to defer to her husband in every way, expected to propose abstinence to him? Are Catholic girls in cultures where to be fatherless or widowed is tantamount to social deprivation/economic destitution, really going to leave a husband who will not abstain? Typically, getting such men to use a condom to prevent spread of infection, takes massive effort on the part of health authorities, (not because of religious beliefs either) what kind of persuasion would it take to get them to abstain?

Marriage is for a great many people just not the loving union of equals that it’s supposed to be. Can a less-than-equal partner be held to the same standard as those who enjoy the poster-couple Catholic marriage?

I can be sure some are going to point out that the protective effect of condoms in less than perfect; my analogy is that it’s better to wear ragged, torn clothes than to be completely naked.

Difficult issues for me to wrap my head around but in all of this I must respectfully defer to the Magesterium and pray that the Holy Spirit guide us in all truth…

 

[TMC]

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.

This raises an important question if I understand you correctly.

The Church teaches that the marital union has both procreative and unitive significance and each of these is important. The Church teaches that these should not be separated. But it seems to me that of the two, the procreative aspect is given much more significance. I say this for two reasons.

The first is one of the points that I think you are getting at. The unitive aspect is given some value, but its value alone does not ‘justify’ the marital act. For example, some women, particularly those who are avoiding pregnancy for medical reasons, feel such anxiety about NFP that the act cannot really be said to be unitive for them. Some have suggested they could limit sex to infertile periods and still use condoms, arguing that the diminuation in the procreative aspect is justified by the increase in the unitive. Current Church teaching seems to preclude this. In other words, even a small amount of procreative significance trumps even a large change in the unitive significance.

The second point is that although we often say that the unitive and procreative must be present in every act, that is not really what the Church teaches. HV says every marital act must be open to procreation, but does not actually require that every marital act be unitive. The Church encourages couples to take each other’s personal and emotional conditions into account, but many Catholics would say that a spouse has the right to the ‘marital debt’ whether paying that ‘debt’ has a unitive or a divisive effect.

In fact, despite all the crowing about how in HV the Church recognized that sex was more than procreative, and that sex plays an important role in marriage, the reality is that the unitive aspect, while recognized, plays no practical role in deciding the morality of sexuality. The Church’s teachings are framed differently, but the bottom line remains the same. It would not be inaccurate to restate HV like this: Sex is a morally charged act that must be justified to be moral, and sex is only justifed if it is ordered towards procreation.

This seems inconsistent with the implications of Deus Caritas Est, and with some of the other things Benedict XVI has said. This is why I commented earlier that I would not be surprised if something would said on the topic during this Papacy. If he wants to adjust this teaching, Benedict XVI has the stature as a theologian, and frankly as a social conservative, to do so. But I may be badly misreading him.

 

[Newbie2]

It would not be inaccurate to restate HV like this: Sex is a morally charged act that must be justified to be moral, and sex is only justifed if it is ordered towards procreation.
This seems inconsistent with the implications of Deus Caritas Est, and with some of the other things Benedict XVI has said. This is why I commented earlier that I would not be surprised if something would said on the topic during this Papacy. If he wants to adjust this teaching, Benedict XVI has the stature as a theologian, and frankly as a social conservative, to do so. But I may be badly misreading him.

Do you think that would seem to mean that sex among those in menapause or were infertile for other causes not justified?

 

[fix]

The second point is that although we often say that the unitive and procreative must be present in every act, that is not really what the Church teaches. HV says every marital act must be open to procreation, but does not actually require that every marital act be unitive.

This is from HV:

…The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

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.

This is why I commented earlier that I would not be surprised if something would said on the topic during this Papacy. If he wants to adjust this teaching, Benedict XVI has the stature as a theologian, and frankly as a social conservative, to do so. But I may be badly misreading him.

Yes, I think that is a misreading. How can he change what is intrinsically wrong?

 

[Newbie2]

Yeah, if it’s not unitive, it’s just sex for each self’s pleasure’s sake, if that makes sense.

 

[Seatuck]

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.

Well, Professor may feels condomistic sex does not meet the requirements for use under the prinicpal of double effect based on the first principal as was noted in my quote of his paper.

 

[Seatuck]

This raises an important question if I understand you correctly.

The Church teaches that the marital union has both procreative and unitive significance and each of these is important. The Church teaches that these should not be separated. But it seems to me that of the two, the procreative aspect is given much more significance. I say this for two reasons.

The first is one of the points that I think you are getting at. The unitive aspect is given some value, but its value alone does not ‘justify’ the marital act. For example, some women, particularly those who are avoiding pregnancy for medical reasons, feel such anxiety about NFP that the act cannot really be said to be unitive for them. Some have suggested they could limit sex to infertile periods and still use condoms, arguing that the diminuation in the procreative aspect is justified by the increase in the unitive. Current Church teaching seems to preclude this. In other words, even a small amount of procreative significance trumps even a large change in the unitive significance.

The second point is that although we often say that the unitive and procreative must be present in every act, that is not really what the Church teaches. HV says every marital act must be open to procreation, but does not actually require that every marital act be unitive. The Church encourages couples to take each other’s personal and emotional conditions into account, but many Catholics would say that a spouse has the right to the ‘marital debt’ whether paying that ‘debt’ has a unitive or a divisive effect.

In fact, despite all the crowing about how in HV the Church recognized that sex was more than procreative, and that sex plays an important role in marriage, the reality is that the unitive aspect, while recognized, plays no practical role in deciding the morality of sexuality. The Church’s teachings are framed differently, but the bottom line remains the same. It would not be inaccurate to restate HV like this: Sex is a morally charged act that must be justified to be moral, and sex is only justifed if it is ordered towards procreation.

This seems inconsistent with the implications of Deus Caritas Est, and with some of the other things Benedict XVI has said. This is why I commented earlier that I would not be surprised if something would said on the topic during this Papacy. If he wants to adjust this teaching, Benedict XVI has the stature as a theologian, and frankly as a social conservative, to do so. But I may be badly misreading him.

I think you misunderstand what “unitive” means. What do you think it means?

I also want to ask you if you have read Theology of the Body or one of Christopher Wests studies on it. Have you ?

 

[TMC]

Do you think that would seem to mean that sex among those in menapause or were infertile for other causes not justified?

Are you asking what I think the Church teaches? I beileve the Church has clarified that it is not immoral, because the Church’s definition of “procreative” is disconnected from its ordinary every day meaning, and does not (in this context) have anything to do with fecundity.

 

[TMC]

This is from HV:

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.

I agree that HV says that, but nothing in HV or the catechism says that having marital sex that is not unitive is in any way forbidden. I assume thisis because there is an assumption built in somewhere that all marital acts are unitive, or at least that they could be unitive, so that side cannot be broken.

Yes, I think that is a misreading. How can he change what is intrinsically wrong?

It depends on what you mean by “change.” He could clarify that what is intrinsically wrong is refusing the gift of children, or make some other clarification that would change the parameters of the discussion. The doctrine forbidding contraception is not infallible (although I know some say it is). Even it it were, not every word in HV would be infallible, the Pope could make adjustments that do not deny the core teaching.

Benedict wrote at some length in Deus Caritas Est about the power and beauty of love between a man and a woman and the unity it provides, but did not mention that it must be accompained by procreation. That is not anything close to a contradiction of HV, I agree. But when you consider that he has also said that the main point of the Church’s teaching on contraception is to recognize the value of children, I think there is a lot of room for him to make adjustments. Besides, VS says the intrinsic wrong is in “contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile.” Its not clear that many of the things being discussed here fall within that. Infertile couples using condoms are not intentiaonlly rendering the act infertile, for example.

 

[TMC]

I think you misunderstand what “unitive” means. What do you think it means?

I think it means what HV says it means, which is “uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy.” HV also refers to “true mutual love.”

I also want to ask you if you have read Theology of the Body or one of Christopher Wests studies on it. Have you ?

I have not. I have read excerpts from it and pieces of West’s writings, but have never sat down and read all of either. Does he explain unity is some other way?

 

[Seatuck]

I think it means what HV says it means, which is “uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy.” HV also refers to “true mutual love.”

I have not. I have read excerpts from it and pieces of West’s writings, but have never sat down and read all of either. Does he explain unity is some other way?

Yes. If you look at the Pius XII quote you will see he describes the unitive aspect as involving the one flesh union. It isn’t so much about that the couple feels close but that they reflect the closeness that is experienced by the Trinity. Marriage is a reflection of Christs relationship to the Church. Sex or the marital act reflects the unitive relationship in the trinity. Father and son love in such a complete unitive and full gifting of self way that they are completely open to each other. This love between them results in a third person- the Holy Spirit. The marital act or one flesh union is a eartly representation of another one flesh union. The Eucharist. In the Eucharist, Christ out of love for his bride gives completely of himself and of his flesh. We receive Christs flesh inside of us in communion in a complete and generous way. In marital communion the woman recieves the man’s flesh and is gifted in a complete and generous way . It’s all very beautiful. That’s just the gist of it. It goes way deeper than I can explain myself. I can’t do it justice at all.

I really suggest you read it. You will understand why the procreative cannot be separated from the unitive because it damages the theological meaning of the marital act which represents the theological meaning of the Trinity. Also the marital act must always be procreative in action and meaning whether the couple is fertile or not . You will understand why Professor May says condomistic sex cannot be allowed if you take the time to study more deeply.And why Pius XII said condomistic sex damaged the unitive.

The reason I asked for your understanding of ‘unitive’ was because I wanted to make sure you didn’t place too much emphasis on the pleasure aspect making the couple feel close. It involves the actual meaning as described above.
You should also realize that every aspect of a topic is not always covered in a church document. There are theological as well as moral thoughts coming into play as well to fully define church teaching.

 

[TMC]

Yes. If you look at the Pius XII quote you will see he describes the unitive aspect as involving the one flesh union. It isn’t so much about that the couple feels close but that they reflect the closeness that is experienced by the Trinity. Marriage is a reflection of Christs relationship to the Church. Sex or the marital act reflects the unitive relationship in the trinity. Father and son love in such a complete unitive and full gifting of self way that they are completely open to each other. This love between them results in a third person- the Holy Spirit. The marital act or one flesh union is a eartly representation of another one flesh union. The Eucharist. In the Eucharist, Christ out of love for his bride gives completely of himself and of his flesh. We receive Christs flesh inside of us in communion in a complete and generous way. In marital communion the woman recieves the man’s flesh and is gifted in a complete and generous way . It’s all very beautiful. That’s just the gist of it. It goes way deeper than I can explain myself. I can’t do it justice at all.

I really suggest you read it. You will understand why the procreative cannot be separated from the unitive because it damages the theological meaning of the marital act which represents the theological meaning of the Trinity. Also the marital act must always be procreative in action and meaning whether the couple is fertile or not . You will understand why Professor May says condomistic sex cannot be allowed if you take the time to study more deeply.And why Pius XII said condomistic sex damaged the unitive.

The reason I asked for your understanding of ‘unitive’ was because I wanted to make sure you didn’t place too much emphasis on the pleasure aspect making the couple feel close. It involves the actual meaning as described above.
You should also realize that every aspect of a topic is not always covered in a church document. There are theological as well as moral thoughts coming into play as well to fully define church teaching.

There are some things in here I agree with and some I do not.

I agree that the unitive element is related to the one flesh union, the same union Benedict discussed in DCE, and the same union that Adam and Eve formed. I think its a mistake to try to seperate that from the pleasurable aspect of sex. The pleasure derived from sex is an important mechanism to increasing union. I also agree that this is much more than feeling close, but I don’t think you can have this union without feeling close. It is not something completely different than romantic love or ordinary human warmth and closeness, it is all of those things and more. If you are saying that merely having sex in the proscribed way makes a couple unitive, even if they do not feel love, intimacy and closeness for each other, I would have to disagree.

I understand how contraceptives are said to destroy or inhibit the procreative aspect, when the procreative aspect is otherwise present. I do not see how they have any, or much, effect on the unitive aspect.

I agree that the complete giving of husbands and wives is like the complete giving between Christ and Church. I think that to try to draw physical parallels between the Eucharist and sexual penetration stretches the idea too far.

I have never heard it said that the Holy Spirit was the result of the love between the Father and the Son. I suppose this is a way of thinking of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

I agree that there is a lot more out there than the Church documents. I take time to read some when I can, but the stuff on this topic is not high on my list. When you leave the Church documents you also have to remember that, regardless of the author, you are now reading someone’s interpretation. Some are more authoritative than others, of course.

 

[Sanctus_Paladin]

No offence but the title should tell you without even going into church law.

If you can’t have kids why do you need a condom? and if you Can have kids why would you need a condom? And if your had a STD your forbidden to have sex anyway so I’m really missing the point of this thread here.

 

[TMC]

No offence but the title should tell you without even going into church law.

If you can’t have kids why do you need a condom? and if you Can have kids why would you need a condom? And **if your had a STD your forbidden to have sex anyway **so I’m really missing the point of this thread here.

People with STDs are forbidden to have sex? Since when, and by whom?

 

[Sanctus_Paladin]

People with STDs are forbidden to have sex? Since when, and by whom?

The church, its so you don’t spread it to your mate or possible children cause you never know what could happen.

 

[TMC]

The church, its so you don’t spread it to your mate or possible children cause you never know what could happen.

I’m not saying this is untrue, but I have truly never seen this anywhere. Can you tell me where it comes from?

 

[Sanctus_Paladin]

The catacism i belive.

 

[Newbie2]

No offence but the title should tell you without even going into church law.

If you can’t have kids why do you need a condom? and if you Can have kids why would you need a condom? And if your had a STD your forbidden to have sex anyway so I’m really missing the point of this thread here.

That’s precisely why I set up the conditions in the OP as excluding an STD.

I’m not saying this is untrue, but I have truly never seen this anywhere. Can you tell me where it comes from?

Yes, I’d second that. I can’t find it in the CCC.

 

[fix]

I agree that HV says that, but nothing in HV or the catechism says that having marital sex that is not unitive is in any way forbidden. I assume thisis because there is an assumption built in somewhere that all marital acts are unitive, or at least that they could be unitive, so that side cannot be broken.

But, HV says the act is always unitive and procreative unless you separate the two aspects through your own action.