Is it moral to use a condom for non contraceptive reasons?

[LongingSoul]

I can see the view that the condom in use with the post menopausal woman is not a contraceptive act. My concern is that it is not a “marital” act. Is it different , in a meaningful way, to mutual masturbation? Would mutual masturbation in another manner be ok in the circumstances you describe?

So are we to conclude that semen is a superior contribution to the marital act rather than what the woman contributes such as the egg or the endometrial lining which are not present as a result of some medical treatments?

The scenario has the condom purely as a medical product and being the only difference to the normal marital act. We don’t normally call contraception ‘mutual masturbation’… or perhaps Onans was both contraceptive and masturbatory since the marital act was not fully completed in the right places??

 

[LokisMom]

Those who are positing that the Church has no teaching or that disordered sexual acts can be justified if a couple is infertile, pregnant, or post-menopausal are NOT stating Church teaching.

The Church teaches the opposite-- the Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be per se ordered to procreation and unity.

Thank you!!!

Lol, I am not going crazy.

 

[LokisMom]

In the scenario proposed, the people an elderly post menopausal couple where the wife has grown allergic to semen. The medical experts in their medical capacity recommend using a condom when having sex. If the couple consults a Church expert or canon lawyer, are they guaranteed to be forbidden this medical advice and advised that the only sin free option is a sexless marriage? Or is the Church more inclined to allow medical advice and prudential judgement considering the circumstances ie. is is not chosen as contraception. It cannot be contraception since they by nature are past fertile functions.

For the record, I actually agree with you on this. But like I said on my other thread, I’m just repeating what the Church teaches… not giving my own personal thoughts on the matter.

 

[underacloud]

Ok, now we’ve got a couple of posters saying that **the Church doesn’t actually teach **that using a condom for non contraceptive reasons is wrong so long as the couple is infertile anyway lol.

Soooo, which is it? **Does the Church teach this **or are all these people above merely giving their opinion without Church authority on the matter??

Hang on!

You’ve made a major error in logic here and is probably the reason you are getting so confused on this topic.

Those of us who say that the Church has not directly, authoritatively spoken on this matter are not at all advocating that the Church teaches the opposite.

I will note at this point that not a single piece of Church teaching has been cited in this thread. Those who wish to show that the Church teaches that condom use is imoral, even in non-contraceptive situations, should provide that teaching.

(Note: I have already said that most theologians would come down on the side of it being imoral, and that bishops and other spokespeople have said as much too. We are merely commenting on magersterial, authoritative, official teaching here.)

 

[LokisMom]

Those of us who say that the Church has not directly, authoritatively spoken on this matter are not at all advocating that the Church teaches the opposite.

I know. I didn’t say that.

 

[underacloud]

I know. I didn’t say that.

Oh, I must have misread your post. Sorry.

When you ask “Does the Church teach this” were you refering to those of us who say there is no authoritative teaching, or those who say there is such a teaching? I assume now it is the latter.

 

[LokisMom]

Oh, I must have misread your post. Sorry.

When you ask “Does the Church teach this” were you refering to those of us who say there is no authoritative teaching, or those who say there is such a teaching? I assume now it is the latter.

It’s ok.

And yes, the latter.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s ok.

And yes, the latter.

For the record, I’ve never claimed there is a magisterial teaching one way or the other. My argument was countering the claim that there is.

 

[LokisMom]

For the record, I’ve never claimed there is a magisterial teaching one way or the other. My argument was countering the claim that there is.

Are you sure? You were strongly making it sound like you literally believed that there is nothing wrong for a post menopausal or other wise infertile couple to use a condom for allergies. Not that you didn’t think a formal/official teaching existed.

 

[LokisMom]

Those who are positing that the Church has no teaching or that disordered sexual acts can be justified if a couple is infertile, pregnant, or post-menopausal are NOT stating Church teaching.

The Church teaches the opposite-- the Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be per se ordered to procreation and unity.

 

[underacloud]

1ke;12358491:

Those who are positing that the Church has no teaching or that disordered sexual acts can be justified if a couple is infertile, pregnant, or post-menopausal are NOT stating Church teaching.

The Church teaches the opposite-- the Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be per se ordered to procreation and unity

.

Yes, this is the basic principle that governs these discussions. Although this is a paraphrase of the specific teaching. The specific wording is: “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”

Some people interpret this one way or another, when procreation is already off the table. The word “remain” is one where some people disagree. Some say that the word “remain” makes the requirement only apply when procreation is possible, and that a marriage act that cannot possibly be procreative (when already pregnant, post hysterectomy, etc) carries no such requirement (ie to “remain” makes no sense). The teaching also includes this phrase: “man on his own initiative may not break” with regard to unitive and procreative aspects of sex. But what if it’s already broken?

So that’s where the disagreements arise. I’m not saying I agree with this, but that is the discussion. And I’m not saying it’s a commonly held view either.

And let’s look again at what Jimmy Akin said, as this link seems to be a catalyst for this discussion somewhat:

jimmyakin.com/2006/08/condoms_during_.html

Two key quotes I’ll point out:

“The Church has not directly addressed the matter that you have raised, so we must fall back on Catholic moral theology to try to answer the question. The answer below would be representative of what many orthodox Catholic moralists would say.”

This is essentially what I have been saying.

“it is necessary for some insemination to occur in order for the marital act to be completed”

This is an interesting interpretation of how the marriage act is defined. If it is correct then it would prohibit the use of non-perforated condoms even in sterile sex. But, as far as I know, this definition is not found specifically in Church teaching and is essentially derived from the principle addressed above.

 

[Rau]

Yes, this is the basic principle that governs these discussions. Although this is a paraphrase of the specific teaching. The specific wording is: “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”

Some people interpret this one way or another, when procreation is already off the table. The word “remain” is one where some people disagree. Some say that the word “remain” makes the requirement only apply when procreation is possible, and that a marriage act that cannot possibly be procreative (when already pregnant, post hysterectomy, etc) carries no such requirement (ie to “remain” makes no sense). The teaching also includes this phrase: “man on his own initiative may not break” with regard to unitive and procreative aspects of sex. But what if it’s already broken?

So that’s where the disagreements arise. I’m not saying I agree with this, but that is the discussion. And I’m not saying it’s a commonly held view either.

And let’s look again at what Jimmy Akin said, as this link seems to be a catalyst for this discussion somewhat:

jimmyakin.com/2006/08/condoms_during_.html

Two key quotes I’ll point out:

“The Church has not directly addressed the matter that you have raised, so we must fall back on Catholic moral theology to try to answer the question. The answer below would be representative of what many orthodox Catholic moralists would say.”

This is essentially what I have been saying.

“it is necessary for some insemination to occur in order for the marital act to be completed”

This is an interesting interpretation of how the marriage act is defined. If it is correct then it would prohibit the use of non-perforated condoms even in sterile sex. But, as far as I know, this definition is not found specifically in Church teaching and is essentially derived from the principle addressed above.

This post is worth thinking about Loki(name removed by moderator).

You’ve on a few occasions declared “Church teaching says you can’t do XYZ”, whereas what you really are arguing is:

1. Church Teachings are as follows
2. From this, I reason as follows
3. And thus I conclude as follows .

This can get you to the wrong place when step 2 is not fairly simple. And when it is not simple, you should expose how you got to the conclusion, not just declare it.

.

 

[LokisMom]

This post is worth thinking about Loki(name removed by moderator).

You’ve on a few occasions declared “Church teaching says you can’t do XYZ”, whereas what you really are arguing is:

1. Church Teachings are as follows
2. From this, I reason as follows
3. And thus I conclude as follows .

This can get you to the wrong place when step 2 is not fairly simple. And when it is not simple, you should expose how you got to the conclusion, not just declare it.

.

Just know that it is not just MY conclusion. I’m not sure why neither of you have responded to the other posters on here who are also saying the same thing I am about using condoms for other reasons that are not birth control. I am by NO means alone in that thinking.

 

[LongingSoul]

Just know that it is not just MY conclusion. I’m not sure why neither of you have responded to the other posters on here who are also saying the same thing I am about using condoms for other reasons that are not birth control. I am by NO means alone in that thinking.

I’m waiting for 1ke to respond specifically to the scenario that was originally proposed ie. post menopausal, medical problem with semen allergy, medically advised condom to address issue… Is the scenario so cut and dried that canon lawyers would definitively uphold the act as the sin of contraception? If so, the part that needs to be addressed is exactly why. Is the semen in the vagina an absolute and unequivocal necessity for every act of sex to be a licit noncontraceptive marital act, even when the possibility of pregnancy is nil. Or is it possible that on a case by case basis, this group of people (post menopausal), might be left to follow medical advice?

 

[Rau]

Just know that it is not just MY conclusion. I’m not sure why neither of you have responded to the other posters on here who are also saying the same thing I am about using condoms for other reasons that are not birth control. I am by NO means alone in that thinking.

When the reasoning in step 2 is not simple, it is your conclusion, and that of who,ever makes the statement in step 3. If you believe otherwise, please reveal step 1.

 

[underacloud]

Just know that it is not just MY conclusion. I’m not sure why neither of you have responded to the other posters on here who are also saying the same thing I am about using condoms for other reasons that are not birth control. I am by NO means alone in that thinking.

Are you looking to debate the issue, or merely confirm what the relevant Church teachings are, if there are any?

I have no real interest in debating the issue. The post above covers the general issues anyway. Further debate is a matter for skilled moral theologians and I’m happy for them to run with it.

I merely stated in the other thread and again here that the Church has not made any official, authoritative, magesterial teaching directly addressing these issues. Or as well respected apologist Jimmy Akin says: “The Church has not directly addressed the matter…”

 

[LokisMom]

I’m waiting for 1ke to respond specifically to the scenario that was originally proposed ie. post menopausal, medical problem with semen allergy, medically advised condom to address issue… Is the scenario so cut and dried that canon lawyers would definitively uphold the act as the sin of contraception? If so, the part that needs to be addressed is exactly why. Is the semen in the vagina an absolute and unequivocal necessity for every act of sex to be a licit noncontraceptive marital act, even when the possibility of pregnancy is nil. Or is it possible that on a case by case basis, this group of people (post menopausal), might be left to follow medical advice?

She already said that she, along with many others, believe that to use condoms for ANY reason goes against Church teaching.

 

[LokisMom]

When the reasoning in step 2 is not simple, it is your conclusion, and that of who,ever makes the statement in step 3. If you believe otherwise, please reveal step 1.

I really dont understand what you are saying. If you want to know my personal opinion, I personally, have 0 problem with a married couple using condoms for allergies or other such non contraceptive issues. I honestly don’t think God cares. Now, do I believe the Church’s teaching regarding sex and contraception are one that would allow it? No. Am I alone in that thinking? Heck no. I am not saying anything different from what many, noted, respected, theologians have said. So I dont know why you are picking on me.

 

[LokisMom]

Are you looking to debate the issue, or merely confirm what the relevant Church teachings are, if there are any?

I have no real interest in debating the issue. The post above covers the general issues anyway. Further debate is a matter for skilled moral theologians and I’m happy for them to run with it.

I merely stated in the other thread and again here that the Church has not made any official, authoritative, magesterial teaching directly addressing these issues. Or as well respected apologist Jimmy Akin says: “The Church has not directly addressed the matter…”

No, not looking to debate the issue, just confirm what Church teaching is on it. Seems some of you said it is Church teaching, others said it is not. It is what it is.

 

[underacloud]

No, not looking to debate the issue, just confirm what Church teaching is on it. Seems some of you said it is Church teaching, others said it is not. It is what it is.

That makes it pretty straightforward then. Those who claim it is Church teaching can cite the teaching.

Otherwise, it is merely opinion. And it is not relevant whether the majority of people hold that opinion either. What is relevant is what the Church actual says.

Above, I have cited two relevant quotes (arguably THE relevant quotes), and discussed in brief how they are debated. And I have quoted Jimmy Akin saying: “The Church has not directly addressed the matter…”

As they say, I rest my case.