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

  • Thread starter Thread starter LokisMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LongingSoul said:
I’m not sure why Catholics were upset. I’m Catholic and I wasn’t upset. If the Popes say something and the media reports it, I generally go straight to the Popes mouth and figure out what he really meant… not assume the Pope has gone nuts or been possessed and the media was just reporting the truth.
Click to expand...
What I meant was, why did they get upset over what they THOUGHT he said, if what they THOUGHT he said wasn’t even against Church teaching??
As I’ve stated before, I’ve never heard the idea or perforated condoms for the medical collection of semen. I don’t even know if they have such a thing in Australia. Rau is a Catholic Aussie bloke so he may have heard of it. Personally I think its an over reach in the wrong direction and muddies up the Catholic mission against contraception.
Click to expand...
So you think Catholics should be able to use regular ones for sperm samples?
 
Rau said:
I understand that perspective entirely, hence my less than definite language on the point. I guess the other view is that it is nigh-on impossible not to pursue the drive for (ie. to will the) pleasure in that act.
Click to expand...
Haha, yeah it obviously has to feel good in order for them to climax. :o
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
What I meant was, why did they get upset over what they THOUGHT he said, if what they THOUGHT he said wasn’t even against Church teaching??
Click to expand...
If it were the ultra conservative Catholics who feel that there is a supernatural evil quality to condoms that render them ‘contraception’ under any circumstance, I guess they were upset that the Pope said that there were some cases, as with prostitution with its high rate of HIV sharing, where they could serve a positive purpose, I suppose.
So you think Catholics should be able to use regular ones for sperm samples?
Click to expand...
No I think that medical procedures should be conducted in a medical way as in producing a medical sample into medical jars in a medical clinic for the medical testing of the sample.
 
LongingSoul said:
If it were the ultra conservative Catholics who feel that there is a supernatural evil quality to condoms that render them ‘contraception’ under any circumstance, I guess they were upset that the Pope said that there were some cases, as with prostitution with its high rate of HIV sharing, where they could serve a positive purpose, I suppose.
Click to expand...
It seems like a lot of Catholics got upset, not just the ultra conservative ones. That’s why the Vatican had to officially speak on it and “clear up” what the pope actually meant. Because a lot of people were getting upset because they thought the pope was saying it was ok to use a condom for non contraceptive purposes (in this case, the spread of hiv).
 
LongingSoul said:
No I think that medical procedures should be conducted in a medical way as in producing a medical sample into medical jars in a medical clinic for the medical testing of the sample.
Click to expand...
Lol, I like you. 🙂
I wish more Catholics were more laid back and down to earth about this stuff. I actually agree with you, but I just know that that’s not what is widely understood in Catholicism as being licit. If someone asked me if the Church would approve of this, I would say absolutely not. (Though personally I don’t think God would have a problem with it)
But maybe it’s because the Church just automatically has to er on the side of caution.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
It seems like a lot of Catholics got upset, not just the ultra conservative ones. That’s why the Vatican had to officially speak on it and “clear up” what the pope actually meant. Because a lot of people were getting upset because they thought the pope was saying it was ok to use a condom for non contraceptive purposes (in this case, the spread of hiv).
Click to expand...
From the Catholic newsagency clarification…According to one much-commented excerpt printed in L’Osservatore Romano, the Pope concedes that there can be single cases in which the use of a condom may be justified.

Now that is certainly not approving condoms for ‘non contraceptive purposes’, but in a certain type of case it could indicate something positive in the choosing of a condom. What that does is indicate that a condom is not intrinsically evil like contraception is.

The Church speaks to the morality of ‘acts’… not the morality of tools or equipment.
 
LongingSoul said:
From the Catholic newsagency clarification…According to one much-commented excerpt printed in L’Osservatore Romano, the Pope concedes that there can be single cases in which the use of a condom may be justified.

Now that is certainly not approving condoms for ‘non contraceptive purposes’, but in a certain type of case it could indicate something positive in the choosing of a condom. What that does is indicate that a condom is not intrinsically evil like contraception is.
Click to expand...
Yeah I took that to mean that it was only in the case of homosexuals (in which unitivy/procreation wouldn’t apply anyway).
The Church speaks to the morality of ‘acts’… not the morality of tools or equipment.
Click to expand...
I know. If I made it sound like I thought otherwise, then sorry for not being clear.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Lol, I like you. 🙂
I wish more Catholics were more laid back and down to earth about this stuff. I actually agree with you, but I just know that that’s not what is widely understood in Catholicism as being licit. If someone asked me if the Church would approve of this, I would say absolutely not. (Though personally I don’t think God would have a problem with it)
But maybe it’s because the Church just automatically has to er on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the Church would ‘approve’ it either. I’m saying there are some things that the Church would allow for following medical advice when the actual act is not intrinsically evil, but in pursuit of health.
 
LongingSoul said:
I’m not saying the Church would ‘approve’ it either. I’m saying there are some things that the Church would allow for following medical advice when the actual act is not intrinsically evil, but in pursuit of health.
Click to expand...
I know. I like that you think that. I wish I did lol.
 
LongingSoul said:
From the Catholic newsagency clarification…According to one much-commented excerpt printed in L’Osservatore Romano, the Pope concedes that there can be single cases in which the use of a condom may be justified.

Now that is certainly not approving condoms for ‘non contraceptive purposes’, but in a certain type of case it could indicate something positive in the choosing of a condom. What that does is indicate that a condom is not intrinsically evil like contraception is.

The Church speaks to the morality of ‘acts’… not the morality of tools or equipment.
Click to expand...
A rapist wearing a condom would seem to reveal just a glimmer of right intention amidst massive evil. And I don’t meaning wearing the condom to conceal DNA, or protect himself, which has obviously nil merit.
 
Rau said:
I think you have to ask a person who was upset - others could only guess.
Click to expand...
Well it was a rhetorical question lol. They got upset because what they thought he suggested goes against Catholic teaching. But now a few of you are saying it’s NOT against church teaching, so I dont know how you explain that many Catholics getting upset over something that is not church teaching. They must all be crazy, and the Vatican must be silly to have formally spoken about it for the more crazy, ultra conservative Catholics who get upset over non issues. 😉
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Well it was a rhetorical question lol. They got upset because what they thought he suggested goes against Catholic teaching. But now a few of you are saying it’s NOT against church teaching, so I dont know how you explain that many Catholics getting upset over something that is not church teaching. They must all be crazy, and the Vatican must be silly to have formally spoken about it for the more crazy, ultra conservative Catholics who get upset over non issues. 😉
Click to expand...
You need to ask a person who got upset:
  • what is it you understand is the relevant church teaching; and
  • what do you think the Pope said
Then you might get clarity on what led to their response. Lol.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
A quick CAF search shows this person makes it pretty clear:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=701471
Click to expand...
If a HIV infected rapist (or male prostitute, or prostitutes customer) used a condom, how should we feel about that? Does the condom add to the immorality of the act, or reveal a glimmer of “responsibility”, a first step in the right direction? [Is it a bit like a bank robber using a gun, but omitting the bullets?]

I think it is clearly the latter, and I believe that is what the Pope was saying too.

Prostitute-enabled sex acts are not marital acts. They are fundamentally illicit acts in their own right. I find them not much different to a form of masturbation (aided by another person) that promotes the male orgasm. Rape is not a marital act - it is an assault. And we know that a rape victim is entitled to receive medical treatment to rid herself of or nullify the semen prior to (possible) conception.

The person in the post you’ve referenced seems not to have understood the actual events addressed, and the application of relevant moral teaching, whereas a number of the posts further down that thread see the issue much more clearly.
 
Rau said:
If a HIV infected rapist (or male prostitute, or prostitutes customer) used a condom, how should we feel about that? Does the condom add to the immorality of the act, or reveal a glimmer of “responsibility”, a first step in the right direction? [Is it a bit like a bank robber using a gun, but omitting the bullets?]

I think it is clearly the latter, and I believe that is what the Pope was saying too.

Prostitute-enabled sex acts are not marital acts. They are fundamentally illicit acts in their own right. I find them not much different to a form of masturbation (aided by another person) that promotes the male orgasm. Rape is not a marital act - it is an assault. And we know that a rape victim is entitled to receive medical treatment to rid herself of or nullify the semen prior to (possible) conception.

The person in the post you’ve referenced seems not to have understood the actual events addressed, and the application of relevant moral teaching, whereas a number of the posts further down that thread see the issue much more clearly.
Click to expand...
Lol. Yes. I know.

Thats my whole point. My whole point is, why did so many Catholics get so upset about what they* thought* the pope said, if what they thought the pope said supposedly wasn’t even against Church teaching to begin with.

(What they thought he said was that condoms were permissible to wear when the reason for it is to stop the spread of HIV. I know that’s not what he said. Once again, I know that’s not what he said. That’s why I keep stressing what they thought he said.)
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Lol. Yes. I know.

Thats my whole point. My whole point is, why did so many Catholics get so upset about what they* thought* the pope said, if what they thought the pope said supposedly wasn’t even against Church teaching to begin with.

(What they thought he said was that condoms were permissible to wear when the reason for it is to stop the spread of HIV. I know that’s not what he said. Once again, I know that’s not what he said. That’s why I keep stressing what they thought he said.)
Click to expand...
The point is, that those who got upset ALSO misunderstood the relevant teaching and its application. Which is why I said, when you first raised the question, that you needed to consult both their understanding of the relevant teaching and their understanding of what the Pope said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top