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

[LokisMom]

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.

Thank you for your contribution!

 

[SuperLuigi]

I would advise discussing this issue with a priest if you think there is some reason for it, like being HIV positive or your partner of the opposite sex in a valid marriage insists on contraception and refuses intercourse without.

 

[LongingSoul]

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

Superluigi adds another dimension. If a husband insists on wearing a condom for sex why is it not essential that the wife refuse sex in what she knows to be contraception or mutual masturbation if it can constitute that? When a thing is intrinsically evil it is illicit to do it so that good may come of it. That concession seems to indicate that intent ie. the wifes desire for the right way can contribute something of the unitive and procreative over the husbands evil intent and the actual absence of his semen in her vagina during intercourse.

The reason I’m putting this forward is not to open loopholes, but to shut them. The OPs original argument was that the condom was almost supernaturally infused with evil to the point that not only the complete absense of intention to avoid conception, but the complete absence of any possibility to concieve, was completely irrelevant to its nature. That premise leading to the position that a perforated condom could be licit in the way of NFP regardless of the intent to avoid conception.

 

[LokisMom]

Superluigi adds another dimension. If a husband insists on wearing a condom for sex why is it not essential that the wife refuse sex in what she knows to be contraception or mutual masturbation if it can constitute that? When a thing is intrinsically evil it is illicit to do it so that good may come of it. That concession seems to indicate that intent ie. the wifes desire for the right way can contribute something of the unitive and procreative over the husbands evil intent and the actual absence of his semen in her vagina during intercourse.

The reason I’m putting this forward is not to open loopholes, but to shut them. The OPs original argument was that the condom was almost supernaturally infused with evil to the point that not only the complete absense of intention to avoid conception, but the complete absence of any possibility to concieve, was completely irrelevant to its nature. That premise leading to the position that a perforated condom could be licit in the way of NFP regardless of the intent to avoid conception.

It’s not that the condom itself is supernaturally infused with evil lol. It’s that it takes away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex by blocking the sperm from entering a woman. This is what the argument is. I did not make it up. Im merely repeating it here.

 

[rcwitness]

You can use them for water balloons…

 

[LokisMom]

Superluigi adds another dimension. If a husband insists on wearing a condom for sex why is it not essential that the wife refuse sex in what she knows to be contraception or mutual masturbation if it can constitute that? When a thing is intrinsically evil it is illicit to do it so that good may come of it. That concession seems to indicate that intent ie. the wifes desire for the right way can contribute something of the unitive and procreative over the husbands evil intent and the actual absence of his semen in her vagina during intercourse.

It’s not that the act of having condom sex ceases to be wrong… but rather, that the wife’s culpability is lessened to the point of being virtually non existent if it is her husband wearing the condom against her will. The intercourse would still not be unitive/procreative.

 

[LokisMom]

I have a question. If using condoms for non contraceptive reasons is not against Church teaching, then why did so many Catholics flip out when they thought Pope Ben said it was ok to wear them in prevention of HIV spread?

(I know it’s not actually what he said, but it was controversial because many ppl thought that’s what he said. So why would it have been controversial if it isn’t something that is against Church teaching anyway??)

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s not that the act of having condom sex ceases to be wrong… but rather, that the wife’s culpability is lessened to the point of being virtually non existent if it is her husband wearing the condom against her will. The intercourse would still not be unitive/procreative.

No your argument was that having sex with a perforated condom with the intent of avoiding pregnancy was logically licit. That it was of the same nature as NFP and didn’t constitute the sin of contraception because there was a semen presence in the vagina,

You were trying to prove that the object did not specify the act of will but that the object was created by the state of the condom. That is why I am trying to show you that the condom itself is not infused with moral meaning in and of itself.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have a question. If using condoms for non contraceptive reasons is not against Church teaching, then why did so many Catholics flip out when they thought Pope Ben said it was ok to wear them in prevention of HIV spread?

(I know it’s not actually what he said, but it was controversial because many ppl thought that’s what he said. So why would it have been controversial if it isn’t something that is against Church teaching anyway??)

The Catholic Newsagency clarifies the passages of the book dealing with Pope Benedicts comments regarding the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic…

He says that concentrating on the use of the condom only serves to trivialize sexuality.

This trivialization leads many people to no longer see sex as an expression of love, but as a self-administered drug. The fight against the banalization of sexuality is part of a great effort to change this view to a more positive one.

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.

He uses the example of prostitutes who might use prophylactics as a first step toward moralization, that is, becoming moral. In such a case, condom use might be their first act of responsibility to redevelop their consciousness of the fact that not everything is permitted and that one cannot do everything one wants.

While secular outlets such as the Associated Press characterized this remark as “a stunning turnaround” for the Church, Pope Benedict goes on to explain that this is not the true and proper way to defeat HIV. Instead what is necessary is the humanization of sexuality.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-benedict-advocates-right-sexuality-not-condom-use-in-fight-against-hiv/

The Church will never approve condoms on principle as a way of addressing the diseases resulting from sexual sin. To do so would be to lose the Churchs true message regarding our sexual gift. When the Anglicans approved on principle the use of contraception for grave reasons, the Anglican Churchs authority over moral sexual behaviour desolved into that rule.

 

[LokisMom]

No your argument was that having sex with a perforated condom with the intent of avoiding pregnancy was logically licit. That it was of the same nature as NFP and didn’t constitute the sin of contraception because there was a semen presence in the vagina,

You were trying to prove that the object did not specify the act of will but that the object was created by the state of the condom. That is why I am trying to show you that the condom itself is not infused with moral meaning in and of itself.

No, the reason I thought using a perforated condom was licit is because, since it still allows semen to pass through, it does not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. A regular condom, however, does not allow semen to go through into the woman… thus rendering the marital act incomplete to where it is neither unitive or procreative.

 

[LokisMom]

The Catholic Newsagency clarifies the passages of the book dealing with Pope Benedicts comments regarding the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic…

He says that concentrating on the use of the condom only serves to trivialize sexuality.

This trivialization leads many people to no longer see sex as an expression of love, but as a self-administered drug. The fight against the banalization of sexuality is part of a great effort to change this view to a more positive one.

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.

He uses the example of prostitutes who might use prophylactics as a first step toward moralization, that is, becoming moral. In such a case, condom use might be their first act of responsibility to redevelop their consciousness of the fact that not everything is permitted and that one cannot do everything one wants.

While secular outlets such as the Associated Press characterized this remark as “a stunning turnaround” for the Church, Pope Benedict goes on to explain that this is not the true and proper way to defeat HIV. Instead what is necessary is the humanization of sexuality.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-benedict-advocates-right-sexuality-not-condom-use-in-fight-against-hiv/

Lol I knew someone was going to do this. Thanks, but I already know what the pope actually meant. My post wasnt about what he meant or didnt mean, it was about why it was controversial in the first place.

The Church will never approve condoms on principle as a way of addressing the diseases resulting from sexual sin. To do so would be to lose the Churchs true message regarding our sexual gift. When the Anglicans approved on principle the use of contraception for grave reasons, the Anglican Churchs authority over moral sexual behaviour desolved into that rule.

I am not exactly sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying then, that the reason Catholics were upset when they thought the pope said it was ok to use condoms if you have hiv, was not because the church forbids its use in that way, but because the church forbids hiv infected people from having sex with their non infected spouses?

 

[Rau]

I am not exactly sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying then, that the reason Catholics were upset when they thought the pope said it was ok to use condoms if you have hiv, was not because the church forbids its use in that way, but because the church forbids hiv infected people from having sex with their non infected spouses?

If you have HIV you probably should not have sex with your spouse due to likely infecting them! The morality of sex in these circumstances would have to be dubious, don’t you agree?

 

[LongingSoul]

Lol I knew someone was going to do this. Thanks, but I already know what the pope actually meant. My post wasnt about what he meant or didnt mean, it was about why it was controversial in the first place.

I am not exactly sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying then, that the reason Catholics were upset when they thought the pope said it was ok to use condoms if you have hiv, was not because the church forbids its use in that way, but because the church forbids hiv infected people from having sex with their non infected spouses?

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.

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.

 

[Rau]

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.

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.

I’m Aussie??

I can see why masturbation as a sample collection method is problematic morally.

 

[underacloud]

I’m Aussie!

Maybe LongingSoul meant me or got us mixed up.

And no, I haven’t heard of them being used in Australia. But then I have four children and no real reason to assess my fertility.

 

[Rau]

I’m Aussie!

Maybe LongingSoul meant me or got us mixed up.

And no, I haven’t heard of them being used in Australia. But then I have four children and no real reason to assess my fertility.

It’s a global market!!

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m Aussie??

I can see why masturbation as a sample collection method is problematic morally.

Oh sorry. What made me think that?? Perhaps because we seem to keep the same online hours?

I don’t know if this is correct, but I know the Church has a duty to give her (name removed by moderator)ut on the ethics of medical treatments and procedures… but that some things can only be assessed on case by case bases.

For example, the Church teaches "2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "

For someone to produce a semen sample in a speciman jar in a clinic for the purposes of medical treatment, I would consider this as not qualifying as ‘masturbation’. It may contribute to other sins if it is for the purpose of an IVF treatment or sperm donation… but as a legitimate medical procedure… I can’t see the qualifiers there for the sin of masturbation.

On the other hand, the idea that using a perforated condom to have sex with the wife in order to get that speciman, seems to me to be turning the marital act into a medical procedure and the womans body into a speciman jar in a clinic. Somewhere in my primal being that repels me.

The Church often doesn’t speak on every nuance and leaves those the well informed conscience or personal exploration with a Church expert.

I’m Aussie!

Maybe LongingSoul meant me or got us mixed up.

And no, I haven’t heard of them being used in Australia. But then I have four children and no real reason to assess my fertility.

Oh, another Aussie!

 

[Rau]

For example, the Church teaches "2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "

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.

 

[Rau]

On the other hand, the idea that using a perforated condom to have sex with the wife in order to get that speciman, seems to me to be turning the marital act into a medical procedure and the womans body into a speciman jar in a clinic. Somewhere in my primal being that repels me.

Also a reasonable perspective! It is true that if one had sex just for the purposes of collecting a sample, that would be immoral. I guess the mindset needs to be that which would flow from this medical instruction: “the next time you have sex, please remember to collect a sample”. The sex act is then properly “Intentioned”.

In all of this, the line is thin, but there is a line. I would not think too badly of someone who did not see the line as demanding not to be crossed.

 

[LokisMom]

If you have HIV you probably should not have sex with your spouse due to likely infecting them! The morality of sex in these circumstances would have to be dubious, don’t you agree?

Maybe you shouldn’t, but that’s not the point.