Morally licit condom use

  • Thread starter Thread starter DailyBread
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay fix:
First:
I believe arguing about the means in this case is moot point because the means are the same in both semenal analysis case and the case to prevent the spread of herpes. Both are acting in the exact same manner; having intercourse while using a perforated condom so either both are right according to the means or both are wrong, it cannot be either or.
I agree completely on your analogy about the virus is pathological and the pregnancy is not, but I fail to see why that discounts my arguement. In both cases the pregnancy or virus is placing the spouse’s health at risk and both do not wish or intend for that situation. Is it morally wrong for a person to stay with a contagious and sick friend who places her at risk? Actions that place us at risk of disease are not in themselves immoral unless one intends to make the other sick. Finally, genital herpes is not fatal typically (as in it almost never happens, i agree there are health risks, but like you said its up to the couple to decide). I agree that this approach is not 100% effective in preventing spread, but again same with the NFP case.

On the point that the cases are not identical, so explain to me why it is morally acceptable to do a medical analysis but not to prevent the spread of disease (a medical application)? What is immoral about the ends of “preventing spread of disease” while medical test “analyzing fertility” is morally acceptable use of perforated condoms (again the MEANS are the same so please analyze the ENDS I just stated). The perforated condom is designed so you are not preventing sperm from entering the vaginal canal (in other words, people can still get pregnant using a perforated condom so it cannot be considered contraceptive). If you do not believe this to be the case, then please state that you believe that its medical application for testing fertility is wrong because again, the MEANS are the same.
So again to restate: what is morally wrong with preventing the spread of disease and morally right with medical testing.
 
Perhaps if one spouse has an STD then playing Russian roulette with your partner is out of the question. Sometimes Christians are called to radical life style changes, and living a Josephite marriage might become your only alternative. After all you should love your spouse regardless of sexual intercourse. Sex bonds, but you loved your wife/husband long before you were able to have sexual intercourse. You did it before marriage and you might have to continue after marriage.
 
DaughterSorrow said:
This is my biggest issue with the Church. Pray for me, as I am in that situation.

Peace,
DS
Click to expand...
I am in the same situation. Do to life threating heart defects another pregnancy would be deadly for me. (We have one daughter). I have successfully used NFP (natural family planning) for 10 years. I don’t know the particulars of your situation. I will keep you in my prayers and maybe you can keep me in yours because a heart transplant is in the not to distant future for me.
 
Ok, here’s my :twocents: . ASSUMING we are talking about a moral option (not saying wether condom use would be moral or not):

We take risks every day. Driving a car is risky. You could get in a fatal accident. Driving a motorcycle is even more risky. Or sky diving. We are not obligated to pick the least risky course at all times. We should weigh each situation as it comes. For example, driving down a residential street at 25 MPH in good conditions vs driving 110 mph down a twisty road in an ice storm at night. Somewhere along the line, we have to decide if any particular risk is “worth it.”

I think it is up to the couple to decide mutually if they want to take the risk of transmitting an STD. Depending on the situation it might be a relatively minor risk, or it could be very serious, and that brings us back to the individual decision again. Abstinance is always a choice, and some might argue the best, surest one. But for some, the “risk” might be worth it. As long as both are agreeing and no coersion or force is being used.

Another example- a man has 9 kids and a wife that depend on him. He is a doctor. He works all day with sick people and runs a (relativley) high risk of catching something. You could argue that he should take a “safer” job that poses less risk if he “really” loved his family. After all, if “really” loved his wife, wouldn’t he do everything to keep them safe? It is a risk, and he has chosen to take it.
 
Wow, I think this entire argument is a puff of smoke similar to the whole… “if you were on a mountain and had to cut your friend off the rope”…

The argument is inherently flawed. A condom, perforated or not, will not protect your spouse during sexual intercourse from the spread of Herpes.

So you take a thin layer of latex that sometimes covers half a penus, is prone to breakage, slipping off, etc and has holes bigger than the virus itself, and somehow this is protecting your spouse?

I understand the OPs post is a hypothesis, but what does this say about the OPs logic and personal idea of marriage?
 
rayne89 said:
I am in the same situation. Do to life threating heart defects another pregnancy would be deadly for me. (We have one daughter). I have successfully used NFP (natural family planning) for 10 years. I don’t know the particulars of your situation. I will keep you in my prayers and maybe you can keep me in yours because a heart transplant is in the not to distant future for me.
Click to expand...
Thank you! This gives me hope. I have chronic renal faiure, and I am on the verge of a kidney transplant. I have one child who is in elementary school.

You will be in my prayers!

Peace,
DS
 
DailyBread said:
We will all pray for you. I do not know your situation, but to let you know, my mother faced a similar situation and my parents were able to use NFP for ten years to avoid pregnancy until menopause so trust in God because the Father is more faithful than any pill or condom could ever be and loves you more ;).

Back to the question, please moral theologians (that includes everyone who dabbles in moral theology and philosophy) add your two cents!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind words and encouragment. This helps!

Peace,
DS
 
hasikelee said:
Wow, I think this entire argument is a puff of smoke similar to the whole… “if you were on a mountain and had to cut your friend off the rope”…

The argument is inherently flawed. A condom, perforated or not, will not protect your spouse during sexual intercourse from the spread of Herpes.

So you take a thin layer of latex that sometimes covers half a penus, is prone to breakage, slipping off, etc and has holes bigger than the virus itself, and somehow this is protecting your spouse?

I understand the OPs post is a hypothesis, but what does this say about the OPs logic and personal idea of marriage?
Click to expand...
You are right and I agree that its not a fail proof mechanism, but it would cutdown on risk of transmission especially since it is skin contact disease. I agree its a risk that a couple would have to decide, just like the risk a couple would take in using NFP for a wife who’s health would be in danger if she got pregnant. Are we going to say that a couple in that situation is wrong to practice NFP and knowingly place a wife at risk?
Why do I ask such questions…
Because it is what leads us to understand and judge acts as immoral or moral (that is what ethicists and moral theologians do… analyze acts as contrary to or opposed to moral law). I placed it out here for us to have a serious discussion and not side step the arguements (which although I havent said I feel right or wrong about the issue, I have not found many posters to really counter my arguements).
I would say that trying to question my ideas on marriage from this post is not fair since you have not met me in person and I value the Church’s teachings on marriage dearly (I think anyone who knows me would vouch for me on that). Finally the issue I am proposing is not a couple trying to malicious or not care for the spouse if they mutually accepted the risk just like the couple with the wife’s health at risk using NFP. This isn’t about attempts to be selfish in sex or contraception (if that were the case then the medical application of semen analysis would not be accepted because that too would be contracepted act). As I posed earlier, what if it’s a good Catholic couple with one of the spouse’s having Herpes already and they desire having kids. Are we going to say that they have a bad idea of marriage for wanting to have kids while cutting down on the risk of transmission of the virus and the fact that they both ACCEPT the risk just like a couple practicing NFP for the sake of the women’s health. What part of that idea makes my thinking on marriage poor or invalid?

Again to reiterate, this is not me spouting my firm beliefs as in this being acceptable or not, just playing devil’s advocate for the sake of getting to the truth and morality of the issue. Thanks for those who have posted, I really do appreciate the arguements and if I sound like I am mad or something, I am definitely not (sometimes I capitalize words to help clarify if I think i may be confusing).
 
DaughterSorrow said:
Thank you for your kind words and encouragment. This helps!

Peace,
DS
Click to expand...
I am glad I could offer help. Being able to let go and trust God is so hard at times, but sets you so free when you finally do it and trust me amazing things happen ;). Like a previous poster who offered you encouragement, I think she will agree that leaving it in God’s hands although difficult gives her a peace.
 
DailyBread,

In the spirit of Christian brotherhood, I thank you for your desire to bring about discussion concerning the Catholic faith, but I do have to question your reasoning. The term “Devil’s Advocate” is used for a reason; Satan is the Accuser and the sower of doubt, enemy of man’s faith and salvation. While I’m sure your motives are innocuous, I do question the prudence. Yes, these are questions that have been asked and will continue to be asked, but why do you feel the need to ask them? While you may feel comfortable with Church teaching, do you not risk putting the seed of doubt in others that are not secure?

As for the situation at hand, the logic involved is really quite simple. Valid intercourse must culminate in vaginal ejaculation, with some degree of insemination occuring. A small-pored condom might be effective at reducing the spread of Herpes or other STD, but as it renders the act closed to life, it is a sin. A larger-pored condom that would allow a degree of insemination would likely be worthless in halting the spread of the disease. Further, you would have no assurance that insemination had occurred, leaving you open to sin.

Using the method you described, yes, there may be a reduced risk of contracting disease. A greater reduction, the greatest in fact, can be found in absistenence. God does not play dice and God is not a safety inspector. All that matters to Him is that you obey His law and Divine Will.
 
Can a perforated condom be used all the time? The intention is not to contracept, but simply to reduce the amount of excess (I think thats a good way to put it!)
 
I certainly lack expertise in the biological and medical areas but there seem to be several logic holes in this proposal
  1. The condom use as described on the USCCB is for insemination used to “bypassing the cervix to avoid “hostile” mucus” so this clearly appears to be a medical procedure to achieve pregnancy.
  2. The same reference appears to both open and close with clear comments warning Catholics about condom use. It is unfortunate this is being dismissed
  3. The OP answered his own question. The couple can either use the method for insemination, abstain, or be active with risk. Please understand that NFP combined with medical treatments can reduce risk.
 
setter said:
There is no use for condoms in sexual intercourse other than for CONTRACEPTIVE PURPOSES. How perforated the condon only changes degrees there of.
Click to expand...
It is morally licit to use a perforated condom (tip cut off) when the purpose is to address premature ejaculation. This statement is false. I normally wouldn’t have even responded but the use of the CAPS indicated a belief that this was absolutely true w/o exception.
 
I thank people for their responses and (name removed by moderator)ut. At this time, due to a combination of factors, mainly my belief that their seems to be a breakdown in understanding of what individuals are attempting to say in their posts as evidenced by later responses that in my opinion miss the mark, I will refrain adding further comments. I think we all have good intentions and the morality of this issue could only be solved with a good background in moral/sexual ethics and medicine.
 
jemfinch said:
That’s not right. Perforated condoms are allowed by the Church because they do not prevent conception.

And the poster mentioned another non-contraceptive use of them in his original post here. You simply can’t say as a blanket statement that all use of condoms is for contraceptive purposes any more than you can say that all use of hormone pills is for contraceptive purposes.

Jeremy
Click to expand...
No, the original post did to mention another non-contraceptive use of condoms.

Condoms do not prevent the spread of STD’s.

If they did then you might be able to argue that there use could be licit within a marriage, but with faithful partners how would they get an STD to start with.

The reason I say this is because condems are not 100% effective in stopping the spread of STD’s. All they do is give a false sense of security. Or is playing russian roulete now morally licit?
 
Zahmir said:
The use of condoms for non-contraceptive purposes is moral. I stress, FOR NON-CONTRACEPTIVE PURPOSES.
Click to expand...
Actually, to my knowledge, the Church has not addressed this issue of use of condoms to avoid STDs like AIDS, etc. Do you have something to support this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top