Morally licit condom use

[DailyBread]

So I had a random thought and not that I agree with it or not, more to put it out there for discussion and debate, but its on a possibly catholic morally acceptable use of condoms against STD’s.
So not all STD’s are transmitted by body fluids but some by skin contact. Could it be possible for a married couple where one of the spouses had say Herpes, a skin transmitted STD, use a perforated condom (they are allowed by the Church do do morally acceptable semen analysis) that does not inhibit chance of conception, but reduces the chance of spreading herpes to the other spouse. I haven’t formed an opinion so don’t bash my post as if I am wrong, but more for the community to debate.

 

[Zahmir]

The use of condoms for non-contraceptive purposes is moral. I stress, FOR NON-CONTRACEPTIVE PURPOSES.

 

[AndyF]

So I had a random thought and not that I agree with it or not, more to put it out there for discussion and debate, but its on a possibly catholic morally acceptable use of condoms against STD’s.
So not all STD’s are transmitted by body fluids but some by skin contact. Could it be possible for a married couple where one of the spouses had say Herpes, a skin transmitted STD, use a perforated condom (they are allowed by the Church do do morally acceptable semen analysis) that does not inhibit chance of conception, but reduces the chance of spreading herpes to the other spouse. I haven’t formed an opinion so don’t bash my post as if I am wrong, but more for the community to debate.

As far as I understand it, and since we are only talking about sex within the context of marriage where it is allowed, and STD disease is not an issue among faithful partners, it can only be used for medical purposes. It cannot be used to prevent conception unless the end result is a danger to the health of the female.

Andy

 

[Transformer]

DailyBread, I can’t think of anything that would make that immoral. Can you?

 

[setter]

The use of condoms for non-contraceptive purposes is moral. I stress, FOR NON-CONTRACEPTIVE PURPOSES.

There is no use for condoms in sexual intercourse other than for CONTRACEPTIVE PURPOSES. How perforated the condon only changes degrees there of.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think stter is correct in regard to the rules. Why the rules are this way is completely beyond me.

I think you are allowed to make water ballons out of them.

 

[KCT]

So not all STD’s are transmitted by body fluids but some by skin contact. Could it be possible for a married couple where one of the spouses had say Herpes, a skin transmitted STD, use a perforated condom (they are allowed by the Church do do morally acceptable semen analysis) that does not inhibit chance of conception, but reduces the chance of spreading herpes to the other spouse.

Shouldn’t said couple love one other enough to not spread the disease at all? Or do they only love eachother enough to reduce the risk?

I wonder if that would be a sin of selfishness? Risking your spouses health for your own pleasure. —KCT

 

[jemfinch]

There is no use for condoms in sexual intercourse other than for CONTRACEPTIVE PURPOSES. How perforated the condon only changes degrees there of.

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

 

[setter]

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

Incorrect. The use and purpose of any condom is to reduce, i.e., contra-cept, the likelihood of inception. To what degree (perforated) is an entirely different matter than the functional use and purpose, whether the secondary fucntion is to collect a sperm sample. It is widely known that women get pregant on intact condoms.

Hormone pills have medical use and purpose other than contraceptive, i.e., independent of the contraceptive mechanism. I can think of no reason why any non-sexually active male or female would have use of a condom, unless short of water balloons, …

Here are a couple useful links regarding the same:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/condoms_during_.html

jimmyakin.org/2006/05/condoms_hivaids.html

 

[Corki]

The Jimmy aikin link stated that (emphais mine)

While it is necessary for some insemination to occur in order for the marital act to be completed, it does not appear that there is any set amount of insemination that must occur.

Some orthodox Catholic moralists have suggested that this fact could be utilized as part of obtaining samples of the seminal fluid needed for male fertility testing. They have thus proposed the possibility of using a perforated condom that would allow some but not all of the seminal fluid to be transmitted.

This is not a position that the Church has taken a definitive position on.

As far as I understand it, and since we are only talking about sex within the context of marriage where it is allowed, and STD disease is not an issue among faithful partners, it can only be used for medical purposes. It cannot be used to prevent conception unless the end result is a danger to the health of the female.

A condom can not be used to prevent conception **even if **the end result is a danger to the health of the female.

 

[fix]

**

Reproductive Technology
(Evaluation & Treatment of Infertility)
Guidelines for Catholic Couples

**Technologies Compatible with Catholic Teachings:
Appropriate evaluation and treatment of male factor deficiency. Seminal fluid samples can be obtained from a non-lubricated, perforated condom after normal intercourse.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.html

I would like to see a moral theology expert explain if such a condom would be licit for reasons other than medical tests.

Certainly a condom is illicit to prevent transmission of disease as the couple has the option to abstain.

Genital herepes can still be passed while wearing a condom.

 

[manualman]

Doesn’t the perforation let the virus through as well as the sperm?

Do you love your wife so little?

 

[DailyBread]

I wish to clarify confusion before people continue posting. First of all, Herpes is a skin contact disease, it is not passed in bodily fluids such as semen (as one poster worried). Secondly on the issue of morality of perforated condoms to do a semen analysis, this has been deemed morally acceptable (and actually superior to masturbation used in many fertility clinics) by many in the catholic fertility care including the Pope Paul VI institute and other NFP organizations so unless you want to call out a bunch of conservative catholic organizations, we need to direct our arguments in a different light then that it is contraceptive so no of course not (I am not an advocate of contracepted sex at all). Finally to comment on one posters thoughts, I do not think we can say “you are just being selfish” because say an individual has herpes (which lasts for life) due to being promiscuous early in life, repents and then finds the spouse of their dreams and wishes to have a family. I would not say they are being selfish, just the same desires to have marital relations as every other good Catholic, they just need to reduce the risk of transmission of the disease which in this case is skin contact. Hope that clarifies and no this doesnt mean I have formed an opinion yet on it… and please keep the debate rolling.

 

[DailyBread]

Also this is purely hypothetical, I am not an individual in this situation nor am I writing for anyone else, so please do not place direct questions to me as to “why could you do this?”

 

[DaughterSorrow]

A condom can not be used to prevent conception **even if **the end result is a danger to the health of the female.

This is my biggest issue with the Church. Pray for me, as I am in that situation.

Peace,
DS

 

[DailyBread]

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!

 

[fix]

I wish to clarify confusion before people continue posting. First of all, Herpes is a skin contact disease, it is not passed in bodily fluids such as semen (as one poster worried).

There is no guarantee a condom, perforated or not, will cover all the area needed to provide protection. Abstaining is the only sure way to avoid getting the virus.

Secondly on the issue of morality of perforated condoms to do a semen analysis, this has been deemed morally acceptable (and actually superior to masturbation used in many fertility clinics) by many in the catholic fertility care including the Pope Paul VI institute and other NFP organizations so unless you want to call out a bunch of conservative catholic organizations, we need to direct our arguments in a different light then that it is contraceptive so no of course not (I am not an advocate of contracepted sex at all).

Yes, for medical testing it may be licit. Does that mean it is licit for other reasons?

 

[KCT]

Finally to comment on one posters thoughts, I do not think we can say “you are just being selfish” because say an individual has herpes (which lasts for life) due to being promiscuous early in life, repents and then finds the spouse of their dreams and wishes to have a family. I would not say they are being selfish, just the same desires to have marital relations as every other good Catholic, they just need to reduce the risk of transmission of the disease which in this case is skin contact. Hope that clarifies and no this doesnt mean I have formed an opinion yet on it… and please keep the debate rolling.

Sometimes what we did early in life has an impact on what we can do later in life. Just because we repent, and are forgiven, doesn’t mean there are no more consequences. Condom or not, one spouse can still infect the other. Shouldn’t the health of one be the most important thing? —KCT

 

[DailyBread]

I am going to play devil’s advocate because I think the last two posters made some good points, but others might counter it with the following:
Fix’s comments:
For a couple where the wife’s health is at risk if she becomes pregnant again, the Church clearly allows the couple to practice NFP and avoid pregnancy for the sake of her health. NFP is not 100% effective so the couple is risking in getting pregnant even when using NFP. So are they in fact morally required to abstain so as not to risk the health of the wife? The same could be said in this case; they are taking a risk as well in one person getting infected (btw herpes is a disease one could live with and manage all of one’s life with drugs, which might be less of a risk against life than certain women getting pregnant).
On your second point, I used the example to show the act of using a perforated condom is in itself not morally wrong if it can be used for medical purposes (btw preventing the spread of viral infections is a clear case of a medical purpose). So the action cannot be judged instrinsically immoral if we allow it in some cases. Now we have to judge the circumstance and ends of the act. The circumstance is that one of the spouses has a disease and the hoped for benefits is to prevent the spread of that. If using the condom was wrong inherently because it violated the morality of the act, then it couldn’t even be used to for semen analysis. It is considered an uncontracepted act so we have to judge the morality in light of the circumstance and the hoped for benefits or ends (just mentioned and so place you arguements there as to how it is immoral), not the act itself.

KCT:
I reference my earlier statement about using NFP with a women’s life or health in danger as stated earlier so it is important, but as you can see, couples still take risks and so if we judge its wrong for a couple to ever place the one of the spouse’s health at risk, then we must say that no one can practice NFP anymore to avoid placing the health of the wife at risk. Instead they must abstain from now on. Also, going back to the point of consequences from past mistakes, if I am not mistaken, people who have repented of voluntary sterilization are not required by church teaching to get reversals in order to be able to have sexual relations again so even in these cases of past poor moral decisions (and not all cases of herpes might come from this either), one does not feel the consequence is this light after repentence.
Still have not formed a moral opinion on this, just wanting to push the debate along and really get our morality mental caps thinking. The two of you may very well be right, but we won’t know until all the ideas have been exhausted. Keep up the good arguements.

 

[fix]

For a couple where the wife’s health is at risk if she becomes pregnant again, the Church clearly allows the couple to practice NFP and avoid pregnancy for the sake of her health. NFP is not 100% effective so the couple is risking in getting pregnant even when using NFP. So are they in fact morally required to abstain so as not to risk the health of the wife?

I will let others with more knowledge correct me , but I would think it depends on the nature of the medical problem and degree of medical certainty. Getting pregnant is not pathological. Getting a virus, like HIV, is pathological. That pregnancy may pose grave complications for some does not seem equal to contracting a virus known to kill. Now, if the virus is not life threatening I would think it would come down to a decision by the couple as to abstaining. I am not sure of my reasoning here.

The same could be said in this case; they are taking a risk as well in one person getting infected (btw herpes is a disease one could live with and manage all of one’s life with drugs, which might be less of a risk against life than certain women getting pregnant).

You may be right that the risk is such that the couple may engage in the act, but I defer to others to inform us.

On your second point, I used the example to show the act of using a perforated condom is in itself not morally wrong if it can be used for medical purposes (btw preventing the spread of viral infections is a clear case of a medical purpose).

Let me stop you here. Moral actions can be evil if the means is evil. Intentionally preventing the ejaculate from entering the vagina is always wrong no matter the inetntion.

So the action cannot be judged instrinsically immoral if we allow it in some cases.

True, but the cases you offer are not identical.

Now we have to judge the circumstance and ends of the act. The circumstance is that one of the spouses has a disease and the hoped for benefits is to prevent the spread of that. If using the condom was wrong inherently because it violated the morality of the act, then it couldn’t even be used to for semen analysis. It is considered an uncontracepted act so we have to judge the morality in light of the circumstance and the hoped for benefits or ends (just mentioned and so place you arguements there as to how it is immoral), not the act itself.

The perforations seem to make the means licit. What condition is a perforated condom useful for other than medical analysis?

As I said it is known that a condom will not always stop the spread of genital herpes.