Perforated Condom for Sample Collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
I’ve seen this claim here at CAF and on other websites as well, the assertion that a husband may use a perforated condom to collect a semen sample for medical analysis. This question has been discussed by moral theologians for many decades now. I’ve found references going back to the 1940’s and 50’s. And in every case, the use of the perforated condom is presented as a matter of dispute among theologians. It is not a matter of agreement, nor is there any magisterial teaching permitting such a use for condoms. (e.g. McFadden 1946, Medical Ethics for Nurses; The American Ecclesiastical Review, 1944; McFadden Medical Ethics 1967; Glover, 1948; Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics, David Kelly, 2004) All these authors propose that this use for a condom is a matter of dispute, not agreement.

It is also commonly pointed out that a few small holes would not be sufficient to make the condom no longer a contraceptive device, and that perhaps the collection of semen in this manner is itself intrinsically evil. I don’t think this procedure should be recommended as if it were approved by the Church, nor as if it were the common opinion of moral theologians. It is neither.
 
According to the Vademecum for Confessors a non contracepting spouse can have relations with a contracepting spouse only if certain conditions exist.
1)it has to be serious matter to have relations
2)the non contracepting spouse cannot contracept
3)the non contracepting spouse must tell the contracepting spouse at reasonable times their error in wanting to use contraception

Other conditions apply:
1)it can never abortifacient contraception since a child could die
2.According to Ron neither can use condom
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding me? How the heck will you have this needed medical analysis be done?
We aren´t slaves of a law without sense and logic, this is jus strange.
Between, I´ve recenty read some books on catholic and orthodox marital relations, and this theme was cutted and the practice of the perforated condom was listed as good alternative in this case.
 
Well, for what it is worth… I have read a book very recently that was written by Christopher west that said use of such a condom is fine as a alternative to masturbating in order get a semen sample and that book had the “Nihil obstat and Imprimater”. I never even heard of a perforated condom before. The book was “The good news about sex and marriage”
 
Last edited:
I’m not weighing in on whether the use of a perforated condom is moral. I’m simply pointing out that there is no approval from the Church, and no agreement among moral theologians.
Dacinom said:
There have been marriages where one spouse is using contraception (intrinsically evil) yet the other spouse while 100% against it, can still participate in the marital sex act. The innocent spouse is not obligated to abstain from sex.
Click to expand...
The Magisterium has taught that it is not acceptable for a wife to agree to marital relations if the husband is using a condom (Denz. 2795). She would be formally cooperating with an intrinsically evil act. The same moral analysis would apply if the wife were using a barrier method of contraception. The sin would be even worse if the wife is using abortifacient contraception.

The only exception is if the husband is using the withdrawal method, and the wife has tried to dissuade him. Since the marital act is not contracepted while she is participating, she does not commit formal cooperation.
 
You have no idea how old I am or what stage of adulthood I am in! I started to read the post from a medical viewpoint, not from or for the sexual content.
 
After glancing over this thing, I suddenly thought I could not imagine Jesus nitpicking over how people do sex. I just can’t. He might have objections to certain things, but for Him to count the holes in a condom, no way!

In fact it’s hard for me to imagine Him discussing sex at all, especially graphically. OK He may have said a few things about adultery (He doesn’t care for it much) but it is hard to see where He would be so …well, I won’t go on from here.
 
I’m not sure that would even collect a good sample as it would be contaminated (or whatever lab term they use). Plus, I’m sure they couldn’t get all the sample out of it. Maybe some of our medical members can shed some light on those topics.

I had to provide a sample when we were trying to conceive my son, and I remember they were big on me giving them a sample in a sterile, sealed jar that I had to open myself. Then, there was even a time window in which they had to do something with the sample or I’d be coming back again after three days had passed.

I haven’t seen the claim; it may be a non-issue. Again, maybe some medical professionals can help.
 
What would be your recommendation for collection of a sample, if medically indicated?
 
There is nothing sexually exciting to me about anything I typed I was trying to help with a question. Adults should have heard the words masturbation and semen before if they are old enough. They are not dirty words. You are right, I don’t know how old you are. Did not mean to scandalize you if I did
 
Last edited:
There are three fonts of morality, which the Church instructs us to use to evaluate the morality of any act:
  1. intention
  2. object (which determines the moral type of the chosen act)
  3. consequences
    A good intention is necessarily but not sufficient. All three fonts must be good for the act to be moral.
 
This is a good point, contraception is intrinsically evil, no matter the percentage of allowing one to get pregnant. Also, a perforated condom does stop sperm so how many of those sperm could have reached the egg? It could be very many.
 
Last edited:
Actually, consequences isn’t the third font of morality, that would be circumstances. We are not consequentialists.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top