Perforated condoms licit for purposes other than semen collection

[cse]

Hi,
I have found some topics posted in this forum during the last years (from 2006) related to use of perforated condoms during intercourse for the purpose of collecting semen for medical examination. As far as I have been able to understand such use is deemed to be licit by e.g. Pope Paul VI Institute.

I know that the Teachings of the Catholic Church use thomistic philosophy as their philosophical base. From there I know that each action is deemed to be either morally good or bad regardless of its circumstances and purpose based on the notion of finis operis (I do not know the English equivalent). The circumstances and purpose can only be taken into consideration when discussing the degree of moral fault/sin resulting from that action (e.g. to kill is always morally wrong however to kill in rightful self-defence will not imply a sin).
The view to include circumstances already for assessment of whether an action is morally good or bad was proposed during Vaticanum II but was rejected then as “relativistic”. So, an action is either morally good or bad.

Now we know that using a condom is wrong; we know also from the aforementioned sources that use of perforated condom for medical examination purposes is acceptable. Since the purpose can not be taken into consideration when assessing moral aspects of actions (see above) then we deduce that it must be the perforation of the condom which makes the difference here. Indeed, the contraceptive properties of the condom are then gone and as such the immoral aspect discussed in Humanae Vitae point 14 is not present. I can understand and buy this logic.

Consequently, since it is not the purpose of the use of the perforated condom which makes the difference here, in my mind, it should also be licit to use a perforated condom for other medical or even non-medical purposes because the intercourse would retain its conceptive properties. I can see two examples of such use:

1. Hygienic - if the husband produces higher quantities of semen, relatively big quantities of it can remain in the wife’s vulva after intercourse and it may take time for it to be removed from her body. This may result in a very intensive smell remaining for up to 2 days which may be problematic for women working in spaces with close distance to other co-workers
2. Diminishing effects of premature ejaculation - there are condoms with a certain substance having a para-anesthetic effect on penis thus reducing the stimulation and allowing for later ejaculation. Such condoms are recommended in premature ejaculation treatments in some countries.

What do you think?

Best regards

cse

 

[cse]

Anyone?

 

[Bookcat]

Regarding circumstances etc read this section

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm

But note too that there kind be a “kind of circumstance” (not what is meant in the above link) that is part of the nature of the object …such as a person being “married” is part of the nature of either the marital act or say the grave sin of adultery.

As to the use of perforated condoms for the collection of a sample to help treat infertility – such has been proposed and argued by solid sources as reasonable. As to other uses…could such be argued or proposed? Sure in theory. But each one would need to be evaluated.

I will not comment on the ones suggested. Any seeking assistance in evaluating such could contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

 

[Wowbagger]

In your scenario:

(1) The object of the act is open to unity and procreation, the procreative aspect being hindered, but not prevented, by the perforated condom. This is a good and praiseworthy end.

(2) The intention is unitive, procreative sex, with the perforated condom serving as a means to either enhance the unitive aspect of the act (by reversing the disorder of P.E.) or reduce some of the act’s cosmetic side effects. This is a perfectly fair qualification of a fundamentally good intention.

(3) The circumstances are not given, and we presume them to be amenable (i.e. neither party is under duress).

I believe the use proposed is acceptable.

Some might argue that, under the principle of double effect, you must have grave reason to use the perforated condom. (For example, diagnosis of infertility is a grave reason; hygiene, arguably, is not.) However, the principle of double effect applies only where the consequences of the act are inherently evil – that is, manifestly harmful, and normally imposing upon Catholics the obligation of avoiding them. (Thus, you may kill a man – an inherently evil consequence – if both the intention and the object of the act that resulted in his death were, strictly speaking, self-defense.) In the case of the perforated condom, however, there are no inherently evil consequences. The only consequence is reduced probability of pregnancy. This is not inherently evil; otherwise, Natural Family Planning would be a mortal sin.

However – and this is a big however – it would be evil if this contraceptive purpose were the intention of the act.

My opinion.