Pregnancy and codoms

[thistle]

I doooont think so Thistle.
The Church forbids contraceptive acts between married couples.
I’ve never seen anything baldly forbidding the use of physical condoms.

I think you may be confusing moral objects with physical events - a distortion of moral theology known as “Physicalism.”

The question is: is this act contraceptive by either intention or by the intrinsic object.
I say no to both questions.

Is the use of a condom during a married couple’s infertile period, for example, a contraceptive act? I don’t think so - if you do why?

Are you really suggesting that the Church does not allow the use of condoms by, for example, a married Catholic couple but does allow the use of condoms by an unmarried Catholic couple??

Another example. Are you suggesting that if a husband or wife has a disease then they are allowed to use condoms to prevent the other spouse catching that disease as preventing pregnancy is not the prime motive for their use??

 

[BettyBoop416]

The time period is not the issue.

Then I wonder what motivated you to make the snarky remark about a specific time period without sex?

 

[RomCathLady]

Orgasm can also cause contractions in a pregnant woman (the oxytocin release, I believe, is responsible for this), so if preterm labor is a possible complication, I would think it’d be safest to totally abstain for the next six weeks.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you really suggesting that the Church does not allow the use of condoms by, for example, a married Catholic couple but does allow the use of condoms by an unmarried Catholic couple??

Another example. Are you suggesting that if a husband or wife has a disease then they are allowed to use condoms to prevent the other spouse catching that disease as preventing pregnancy is not the prime motive for their use??

I am just asking you to answer my questions - the usual polite courtesy before one asks one’s own questions… .

 

[davidv]

I doooont think so Thistle.
The Church forbids contraceptive acts between married couples.
I’ve never seen anything baldly forbidding the use of physical condoms.

I think you may be confusing moral objects with physical events - a distortion of moral theology known as “Physicalism.”

The question is: is this act contraceptive by either intention or by the intrinsic object.
I say no to both questions.

Is the use of a condom during a married couple’s infertile period, for example, a contraceptive act? I don’t think so - if you do why?

Whether an act is contraceptive is not dependent on the couples fertility. Any barrier, physical or chemical, makes the act contraceptive.
CCC2370:

…Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Therefore in the answer to your questions is yes. It is a contraceptive act to use a condom during an infertile period.

 

[ahs]

The Church forbids the use of condoms whether it’s to prevent pregnancy or disease or whatever.
In the case the OP put forward abstaining is the only answer.

I doooont think so Thistle.
The Church forbids contraceptive acts between married couples.
I’ve never seen anything baldly forbidding the use of physical condoms.

I think you may be confusing moral objects with physical events - a distortion of moral theology known as “Physicalism.”

The question is: is this act contraceptive by either intention or by the intrinsic object.
I say no to both questions.

Is the use of a condom during a married couple’s infertile period, for example, a contraceptive act? I don’t think so - if you do why?

Thistle is correct, insofar as jis/her view reflects what the Church actually teaches, even if it isn’t quoted word for word from Catholic teaching. What the Church teaches is that:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

and

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (CCC 2360-2400)

So, Blue Horizon, the REAL question is (if we are discussing Catholic theology): can a sex act that is engaged in using a device that, per se, removes the procreative aspect from an act that is taking place (regardless of whether such act is inherently fertile due to nature), be ordered, per se, toward procreation. The answer is no. The condom thwarts the procreative nature of an act that is taking place by preventing the procreative faculty from working toward its end…even if procreation is not likely. And act need NOT be likely to be procreative, it need only to be ordered, per se, toward procreation.

 

[ahs]

Whether an act is contraceptive is not dependent on the couples fertility. Any barrier, physical or chemical, makes the act contraceptive.

CCC2370
…Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Therefore in the answer to your questions is yes. It is a contraceptive act to use a condom during an infertile period.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Whether an act is contraceptive is not dependent on the couples fertility.

Thanks David.
Can you reference for me a Church teaching that puts it as baldly as you have here?
i.e. “Any barrier, physical or chemical, makes the [marital] act contraceptive.”

I have never seen any Church Teaching that has come even close to your statement but I am willing to be enlightened.

Clearly CCC2370 which you use to justify your statement does not actually say that - this is your inference. It may be correct, but it may also be inaccurate.

 

[MJJean]

So, Blue Horizon, the REAL question is (if we are discussing Catholic theology): can a sex act that is engaged in using a device that, per se, removes the procreative aspect from an act that is taking place (regardless of whether such act is inherently fertile due to nature), be ordered, per se, toward procreation. The answer is no. The condom thwarts the procreative nature of an act that is taking place by preventing the procreative faculty from working toward its end…even if procreation is not likely. And act need NOT be likely to be procreative, it need only to be ordered, per se, toward procreation.

Sex during pregnancy cannot be procreative. It’s not “unlikely” to be procreative, it is impossible for it to be procreative. Sex during pregnancy cannot even be “ordered toward procreation”. So, the condom is not the barrier to procreation, the pregnancy is the barrier to procreation.

If the Church allows BCP for medical purposes, which prevents procreation as a “side effect”, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be allowed to use a condom per a doctor’s advice during pregnancy to prevent pre-term labor.

But, as others have said, female orgasm can also stimulate pre-term labor. Which is handy if the baby decides to hang around past the due date. One of the most fun pieces of medical advice I ever received was to go home and have lots of sex to hopefully stimulate labor when my babies went a week past due

Just curious, is this your first baby? I had braxton-hicks contractions (false labor) beginning at about 33 weeks with my first. They weren’t that intense and did not last very long. With my other 2 kids I had very intense braxton-hicks contractions from about 33-34 weeks along and those were very intense and did last for up to an hour or more at a time. They were also a more frequent happening. So, maybe sex isn’t the culprit. Might just be a coincidence.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

continued…

I accept AHS’s reference to CCC2376 is much stronger: “…it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life…”

The question is, what really is meant by the “marriage act per se being ordered to procreation” and are their unusual cases which effectively mean that a condom does not per se disorder the act away from procreation of human life?

I accept that Catholics must accept the customary general teaching until taught otherwise wrt unusual cases (and this certainly is an unusual one).

However I believe there is potential for debate on this situation given there have been justifications for use of contraception in other very unusual cases (e.g. the Congo Nuns and medicinal use of the pill which is acceptable by reason of the principle of double effect).

 

[devoutchristian]

time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926414,00.html

For those who wish to make exceptions to the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception. Also, the fact that the use of birth control pills for uses other than the prevention of ovulation is morally licit for sexually active married women does not make acts where the prevention of the transfer of sperm is the direct object of the act morally licit.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #30
I believe there is potential for debate on this situation given there have been justifications for use of contraception in other very unusual cases (e.g. the Congo Nuns and medicinal use of the pill which is acceptable by reason of the principle of double effect).

Obviously the tapestry of morality as taught means that the only possibility of endeavouring to prevent conception by a barrier is in the case of rape in which the only moral action to prevent the consequences is to put a barrier to prevent fertilization, so there is nothing to debate here.

Thus there are no situations in which “contraception” is “justified” except in such a case, and any chemicals or actions which might result in an abortion should be excluded.

“The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life condemns the morning-after pill and makes no exceptions for cases of rape treatment, whether or not conception/fertilization has occurred. The academy goes so far as to say that this pill represents a good example of the absolute unlawfulness of any drug that has the potential to be an abortive agent. The academy makes it perfectly clear that anyone who is an agent in the provision of this drug is morally responsible for the outcome. Apparently this warning has not been taken seriously by either the Connecticut or Wisconsin Catholic hierarchy.

“A Catholic moral theologian, Msgr. William Smith, put this entire situation in the proper perspective when he wrote, “It’s wrong to say you can use anything that has abortifacient properties. Emergency contraception is double talk … Catholic hospitals are not free to prescribe or provide anything with abortifacient properties without contradicting their witness.”
May 3, 2007
renewamerica.com/columns/brown/070503

 

[thistle]

I am just asking you to answer my questions - the usual polite courtesy before one asks one’s own questions… .

The use of a condom any and all times during the month is a contraceptive act. The couple has to be open to life and to assume that excludes the “infertile” time is a mistake.

 

[Listener]

This is a rather interesting question. I can also think of a couple of other situations where a doctor might recommend a condom where it wouldn’t be used for birth control:

1. A man who has had a radiation seed implant to cure prostate cancer. The condom would be used for awhile because there is a slim chance that a radiation seed would get into his wife’s body. The procedure would render the man sterile, so it wouldn’t really be birth control.
2. A woman who is past menopause who is having problems with dryness. There is no way this woman can get pregnant anyway, so it wouldn’t be birth control.

I have read on these forums that it is permissible for a couple to use a condom with holes punched in it so they can take a sperm sample to a doctor for examination. So, if you punch some holes in the condom, does that make it okay?

It seems to me that if a pregnant woman confessed to a priest that she had practiced birth control, she would be lying, since she was already pregnant.

I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t some kind of gray area. It would be interesting to hear what a priest had to say about it.

I do agree that in this case, abstinence is probably better, because you don’t want to take any chances with the health of the baby. However, our purpose here is not to give medical advice.

 

[thistle]

This is a rather interesting question. I can also think of a couple of other situations where a doctor might recommend a condom where it wouldn’t be used for birth control:

1. A man who has had a radiation seed implant to cure prostate cancer. The condom would be used for awhile because there is a slim chance that a radiation seed would get into his wife’s body. The procedure would render the man sterile, so it wouldn’t really be birth control.
2. A woman who is past menopause who is having problems with dryness. There is no way this woman can get pregnant anyway, so it wouldn’t be birth control.

I have read on these forums that it is permissible for a couple to use a condom with holes punched in it so they can take a sperm sample to a doctor for examination. So, if you punch some holes in the condom, does that make it okay?

It seems to me that if a pregnant woman confessed to a priest that she had practiced birth control, she would be lying, since she was already pregnant.

I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t some kind of gray area. It would be interesting to hear what a priest had to say about it.

I do agree that in this case, abstinence is probably better, because you don’t want to take any chances with the health of the baby. However, our purpose here is not to give medical advice.

A couple must always be open to life, even in infertile times. God can create whenever he wants. He cannot be confined only to times we think are okay.
Look at Abraham and Sarah, and Zechariah and Elizabeth.

 

[davidv]

Sex during pregnancy cannot be procreative. It’s not “unlikely” to be procreative, it is impossible for it to be procreative. Sex during pregnancy cannot even be “ordered toward procreation”. So, the condom is not the barrier to procreation, the pregnancy is the barrier to procreation.

This is strawman. The act must be ordered to procreation, not procreative to be moral.

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163
1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.164 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.165
1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

If the Church allows BCP for medical purposes, which prevents procreation as a “side effect”, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be allowed to use a condom per a doctor’s advice during pregnancy to prevent pre-term labor.

I believe that is because of a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the human sexual act.
[snip]

 

[davidv]

continued…

I accept AHS’s reference to CCC2376 is much stronger: “…it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life…”

The question is, what really is meant by the “marriage act per se being ordered to procreation” and are their unusual cases which effectively mean that a condom does not per se disorder the act away from procreation of human life?

Indeed this is the key question. Pope John Paul II explores this question in depth in his Theology of the Body. It is not a simple topic. There can be no unusual cases.

I accept that Catholics must accept the customary general teaching until taught otherwise wrt unusual cases (and this certainly is an unusual one).

No unusual cases have been taught and documents such as Humanae Vitae suggest there will never be such.

However I believe there is potential for debate on this situation given there have been justifications for use of contraception in other very unusual cases (e.g. the Congo Nuns and medicinal use of the pill which is acceptable by reason of the principle of double effect).

I believe that in these cases, the use of the pill is not contraception.

 

[Abu]

**From American Life League:
Birth Control Pills for Medical Reasons
Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - By Paul L. Hayes, M.D.**Q: Is the taking of birth control ever okay for the regulating of (a woman’s) cycle?
A: The answer to this has two components, as there is a moral component to the use of birth control drugs and devices and a medical component.

MORALLY: If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed. It is the contraceptive effect of these medications that are not permitted, not the drugs that are in them. Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.” This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect.
all.org/article/index/id/MjQ4NQ

 

[mwncheesehead]

Sex during pregnancy cannot be procreative. It’s not “unlikely” to be procreative, it is impossible for it to be procreative. Sex during pregnancy cannot even be “ordered toward procreation”. So, the condom is not the barrier to procreation, the pregnancy is the barrier to procreation.

Yes, sex during pregnancy can absolutely be ordered to procreation. “Ordered to procreation” doesn’t have to mean that conception will necessary occur or even be possible…it simply means that the act has to be carried out in a procreative manner. This means each and every sex act must happen in a procreative (used as an adjective here) way and the only procreative sex act is the man completing inside his wife.

A condom is a barrier because it doesn’t allow the act to be carried out in a procreative way, as explained above. It therefore isn’t a life-giving act but rather a contraceptive act. Make sense?

 

[Farsight001]

FYI, a woman can actually get pregnant while already pregnant. It is EXTREMELY rare, but still possible.