Pregnancy and codoms

[devoutchristian]

Guys it would be good if you could explain how you see this rather than keep going on about the murder of 2 yr olds.

We would quit going on about it if you would accept your own standards of proof and show us a magesterial document that states that it is wrong to murder 2 year olds, or if you would admit that yours is an unreasonable standard.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote from BlueHorizon:
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).

And I agree with your solution AHS. However you have slightly missed the point I make with respect to our good friends Thistle and DevoutChristian.

It cannot be denied that the good Nuns did use contraception and were aware this would be the effect. (Had they been raped then procreation/life would have been thwarted (perhaps even aborted as the pill strength was very high back in th 1960s)).

Therefore, according to some on this thread the Nuns engaged in a contraceptive event/action. And because some believe all such actions are intrinsically evil…there can be no right about it. It shouldn’t matter whether it was married sex or not married sex. Its always wrong.

Clearly, the mere physical, visible “use of the Pill” or “the use of a condom” is not what I understand the Church to mean by a “contraceptive human act”. To think the two are the same is Physicalism. “Act” and “action” are different.

Likewise “murder”.
Yes the “invisible” human act of murder is intrinsically evil - but the visible human action we see with the senses (killing someone) may not be.

The same action we see with the senses could be the human-act of “self-defence” (which is not intrinsically evil) or the human act of “capital punishment” (which many believe can be justified).

The moral “act” of theology is NOT exactly the same as “action” we see with the eyes.
To misunderstand this is “Physicalism.”

 

[thistle]

And yet it appears the theology of Thistle and DevoutChristian appear forced to call them “contraceptive actions” (and therefore intrinsically evil?) because it is reasonably known they will impede procreation regardless of the intention/circumstances of the users.

Guys it would be good if you could explain how you see this rather than keep going on about the murder of 2 yr olds.

What don’t you understand about sex between husband and wife. The Church teaches it must always be open to life. That means a condom cannot be used at all - not to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent disease. It does not mean a condom is forbidden only during a woman’s fertile time every month. You say that is not correct (unless I misunderstand you). If that is your position then please show us the Church teaching that backs up your claim.

Next, you still haven’t answered my question when I asked you about condom use for Catholics who are not married. You stated or implied that condoms being banned only applied to married couples. In other words that would mean unmarried Catholics can use them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What don’t you understand about sex between husband and wife. The Church teaches it must always be open to life. That means a condom cannot be used at all - not to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent disease. It does not mean a condom is forbidden only during a woman’s fertile time every month. You say that is not correct (unless I misunderstand you). If that is your position then please show us the Church teaching that backs up your claim.

Next, you still haven’t answered my question when I asked you about condom use for Catholics who are not married. You stated or implied that condoms being banned only applied to married couples. In other words that would mean unmarried Catholics can use them.

I am saying your theological methodology for arriving at your answers is mildly flawed because you seem want to shut down discussion before it starts because there is nothing at all to discuss. You think it in intrinsically evil end of story.
I am not aware I have categorically stated that your answer to the problem raised here by the OPoster is wrong. If I have given that impression I apologise. BUT I do believe there is something here to discuss at the level of applied principles. That is where I disagree with you. It believe the correct answer is a matter of demonstration not apriori, undiscussed prohibition.

"Next, you still haven’t answered my question when I asked you about condom use for Catholics who are not married. You stated or implied that condoms being banned only applied to married couples. In other words that would mean unmarried Catholics can use them." If you can quote me and be a little more explicit with what you are asking I will try and answer.

 

[Allegra]

I dooooont think so.
Strangely it is the pregnancy itself that is the barrier to unitive purpose of sex because of
prostyraglandins (apparantly).

In which case the use of condoms to preserve life seems an acceptable “medical procedure” which, due to the pregnancy, has no inherent contraceptive negative associated with it I can see.

The principle of double effect therefore suggests there is absolutely no reason why you should not use them.

Having said that abstaining is the better path - chastity (the wise ability to regulate sex in accordance with our state and circumstances) is something that even the married should be perfecting…something that either you or your husband is avoiding thinking about!

I think you are confusing the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. A condom is clearly a barrier to the physical unity of the couple during sex. It may not effect the procreative nature of sex in this circumstance, but the Church teaches that both purposes must be considered. I think the idea that someone is using the condom in this case to “preserve life” and therefore it is okay is a little dishonest. Sex is not obligatory every day. The couple could simply abstain and then no life is threatened.

 

[thistle]

I am saying your theological methodology for arriving at your answers is mildly flawed because you seem want to shut down discussion before it starts because there is nothing at all to discuss. You think it in intrinsically evil end of story.
I am not aware I have categorically stated that your answer to the problem raised here by the OPoster is wrong. If I have given that impression I apologise. BUT I do believe there is something here to discuss at the level of applied principles. That is where I disagree with you. It believe the correct answer is a matter of demonstration not apriori, undiscussed prohibition.

"Next, you still haven’t answered my question when I asked you about condom use for Catholics who are not married. You stated or implied that condoms being banned only applied to married couples. In other words that would mean unmarried Catholics can use them." If you can quote me and be a little more explicit with what you are asking I will try and answer.

Your post #20. “The Church forbids contraceptive acts between married couples”. By implication that means the Church does not forbid unmarried people to use condoms. If you do not mean that then using the word “married” was misleading and not necessary.

 

[MJJean]

I think you are confusing the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. A condom is clearly a barrier to the physical unity of the couple during sex. It may not effect the procreative nature of sex in this circumstance, but the Church teaches that both purposes must be considered. I think the idea that someone is using the condom in this case to “preserve life” and therefore it is okay is a little dishonest. Sex is not obligatory every day. The couple could simply abstain and then no life is threatened.

While I do agree that the married couple doesn’t have to have sex I disagree on the unity statement.

I recently spent some time with my priest discussing a previous marriage annulment, contraception (mine and my daughters) and “unity”. According to my priest, my daughter using BCP to regulate hormones is not a sin as the contraception is a side effect of a recommended medical treatment.

When we went on to discuss my current marriage I was told that the sex act needed two components in order to not be sinful. One, that I am open to life. This confused me as I had a tubal ligation years ago, long before I began the conversion process. My priest said that, at least in my case, being “open to life” meant that I would carry and give birth if I became pregnant. And two, that the sex act be unitive. His definition on unitive was not physical. He explained it much like pair bonding.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Your post #20. “The Church forbids contraceptive acts between married couples”. By implication that means the Church does not forbid unmarried people to use condoms. If you do not mean that then using the word “married” was misleading and not necessary.

The Church doesn’t need talk about contraception between unmarried couples, because fornication is not permitted in the first place. So nobody should hold their breath waiting for the “Guide to Licit Acts while Fornicating.”

 

[thistle]

The Church doesn’t need talk about contraception between unmarried couples, because fornication is not permitted in the first place. So nobody should hold their breath waiting for the “Guide to Licit Acts while Fornicating.”

I know. That was my point. It makes the use of the word married in the statement redundant.

 

[april32010]

My suggestion here is talk to your priest and see what he advises. You’ll have differing opinions here and mostly from people who are not qualified to give spiritual advice.

exactly

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your post #20. “The Church forbids contraceptive acts between married couples”. By implication that means the Church does not forbid unmarried people to use condoms. If you do not mean that then using the word “married” was misleading and not necessary.

Thanks Thistle.
First up you are still displaying what appears to be “Physicalist” theology in your understanding of Church Teaching re contraceptive human acts.
May I repeat, ad nauseam, that “use of a condom” or “use of the BCP” is not by that fact alone a “contraceptive moral act” (intrinsically evil). It may be something else … a health giving prescription to remedy some unrelated medical condition for example (which is known to have a contraceptive side effect). Hence, what “looks like” a contraceptive moral act is in fact not a contraceptive moral act. (Same with killing…it may look like a murderous moral act (intrinsically evil) but it may be something else (legitimate self defence). At least have a think about what I am trying to communicate to you here. It is subtle, many non-theologically trained Catholics just don’t get it.)

Now, despite the subtle difference in the moral theologies we are using, we may both end up coming to the same conclusion - “condoms cannot be used in this particular case.”
However we will have arrived at that summit by two different paths. You will have got there by simply saying, “use of all contraception is intrinsically evil, therefore no exceptions, the answer is no.” I may well say no as well - but only after applying the non-Physicalist principles I have just outlined - which in theory could admit of exceptions in very unusual situations.

Given that real-life exceptions clearly exist to the “all contraceptive use is intrinsically evil approach” …and that I and others have provided a traditional moral theology to explain those exceptions…I leave it up to readers to decide whether your personal take on Catholic theology in this area stacks up.

Re "By implication that means the Church does not forbid unmarried people to use condoms."
Exactly my implication. Such a theoretical possibility does indeed exist. That is, as others have noted, in some unusual cases the unmarried may be counselled to use contraception by Church authorities that probably would not be legitimate for married couples.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

continued…

Re "By implication that means the Church does not forbid unmarried people to use condoms."
Exactly my implication. Such a theoretical possibility does indeed exist. That is, as others have noted, in some unusual cases the unmarried may be counselled to use contraception by Church authorities that would not be legitimate for married couples.

These exceptions suggest a different moral theology is operating behind contraceptive teaching than most of us possibly realise. Hence exceptions may (and do) exist even for married couples (though more difficult to justify). Such exceptions are not called “contraceptive moral acts” even if physical contraception actually happens.

I am suggesting this thread may be one of them. Then again it may not.
What I do believe is that the theology involved is such that practical enquiry into the case is required to come to a final decision and cries of “intrinsically evil so don’t even go there” cannot be justifed.

That approach is as flawed as saying the killing of a 2yr old child must be evil because “murder” is intrinsically evil. That is Physicalism. We cannot physically “see” “murder”. Murder is an intellectual judgement we make after investigating the event as a whole. There are exceptions. In those cases we do not call the “event” murder.

 

[Abu]

Physicians’ Desk Reference, 58th ed. (Montvale, NJ: Thomson PDR, 2004).
John Wilks, A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 3rd ed.
“During any discussion of the birth control pill, it is important to keep in mind that scientists have confirmed that at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization), a new human being is created who is completely different from his/her mother.
“The birth control pill works in three ways:

1. It can prevent the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). However, while using the pill, women can and do experience breakthrough ovulation - meaning that an egg is released from the ovary and is available to be fertilized by the sperm.
2. It also causes the cervical mucus to thicken, making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. It is possible, though, for the sperm to break through the mucus and to fertilize the egg.
3. It also changes the lining of the uterus. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the five- to seven-day-old baby to attach to the lining, where he/she would receive the nourishment needed to grow. If the baby does not successfully attach to the lining, he/she dies and is expelled from the body during menstruation. This process is known as a chemical abortion. The fact that it can occur as a result of taking birth control pills is why the pill is referred to as an abortifacient.”
   thepillkills.org/pillkillsbabies.php

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Re "By implication that means the Church does not forbid unmarried people to use condoms."
Exactly my implication. Such a theoretical possibility does indeed exist. That is, as others have noted, in some unusual cases the unmarried may be counselled to use contraception by Church authorities that probably would not be legitimate for married couples.

Actually, it doesn’t exist.

Unmarried people are not to have sex. Period. Since they are not having sex in the first place, they can’t contracept. Taking about contraception in the context of abstinence simply makes no sense.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Physicians’ Desk Reference, 58th ed. (Montvale, NJ: Thomson PDR, 2004).
John Wilks, A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 3rd ed.
“During any discussion of the birth control pill, it is important to keep in mind that scientists have confirmed that at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization), a new human being is created who is completely different from his/her mother.
“The birth control pill works in three ways:

1. It can prevent the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). However, while using the pill, women can and do experience breakthrough ovulation - meaning that an egg is released from the ovary and is available to be fertilized by the sperm.
2. It also causes the cervical mucus to thicken, making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. It is possible, though, for the sperm to break through the mucus and to fertilize the egg.
3. It also changes the lining of the uterus. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the five- to seven-day-old baby to attach to the lining, where he/she would receive the nourishment needed to grow. If the baby does not successfully attach to the lining, he/she dies and is expelled from the body during menstruation. This process is known as a chemical abortion. The fact that it can occur as a result of taking birth control pills is why the pill is referred to as an abortifacient.”
   thepillkills.org/pillkillsbabies.php

It should be noted that this is common sense, and it is not particular to BCPs. The same exact events occur without using BCPs.

As it pertains to ovulation, the female body works in cycles. When a woman ovulates, the uterine wall is favorable to attachment by a fertilized egg; when she is not ovulating, the uterine wall is not favorable. That is true whether the woman is taking hormones to suppress ovulation or not. It also the reason why nonimplantation rates whether one is taking BCPs or not is almost exactly the same (slightly fewer miscarriages with BCPs).

I am referring only to BCPs that inhibit ovulation, which are commonly used. There are other such pills that go well beyond that and will cause the body to expel a fertilized, implanted egg.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, it doesn’t exist.

Unmarried people are not to have sex. Period. Since they are not having sex in the first place, they can’t contracept. Taking about contraception in the context of abstinence simply makes no sense.

May I remind you of the unmarried Congo nuns. Then there’s the past Pope’s personal thoughts re prostitutes with HIV and how use of condoms may be an interim step towards greater responsibility. Not exactly in line with intrinsically evil is it?

Would that counsel be possible to the married in similar circumstances? (eg a wife in danger of being raped by her husband?) No. Up until recently society, under Church moral theological thinking (?), did not appear to think that “rape” was applicable in marriage). Nowadays I believe the Church has matured re that evil within marriage. However it would not, I believe, accept that the wife could validly use contraception even in such a situation as this as it would deny intrinsic meaning of marital sex.
Of course a Jesuit would probably argue that the act is no longer marital given the relationship has broken down to this extent and grounds may be found for considering the marriage null and void in the first place. In which case they may be considered unmarried and contraception may be possible as in the case of the Congo Nuns.

All very tortured though isn’t it.
The point I am making is that Catholic theology can back up compassionate common sense. But lets use real Pastoral/Moral Theology not court room Physicalism.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

While I do agree that the married couple doesn’t have to have sex I disagree on the unity statement.

I recently spent some time with my priest discussing a previous marriage annulment, contraception (mine and my daughters) and “unity”. According to my priest, my daughter using BCP to regulate hormones is not a sin as the contraception is a side effect of a recommended medical treatment.

When we went on to discuss my current marriage I was told that the sex act needed two components in order to not be sinful. One, that I am open to life. This confused me as I had a tubal ligation years ago, long before I began the conversion process. My priest said that, at least in my case, being “open to life” meant that I would carry and give birth if I became pregnant. And two, that the sex act be unitive. His definition on unitive was not physical. He explained it much like pair bonding.

Yes I agree.
I do not think the Church is going to rule on this less usual situation any time soon - especially as the abstinence solution doesn’t exactly require heroic virtue (maybe it does for some ).

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

May I remind you of the unmarried Congo nuns. Then there’s the past Pope’s personal thoughts re prostitutes with HIV and how use of condoms may be an interim step towards greater responsibility. Not exactly in line with intrinsically evil is it?

Actually, it’s perfectly in line with intrinsically evil. Prostitution is intrinsically evil, and so is the use of condoms. How exactly does one weave an non-intrinsically evil argument through that?

Simple. You don’t. The awareness of a intrinsically evil acts through intrinsically evil means does not make these acts licit or not intrinsically evil.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

When we went on to discuss my current marriage I was told that the sex act needed two components in order to not be sinful. One, that I am open to life. This confused me as I had a tubal ligation years ago, long before I began the conversion process. My priest said that, at least in my case, being “open to life” meant that I would carry and give birth if I became pregnant. And two, that the sex act be unitive. His definition on unitive was not physical. He explained it much like pair bonding.

FWIW, I do not care for the Church’s explanation regarding “ordered to procreation” and “open to life.” Of course my opinion doesn’t matter to the Church one iota. I understand the intent, but the explanation is confusing and doesn’t make sense even to people like me with logic/legal in my background.

 

[thistle]

Thanks Thistle.
First up you are still displaying what appears to be “Physicalist” theology in your understanding of Church Teaching re contraceptive human acts.
May I repeat, ad nauseam, that “use of a condom” or “use of the BCP” is not by that fact alone a “contraceptive moral act” (intrinsically evil). It may be something else … a health giving prescription to remedy some unrelated medical condition for example (which is known to have a contraceptive side effect). Hence, what “looks like” a contraceptive moral act is in fact not a contraceptive moral act. (Same with killing…it may look like a murderous moral act (intrinsically evil) but it may be something else (legitimate self defence). At least have a think about what I am trying to communicate to you here. It is subtle, many non-theologically trained Catholics just don’t get it.)

Now, despite the subtle difference in the moral theologies we are using, we may both end up coming to the same conclusion - “condoms cannot be used in this particular case.”
However we will have arrived at that summit by two different paths. You will have got there by simply saying, “use of all contraception is intrinsically evil, therefore no exceptions, the answer is no.” I may well say no as well - but only after applying the non-Physicalist principles I have just outlined - which in theory could admit of exceptions in very unusual situations.

Given that real-life exceptions clearly exist to the “all contraceptive use is intrinsically evil approach” …and that I and others have provided a traditional moral theology to explain those exceptions…I leave it up to readers to decide whether your personal take on Catholic theology in this area stacks up.

Re "By implication that means the Church does not forbid unmarried people to use condoms."
Exactly my implication. Such a theoretical possibility does indeed exist. That is, as others have noted, in some unusual cases the unmarried may be counselled to use contraception by Church authorities that probably would not be legitimate for married couples.

That is completely incorrect. The Church does NOT teach that condoms are allowed by anyone. Please show me the source Church document to support your claim. You made the claim so back it up.