Pregnancy and codoms

[Siena29]

I am 34 wks pregnant, and have been having bad pre-term labor after being with dh. My doctor says the prostaglandins (sp??) in semen can bring on labor, and that we should use condoms to prevent going into labor early.

Obviously we are not preventing new life, but rather protecting the life we have created, so would you think condoms would be permissible in this situation?

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[1ke]

No.

Perhaps you are called to abstain for a short time.

 

[Kelfa28]

Sex can bring about labor too.

I’d be abstaining in order to avoid the risk.

 

[thistle]

I am 34 wks pregnant, and have been having bad pre-term labor after being with dh. My doctor says the prostaglandins (sp??) in semen can bring on labor, and that we should use condoms to prevent going into labor early.

Obviously we are not preventing new life, but rather protecting the life we have created, so would you think condoms would be permissible in this situation?

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut

Are you saying you can’t last another 5 weeks or so without having sex?

 

[Siena29]

Are you saying you can’t last another 5 weeks or so without having sex?

No, that isn’t at all what I was saying. I was simply asking if what my dr. suggested would be permissible in this situation. A moral curiosity. Due to the fact that it in no way violates the life giving role of the marital act at this time, and for the purposes of union within the marriage, I could not see why it would be grave; however, I thought that perhaps I should pose the question so as to give the matter it’s due diligence. My husband and I are faithful to the practice of NFP, so if abstinence is required, so be it. The question was deeper than, “I can’t go w/o sex, what should I do?”

(And, FWIW, in case you didn’t realize this, it is also 6 wks or more of abstinence after the birth for most women, in many cases even longer due to hormonal changes, breastfeeding, etc., so to say “5 wks” is sorely understated.)

 

[Allegra]

Condoms are a barrier to the unitive aspect of sex, so I don’t think you should use them. Abstaining is the best alternative.

 

[anjoh66]

I Heard that the Church allowed for Couples where one has HIV that condoms are permissible, therefore i cant see any difference in this case.

Since i might be wrong i am standing ready to be corrected.

 

[Siena29]

Condoms are a barrier to the unitive aspect of sex,

Ah, that may be the point exactly, and the part that I hadn’t thought of or considered. I knew I was missing something completely obvious, and felt like it would be wrong, but just could not think of a reason that made sense! Thanks

Interesting, I didn’t realize In the case of HIV condoms were permitted. I’m thinking though, that in that case, abstinence would have to be permanent, whereas in our situation it is temporary. That may be the defining point.

 

[1believer1]

No, that isn’t at all what I was saying. I was simply asking if what my dr. suggested would be permissible in this situation. A moral curiosity. Due to the fact that it in no way violates the life giving role of the marital act at this time, and for the purposes of union within the marriage, I could not see why it would be grave; however, I thought that perhaps I should pose the question so as to give the matter it’s due diligence. My husband and I are faithful to the practice of NFP, so if abstinence is required, so be it. The question was deeper than, “I can’t go w/o sex, what should I do?”

(And, FWIW, in case you didn’t realize this, it is also 6 wks or more of abstinence after the birth for most women, in many cases even longer due to hormonal changes, breastfeeding, etc., so to say “5 wks” is sorely understated.)

Read the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Of Human Life. ( Humanae Vitae) . It may be helpful… ( both of you need to read it, it is only about 15 pages long.)

 

[1ke]

Due to the fact that it in no way violates the life giving role of the marital act at this time,

Oh but it does.

Each and every marital act must be properly ordered to both unity and procreation. Using a condom disorders the marital embrace.

 

[1ke]

I Heard that the Church allowed for Couples where one has HIV that condoms are permissible, therefore i cant see any difference in this case.

Since i might be wrong i am standing ready to be corrected.

You heard incorrectly. It is the opposite.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you saying you can’t last another 5 weeks or so without having sex?

If that is not a big deal for you, don’t assume others won’t have a hard time as well. We are all on different journeys and all are at different stages of our journeys. Some thing are easier for some people, that doesn’t mean everyone else should have an easy time as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

 

[Abu]

anjoh66 #7 23/6/13
I Heard that the Church allowed for Couples where one has HIV that condoms are permissible, therefore i cant see any difference in this case.
Since i might be wrong i am standing ready to be corrected.

False.
It is always wise to check such assertions.

The Irish Times
Wednesday November 24, 2010
“All the Pope is saying is that, for an individual living a life of sexual abandon (prostitution), the use of a condom might, just might, set off a process of self-reflection in that person which might lead to a more responsible attitude to the use of his sexuality. This is not a case of “justifying” the use of a condom.”
Rev Dr D Vincent Twomey SVD,
Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology,
Divine Word Missionaries,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.
See the complete letter at; renewamerica.com/columns/keane/101127

 

[thistle]

If that is not a big deal for you, don’t assume others won’t have a hard time as well. We are all on different journeys and all are at different stages of our journeys. Some thing are easier for some people, that doesn’t mean everyone else should have an easy time as well.

The time period is not the issue. It could be 5 days, 5 weeks or months. The answer to the OP’s question is that is is NOT allowed to use condoms. The Church does not allow their use for any reason.
Abstaining is the only solution.

 

[Allegra]

Interesting, I didn’t realize In the case of HIV condoms were permitted. I’m thinking though, that in that case, abstinence would have to be permanent, whereas in our situation it is temporary. That may be the defining point.

I think that is an urban legend. As far as I know, condoms are not permitted for HIV patients. It would be very irresponsible for the Church to make such a statement, because it is a well-documented fact that the HIV virus is much smaller than sperm cells and a condom is not sufficiently effective at preventing the spread of HIV. At best, it’s better than nothing. Again, abstinance is the only way to prevent this deadly and currently uncurable condition.

 

[thistle]

Ah, that may be the point exactly, and the part that I hadn’t thought of or considered. I knew I was missing something completely obvious, and felt like it would be wrong, but just could not think of a reason that made sense! Thanks

Interesting, I didn’t realize In the case of HIV condoms were permitted. I’m thinking though, that in that case, abstinence would have to be permanent, whereas in our situation it is temporary. That may be the defining point.

That is wrong. Use of condoms to prevent HIV is NOT permitted.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Condoms are a barrier to the unitive aspect of sex, so I don’t think you should use them.

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!

 

[thistle]

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!

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Church forbids the use of condoms whether it’s to prevent pregnancy or disease or whatever.

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?