Question about condoms, and God's plan for procreation

[jamil_joseph02]

I’m not sure if I have to put this on apologetics or morality forums, because this question somewhat addresses both. Well, a former classmate of mine and I have been talking recently about the immorality of using condoms and how it violates the unitive and procreative purpose of the marital act and I told him that it prevents the participation of God in the creation of a child.

He has this to say:

That’s your interpretation of sexual morality. I think we have to be realistic about this. If God really designed sex only for procreation, then why would he make it difficult for a woman to conceive, why fertility time is so short and why we have sexual urges that not only allows human to have sex but to encourage them ? In reality sex is also for couple bonding, and it helps in strengthening their relationship. It also has other purpose like pleasure. My point is sex has other purpose and people are not bound with the interpretation of church. As long as people do not use it to hurt anyone. If you are keen and a conservative Catholic, you should not wear eyeglasses for they are just unnatural as contraception.

I think it stupid because it suggests that there is not a lot of thinking involved. And hypocritical too, if they are really pro-life (our local priests encouraging the faithful not to use contraceptives) why would they be so anti-woman, why would they interfere with the rights of women to decide for themselves?

I rest my case.

couldn’t think of something to respond to him as of now, but I know that somewhere in there he’s just one of the many Catholics acting as his own Pope and that he is somewhat misinformed.

so, what would be the reply?

 

[Texsain]

Sex is BOTH for unitive and procreative purposes (and pleasure). Sexual acts should include both.

For example, condoms are a sin against the procreative aspect, but masturbation is a sin against the unitive aspect. Whereas pleasureless sex in Kurt Vonnegut’s “Welcome to the Monkey House” is a sin against the pleasureful portion of it.

 

[1ke]

God is not the author of fertility issues. All disease and defect are a result of the fallen state of the world-- death and disease are a result of Original Sin.

On the second point, that the marital embrace is for bonding as well as procreation, this is true BUT both elements of the marital embrace must be present or it is a disordered use of our sexual faculties.

 

[Ophelia23]

I think its important to note that sex is meant for both procreative and unitive purposes. They are meant to be hand in hand. If it were purely for procreative purposes, then sex would not be allowed outside of ovulation which is absolutely not the case.

Sex has an order. It has a placement: marriage. It has a purpose: to express God’s love. God’s love is expressed through sex in more than one way. One, It is expressed by completely giving oneself to the other: your body, your mind, your fertility, your infertility; your whole self. Two, God’s love is expressed by the creation (if He wills it) of life within the woman’s womb. Part of the key is, if He wills it.

Using artificial means to prevent pregnancy 1) does not allow you to give fully of yourself to the other, and 2) imposes your own will and leaves no room for God’s will to be done. It negates each part of the dual purpose of human sexuality.

 

[LittleFlower378]

When people start saying the Church is anti-woman it is totally not true. Women get used when contraception is used. The Church teaching on all this really looks out for the good of the woman. I just read a really good book which covers the sexual urge and talks a little about procreation and union and contraception. The book is “Love and Responsibility - Bl.John Paul II - A Simplified Version by Monsignor Vincent M. Walsh, J.C.D.”.

 

[kozlosap]

Could someone please explain this situation to me:
My best friend was born with the herpes virus because her mother gave birth when the virus was active. Using condoms protects her husband from becoming infected. For the life of me, I can’t foresee that it is sinful or immoral.

 

[Texsain]

It’s also worth stating here that the reverse of contraception, seeking pregnancy OUTSIDE of sex (like in vitro) is also immoral because it removes procreation from its proper place.

There’s a lot more to this than just making babies.

 

[Texsain]

Could someone please explain this situation to me:
My best friend was born with the herpes virus because her mother gave birth when the virus was active. Using condoms protects her husband from becoming infected. For the life of me, I can’t foresee that it is sinful or immoral.

This is potentially an obstacle to a valid marriage. A valid marriage must involve the ability to procreate and the openness to children. In the situation you are describing, it is assumed that the couple would never have relations without condoms to avoid spread of the disease. Thus, they would not be open to children, and you could argue that they are, in one sense, unable to conceive (just as if one spouse was permanently impotent). This calls the validity of the marriage into question.

 

[SonCatcher]

That’s your interpretation of sexual morality. I think we have to be realistic about this. If God really designed sex only for procreation, then why would he make it difficult for a woman to conceive, why fertility time is so short and why we have sexual urges that not only allows human to have sex but to encourage them?

Procreation is not “difficult” as the writer suggests. If that were so, then the families of 6 or more children would have been the exception 100 years ago, rather than the rule. Women have a cycle every month, which is very frequent for a mammal. Additionally, there is much evidence that women are more interested in sex during the fertile part of their cycle and that men are more interested in women who are in the fertile part of their cycle.

In reality sex is also for couple bonding, and it helps in strengthening their relationship. It also has other purpose like pleasure. My point is sex has other purpose and people are not bound with the interpretation of church. As long as people do not use it to hurt anyone.

The Church does recognize the bonding aspect of sex. Her only requirement is that the unitive aspect be not separated from the procreative aspect.

If you are keen and a conservative Catholic, you should not wear eyeglasses for they are just unnatural as contraception.

A faulty analogy. Glasses assist imperfect vision and would be better compared to treating ED. Contraceptives, however, disrupt the healthy procreative condition. There are some psychological data and many anecdotal accounts that also indicate that they disrupt the bonding.

I think it stupid because it suggests that there is not a lot of thinking involved. And hypocritical too, if they are really pro-life (our local priests encouraging the faithful not to use contraceptives) why would they be so anti-woman, why would they interfere with the rights of women to decide for themselves?

There is nothing anti-woman in the Church’s teaching. Contraception, however, by denying a natural, healthy condition, is anti-woman, anti-man and anti-couple.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

How do I address his specific questions?

If God really designed sex only for procreation, then why would he make it difficult for a woman to conceive, why fertility time is so short and why we have sexual urges that not only allows human to have sex but to encourage them?

 

[SonCatcher]

Could someone please explain this situation to me:
My best friend was born with the herpes virus because her mother gave birth when the virus was active. Using condoms protects her husband from becoming infected. For the life of me, I can’t foresee that it is sinful or immoral.

Herpes is spread by skin contact. Condoms do nothing to prevent its spread. Their only hope to prevent his catching it it to avoid relations when the virus is active. However, the virus can sometimes be transmitted even when it is asymptomatic (no warts visible). Again, condoms would not prevent its spread.

 

[Texsain]

How do I address his specific questions?

If God really designed sex only for procreation, then why would he make it difficult for a woman to conceive, why fertility time is so short and why we have sexual urges that not only allows human to have sex but to encourage them?

Every single one of those questions has already been answered.

 

[SonCatcher]

How do I address his specific questions?

If God really designed sex only for procreation, then why would he make it difficult for a woman to conceive, why fertility time is so short and why we have sexual urges that not only allows human to have sex but to encourage them?

I answered this just before you reiterated the question

 

[jamil_joseph02]

I answered this just before you reiterated the question

yeah, I was typing that when you posted. Didn’t see it coming answers are greatly considered

 

[kozlosap]

Herpes is spread by skin contact. Condoms do nothing to prevent its spread. Their only hope to prevent his catching it it to avoid relations when the virus is active. However, the virus can sometimes be transmitted even when it is asymptomatic (no warts visible). Again, condoms would not prevent its spread.

Thanks for the clarification!

I’m thankful that I’m not in such a situation!

 

[Roy5]

Like millions of others, I believe the Church should change its position on artificial birth control,. I hope it hasn’t painted itself into a corner on this issue. Probably she will find some rationalizarion if and when she does decide to change.

Sex between husbands and wives obviously is not only for procreation. It is for bonding. It is for expressing love. It is for 'making up' after spats. It is for joyful living. It is for reenforcing the wedding bonds. It is a way to release tension. And we could go on. The old idea that sex is only for procreation is contradicted, in fact, by the Church's approbation of sex based on the calendar.

 There's another major issue, and it's women's rights. Marital rights is championed by the Church. When a marriage is not consummated, for example, the Church grants an easy annulment. Should a woman be expected to submit to her husband when she feels she has borne enough children? I know one situation in which a devout Catholic woman became pregnant after six children. The couple carefully practiced the approved method of birth control. Her doctor warned her that carrying this pregnancy through to the end could mean her death and that of the baby. Her husband wanted her to have an early medical abortion, but her priest said that would be a major sin. She went full-term, both mom and baby died, leaving a grieving, angry husband and six motherless children. 

 Which was the wiser course? (1) To have used artificial birth control and much more likely avoid the pregnancy? (2) To have had an abortion very early in the pregnancy? (3) To listen to the priest and not to the medical profession and lose two precious lives as a result?

  The husband took his family and they became active in an Episcopal Church. Can you blame him?

 

[SonCatcher]

Like millions of others, I believe the Church should change its position on artificial birth control,. I hope it hasn’t painted itself into a corner on this issue. Probably she will find some rationalizarion if and when she does decide to change.

The Church “painted herself” out of the corner of Contraception in the first century.

Sex between husbands and wives obviously is not only for procreation. It is for bonding. It is for expressing love. It is for 'making up' after spats. It is for joyful living. It is for reenforcing the wedding bonds. It is a way to release tension. And we could go on.

As discussed in post #9, the Church recognizes this.

The old idea that sex is only for procreation is contradicted, in fact, by the Church’s approbation of sex based on the calendar.

Who uses calendars? I don’t think there is a single NFP practitioner on this board who would condone them. Again, the Church does not teach that sex is exclusively for procreation but that God brought together the procreative and bonding aspects. If God, in His wisdom brought them together, who are we to separate them?

Are humans more wise than God?

 There's another major issue, and it's women's rights. Marital rights is championed by the Church. When a marriage is not consummated, for example, the Church grants an easy annulment. Should a woman be expected to submit to her husband when she feels she has borne enough children? I know one situation in which a devout Catholic woman became pregnant after six children. The couple carefully practiced the approved method of birth control. Her doctor warned her that carrying this pregnancy through to the end could mean her death and that of the baby. Her husband wanted her to have an early medical abortion, but her priest said that would be a major sin. She went full-term, both mom and baby died, leaving a grieving, angry husband and six motherless children.

 Which was the wiser course? (1) To have used artificial birth control and much more likely avoid the pregnancy? (2) To have had an abortion very early in the pregnancy? (3) To listen to the priest and not to the medical profession and lose two precious lives as a result?

  The husband took his family and they became active in an Episcopal Church. Can you blame him?

Do you not respect the woman’s decision to carry her child despite the risk? It was her decision, after all.

St. Gianna Molla is well-known for having faced the same dilemma and choosing to carry her child to term despite her condition. This woman followed St. Gianna’s heroic example and 2 souls are born to eternal life because of it.

The tragedy is that her husband apostatized, not that she died.

 

[Texsain]

Like millions of others, I believe the Church should change its position on artificial birth control,.

Personally, I think the church should change its position on stealing and coveting thy neighbor’s goods. My neighbor just got this new huge 1080 HDTV, and man, wouldn’t I like to have that in my living room!

 

[Roy5]

Personally, I think the church should change its position on stealing and coveting thy neighbor’s goods. My neighbor just got this new huge 1080 HDTV, and man, wouldn’t I like to have that in my living room!

 Stealing and coveting are forbidden by the Ten Commandments. Where in the Bible is birth control forbidden, even mentioned? The only place that sometimes is cited is where Onan refuses to impregnate his sister-in-law whose husband (his brother) had died. (Gen. 38:8-10) I see no possible way in which this relates to our customs today. We would consider that ancient Hebrew tradition unethical or worse.

  Husbands and wives should be in charge of their own marital relations. Yes, perhaps some families should be having more children, as our farmer-ancestors did, but economic, educational and other factors are very different today. Certainly the Church, run by celibate men, has very little insight into such personal and private matters.

 

[Texsain]

Stealing and coveting are forbidden by the Ten Commandments. Where in the Bible is birth control forbidden, even mentioned? The only place that sometimes is cited is where Onan refuses to impregnate his sister-in-law whose husband (his brother) had died. (Gen. 38:8-10) I see no possible way in which this relates to our customs today. We would consider that ancient Hebrew tradition unethical or worse.

  Husbands and wives should be in charge of their own marital relations. Yes, perhaps some families should be having more children, as our farmer-ancestors did, but economic, educational and other factors are very different today. Certainly the Church, run by celibate men, has very little insight into such personal and private matters.

Where in the Bible does it say that husbands and wives should “be in charge of their own marital relations”?