Sin to use Instead (menstrual) cups during intercourse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToeInTheWater
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToeInTheWater

Guest
FYI, Instead cups are disposable cups shaped like diaphragms (but not individually fitted like a diaphragm, you can buy them off a drugstore shelf), which are designed to catch menstrual flow. The main advantage, based on the marketing, is that they are more sanitary than tampons or pads (and I assume that’s why the brand name is Instead, they are to be used instead of tampons or pads). However, apparently another advantage is that they can be used to contain the flow during intercourse so it won’t be too messy (which you can’t do with pads or tampons).

However…since this device is shaped like a diaphragm, it would seem that it could have a similar effect in terms of serving as a barrier contraceptive. Since conception can occur if a couple had intercourse during menses and there are still sperm hanging around when the woman ovulates after menses.

So…seems to me that, based on what I’ve read here from those who believe, for example, that it is always a sin for a sexually active woman to use the Pill even if the main reason is other than contraception…that using such cups during intercourse would be sinful as well. Especially since the intended “positive effect” is as minor as making sex “less messy”, when the act when done as intended is rather messy anyway. I guess if the husband has some severe blood phobia that might also be a reason to use this device during intercourse, but much like what the standard advice is in regards to more serious cases like HIV infection, the couple could just NOT have sex if the husband doesn’t want to see blood.

Yet this conclusion strikes me as absurd for some reason…so is my reasoning right, or not?
 
Looks like you’ve analyzed it right. What seems so absurd?
 
These aren’t meant to be worn during intercourse . They probably won’t stay in place and could do some damage even.
 
It’s not true that a sexually active woman may not use the Pill for non-contraceptive therapeutic reasons. Many people here believe that, but I challenge any of them to find an official Church teaching that says so. And let’s not get into the argument that there’s almost always a better treatment. That’s not relevant here.

I have not ever used a diaphragm, but do I understand correctly that it is to be used in conjunction with a spermicide? So the Instead cup resembles a diaphragm, but would not come close to one in ability to prevent pregnancy, since it would be used alone. It is also not fitted, so there would be plenty of room for tiny sperm to go past.

Combine that ineffectiveness with a primary intention to contain the flow, not to contracept, and you have something that seems to me perfectly permissible.
 
Well, I guess it’s not this example that’s absurd, but the fact that I found myself actually spending time thinking about it. It seems that to some Catholics around here, any act that could have the effect of reducing natural fertility is suspect, even if the couple doesn’t intend to contracept. I guess my question is more like, how much time are Catholics supposed to spend contemplating these things? Should men avoid using hot tubs because heat can kill sperm? I recall one poster railing against certain herbs because they had been used in the past for contraceptive and abortive effects, and most people laughed at her, but her opinion didn’t seem that out there to me (coming from a non-Catholic background). I also remember a more disturbing case where a poster asked if he was allowed to marry a woman on methotrexate for arthritis because that has abortifacient effects.

I guess it sometimes feels like people who post in this forum are almost obsessed with finding more and more ways you can be guilty of the sin of contracepting, or of excessive lusting, or of any sin, really (just seems the sexual sins get more attention). I know some people who post here suffer from scrupulosity, but sometimes it really does seem like Catholics are expected to be continually in “scanning” mode for possible areas of sin, and it just seems that becoming a practicing Catholic could affect the mental health of some people if that’s truly the case.
 
I didn’t know what these were so I googled the brand, and some people were claiming it is a conception aid. 😛 (I would guess they placed it in after intercourse, though I don’t think that really works:p).

(Though I must agree with the other posters comments, can one even wear these during intercourse, it seems like it would be very uncomfortable and potentially damaging to the cervix?)
 
I just thought of two more instances where my first reaction was “Why do we even need to discuss this?” One was a post where someone either asked or stated that personal lubricants were not allowed because they could reduce sperm motility. Also, there have been a fair number of questions as to whether “marital aids” are permissible and the consensus seemed to be that using such aids would lead to lust and should be avoided, which I didn’t really understand, especially as some women would be left frustrated much of the time without using such aids.

It seems many people here find it preferable for sex to be as natural as possible, I guess like Adam and Eve must have done it. But if women can’t use lubricants or certain other devices, then…well, many would find it very hard to get much out of sex. Which seems quite unfair. I guess that in general, sometimes it’s hard for me to tell around here what is really “official” Church teaching and what is just someone’s personal opinion.
 
Maybe it’s actually more nuanced than this, but here’s my take on contraception:

If you’re trying to separate sex from making babies, you’re doing it wrong.

I think that’s pretty faithful to Church teaching.
 
I’m somewhat new here on CAF and I’ve noticed alot questions are very analyzed. I believe most of our questions can be answered by common sense with our standard beliefs. I wouldn’t worry about menstrual cups they are not made to be a contraception.
Toe in the water,
Most of us Catholics are not so analytical.
 
baltobetsy said:
It’s not true that a sexually active woman may not use the Pill for non-contraceptive therapeutic reasons. Many people here believe that, but I challenge any of them to find an official Church teaching that says so. And let’s not get into the argument that there’s almost always a better treatment. That’s not relevant here.
Click to expand...
You’re quite right. In fact, here is something written by 2 different apologists on the issue, as well as a reference from Humanae Vitae:
*
"When taken as necessary for therapeutic reasons, use of “the pill” is not immoral. Humanae Vitae states, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (HV 15).

Also, in such circumstances, abstinence is not required. For more on this see the post Pill allowed as an abortifacient?

For alternatives to the pill check out Pope Paul VI Institute."*

-Written by apologist Jim Blackburn

and here’s the link forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

Another Apologist:

*"This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time"*.

-Written by apologist Fr. Vincent Serpa

Here’s the link to that one forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

And I totally know what you mean about people on here being so against contraception even when not used as contraception at all. I was having a big debate about this on another thread and people refused to believe it was ok for a married woman to be on BC for health purposes without having to abstain for the rest of her life, EVEN AFTER I SHOWED THEM OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCTRINE STATING THAT IT WAS OK!!! Lol, sorry… but it was sooooooo frustrating.
 
There is the principal of double effect. For instance, if a woman finds that she medically needs a hysterectomy, she can have one even though she won’t be able to conceive a child after that. Argumentatively, the pill could fall under the principal of double effect when used for theraputic measures. However, there are arguments that the pill is never medically necessary for theraputic measures or that the abortificiant properties may remove it from qualifying under the principal of double effect. Overall, the practicing Catholic has to use the moral principals to discern for themselves what is the correct answer in their particular situation. Speaking about hypothetical situations often simply leads people to make gross generalizations about what such a situation would be like. This leads them to be judgmental of faithful Catholics who took every effort to consider the moral principals and discern it out. So that being the case, anyone giving their opinion universally about such a hypothetical situation is simply giving their opinion and not the Church’s stance.

As for “Instead”, someone recommended this to me when I thought I might get my period on my wedding. It was specifically promoted to me as a way to have intercourse without it being messy. I, personally, would not be comfortable using the device at all to deal with menstration, so it overall isn’t an issue to me. I think a couple would have to seriously look more deeply into it and discern the situation based on Christian principals. I think there may be valid arguments both for using it and for not using it. Ultimately the couple will need to discern that.
 
I think any time you use an artificial device, ANY device be it this cup or a condom or the pill, as birth control, it is a sin. If you have prior knowledge that this cup can be used as a barrier method and fully use it to that advantage, it is an occasion of sin. This topic, and many others, do need to be consider. I don’t think its absurd to consider what may seem completely innocent, can be used in a sinful nature.
 
I’m a healthcare professional, so I thought I’d throw in my 2 cents.

Insteads are often compared to a diaphragm and yes, they are similar. BUT, unlike a diaphragm, it does not fit around completely snuggly. There is only one size Instead and there are many sizes to the typical diaphragm. Therefore, there is space between the Instead and the cervix that sperm can easily get into. It would be the equivalent of cutting lots of small holes in a condom.

To the poster saying that it was probably unsanitary and unsafe, I would disagree. Insteads were made for this express purpose: To have “clean” sex *instead *of “messy” sex

As a Catholic, I don’t see anything wrong with Insteads. It’s definitely NOT contraception. I’ll do some research and see if I can find any information about contraceptive rate with those who use the product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top