Using perforated condom as birth control... moral?

[Jon_S_1]

It’s the intent of the couple to “lessen the odds” by using a method that they hope will remove the procreative nature from an act that is taking place. We cannot licitly work to remove the procreative nature from an act that is taking place. Intentions matter.

No they are lessening the odds by decreasing the likelihood of sperm reaching egg. Same as nfp method.

Sperm is deposited in the woman. Therefore it is procreative.

Perhaps the size of the perforation or amount matters to you?

What if the perforations let 100% of the sperm through but merely slowed their upward velocity?

 

[ahs]

No they are lessening the odds by decreasing the likelihood of sperm reaching egg. Same as nfp method.

Why are you basing your conclusion on sperm reaching an egg? Many contraceptives do not invovle a barrier, and the sperm still reach an egg.

NFP = we either don’t have sex, or we do have sex. When we do, we do nothing to impede the procreative nature of that act which is taking place.

This scenario in the OP = we either don’t have sex, or we do. When we do, we ALSO do something for the purpose of removing the procreative nature of an act that is taking place. Despite a potentially high failure rate, it is our hope that our method will remove the procreactive power of our act.

Sperm is deposited in the woman. Therefore it is procreative.

So, using the pill or an IUD is also procreative?

Perhaps the size of the perforation or amount matters to you?

What if the perforations let 100% of the sperm through but merely slowed their upward velocity?

Why would that matter to me?

 

[Jon_S_1]

You have a fundamental problem in your reasoning.

Either a perforated condom maintains the procreative act or it does not.

There are other ways to collect sperm, including straight from the woman.

Also, how essential is it to have a medical doctor count your sperm. It’s not like a life or death matter.

So it has been determined that, unlike a condom or IUD, a perforated condom maintains the procreative function of the marital act.

As such you have no reason to say it does not.

 

[ahs]

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: *any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated *in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (Casti Connubii) vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
2. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) (Humanae Vitae, emphasis mine) vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Intent matters.

 

[Jon_S_1]

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: *any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated *in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (Casti Connubii) vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
2. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) (Humanae Vitae, emphasis mine) vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Intent matters.

So again, you have admitted that a perforated condom does not frustrate the procreative function.

It allows for the procreative function.

So either a perforated condom is immoral always

Or

You have it wrong.

We have already established that the intent is good. To delay pregnancy for just reason.

 

[LokisMom]

I dunno guys… :-/

All the explanations I’ve read about why it’s wrong to wear a condom, say that the intention (if just) is not the problem, because it is the same intention as using NFP - to avoid pregnancy. The problem is simply the fact that you are wearing something that does not allow sperm into the body. That is why it is wrong for a married couple to wear them even if the woman has a hysterectomy and can’t get pregnancy anyway. Because it is not the intent that is wrong, it is the fact that sex is being changed by taking sperm out of the equation.

So let’s suppose the couple has just reason to avoid pregnancy. The intent is the same, whether they use NFP, Condoms, or perforated condoms. The intent is not the problem.

The moral object comes next.
Is periodic abstinence, in and of itself, a sinful act? No.
Is using a condom during intercourse, in and of itself, a sinful act? The Church teaches, yes.
Is using a perforated condom during intercourse, in and of itself, a sinful act? Clearly, no, otherwise it wouldn’t be permissible to use them for intercourse for ANY reason.

So when you put a licit intent together with a licit moral object, I don’t see how it can still be a sin.

 

[LokisMom]

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: *any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated *in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (Casti Connubii) vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
2. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) (Humanae Vitae, emphasis mine) vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Intent matters.

Hmmm, I just feel like if this applies to perforated condoms, it would be just as much a sin to wear them during intercourse for any reason as a normal condom…

 

[1ke]

No, it is not moral.

Using a perforated condom for medical testing purposes falls under the principle of double effect.

Using it as contraception does not.

ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

 

[LokisMom]

No, it is not moral.

Using a perforated condom for medical testing purposes falls under the principle of double effect.

Using it as contraception does not.

ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

Then why doesnt wearing a regular condom for medical testing fall under double effect? Because it is still wrong to wear a regular one, even if its for medical testing.

 

[LokisMom]

For the record, I’m not asking this question for any sort of personal reasons, neither do I intend on using perforated condoms.

I really am just wanting to learn more about moral theology in regards to birth control issues. I think it’s interesting.

 

[LokisMom]

I found a website that addresses perforated condoms. While this article does not talk about the use of them to help avoid pregnancy for just reasons, it does explain that a perforated condom does not frustrate the unitive or procreative aspect of sex:

The use of an intact condom prevents insemination and thus prevents the spouses from being united in true marital congress.

For this reason, even when a condom is not being used to prevent procreation, it could not be used on the grounds that it prevents the spouses from being united in marital congress.

I should point out, though, that there is another possible consideration here. While it is necessary for some insemination to occur in order for the marital act to be completed, it does not appear that there is any set amount of insemination that must occur.

Some orthodox Catholic moralists have suggested that this fact could be utilized as part of obtaining samples of the seminal fluid needed for male fertility testing. They have thus proposed the possibility of using a perforated condom that would allow some but not all of the seminal fluid to be transmitted. That which gets caught in the condom could then be used for fertility testing, while that which went through the condom would complete the marital act.

jimmyakin.com/2006/08/condoms_during_.html

So if the act of wearing a perforated condom during intercourse does not frustrate the unitive or procreative aspect of the marital act, then it seems like it would conclude that if you have a just reason to wear one, it cannot be a sin.

Avoiding pregnancy for just reason, is a just reason.

 

[Jon_S_1]

For the record, I’m not asking this question for any sort of personal reasons, neither do I intend on using perforated condoms.

I really am just wanting to learn more about moral theology in regards to birth control issues. I think it’s interesting.

Yes, me neither. I have no dog in this moral fight!

But I do find it an interesting question worth exploring.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No, it is not moral.

Using a perforated condom for medical testing purposes falls under the principle of double effect.

Using it as contraception does not.

ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

This makes no sense to me.

Double Effect should not even apply, unless there is a life or death type of situation.

If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, than the inflamed tube can be removed and the law of double effect applies if the baby in the tube happens to die as a result. In this scenario, and all double effect scenario’s, all other options have been utilized or exhausted. For example, if there was a drug that allowed the baby to replant into the uterus and solve the ectopic issue, it would no longer be moral to use the surgical intervention that kills the baby.

In a similar way, there are ways to collect semen for testing from the woman, not to mention that no ill effect will come to the man if he is not tested. So using a perforated condom is just another licit means of collection along side others. It is no less restrictive of the procreative aspects than any other method, and this is why it is allowed.

 

[LokisMom]

This makes no sense to me.

Double Effect should not even apply, unless there is a life or death type of situation.

If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, than the inflamed tube can be removed and the law of double effect applies if the baby in the tube happens to die as a result. In this scenario, and all double effect scenario’s, all other options have been utilized or exhausted. For example, if there was a drug that allowed the baby to replant into the uterus and solve the ectopic issue, it would no longer be moral to use the surgical intervention that kills the baby.

In a similar way, there are ways to collect semen for testing from the woman, not to mention that no ill effect will come to the man if he is not tested. So using a perforated condom is just another licit means of collection along side others. It is no less restrictive of the procreative aspects than any other method, and this is why it is allowed.

Yes, I thought of this too. There are a ton of scenarios that Ive thought about that could be under double effect, but they are not because the reasons aren’t grave enough or necessary enough to balance them out. I don’t see how providing a sperm sample for the sake of fertility testing would ever be a grave enough/necessary enough reason to counter the sin of wearing a perforated condom… IF wearing one was a sin to begin with. Which it is obviously not. Thats why wearing a regular condom for sperm samples is still wrong. So from my understanding, wearing a perforated condom for med testing is licit because it does not frustrate the procreative/unitive aspects of sex. NOT because of double effect.

 

[LokisMom]

Like Jon said, I can understand why the majority of people here HATE the idea of this.

But I ask all of you to put aside your prejudices/biases and look at this from a purely and objectively theological/philosophical point of view. In the realm of Catholic moral theology, I simple do not see how this would be wrong.

 

[LongingSoul]

Like Jon said, I can understand why the majority of people here HATE the idea of this.

But I ask all of you to put aside your prejudices/biases and look at this from a purely and objectively theological/philosophical point of view. In the realm of Catholic moral theology, I simple do not see how this would be wrong.

One of the things that a Catholic cannot do is ‘un’ submit to certain moral absolutes held as central tenets of natural and divine law. So just as the voluntary and intended taking of anothers life is always evil… so the voluntary and intended frustration of the sexual act is always evil.

As for the perforated condom idea… I’ve never actually heard of it. Personally it sounds a bit overly scrupulous to me but I’m willing to learn to if this is indeed a requirement of the Magisterium.

If the Church has not specifically outlawed the regular means of collecting sperm for medical reasons ie. stimulating the release of the product into a speciman jar… I would have thought it would have just come under the realm of licit medical procedure.

Again, I’m willing to be taught if my understanding is flawed here.

 

[LongingSoul]

My question asked and answered in the same minute. CAF is good!

 

[1ke]

This makes no sense to me.

Double Effect should not even apply, unless there is a life or death type of situation.

That is your opinion about the Principle of Double Effect. However, that is not what the Church teaches about it.

In this scenario, and all double effect scenario’s, all other options have been utilized or exhausted.

This is not correct. The four elements of the principle of double effect does not include “all other options have been exhausted”.

In a similar way, there are ways to collect semen for testing from the woman, not to mention that no ill effect will come to the man if he is not tested. So using a perforated condom is just another licit means of collection along side others. It is no less restrictive of the procreative aspects than any other method, and this is why it is allowed.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But, it is out of step will all moral theology and ethics I’ve read.

As has also been pointed out by another posted, the Church has not spoken definitively on this matter, therefore it remains prudential judgment using the principle of double effect.

What is never moral is contraception, which is what the original poster is trying to put forth by comparing it to use of a condom for medical testing.

So, at best medical testing usage is moral under double effect, and use as contraception is not moral. At worst, neither are moral. What cannot be said is both are moral.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That is your opinion about the Principle of Double Effect. However, that is not what the Church teaches about it.

This is not correct. The four elements of the principle of double effect does not include “all other options have been exhausted”.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But, it is out of step will all moral theology and ethics I’ve read.

As has also been pointed out by another posted, the Church has not spoken definitively on this matter, therefore it remains prudential judgment using the principle of double effect.

What is never moral is contraception, which is what the original poster is trying to put forth by comparing it to use of a condom for medical testing.

So, at best medical testing usage is moral under double effect, and use as contraception is not moral. At worst, neither are moral. What cannot be said is both are moral.

How is a condom with holes in it not moral? How is it contracepting? I think couples actually contracepting would not be too keen on poking holes in their condoms.

 

[LongingSoul]

How is a condom with holes in it not moral? How is it contracepting? I think couples actually contracepting would not be too keen on poking holes in their condoms.

By that logic Onan could have technically silenced God by saying that some seminal fluid is always released prior to ejaculation. Contraception is the voluntary and intentional thwarting of intercourse to avoid pregnancy.