Using perforated condom as birth control... moral?

[SyroMalankara]

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.

I don’t think the “Onan argument” is worth having, as Onan was asked directly by God through Judah to do something and attempted to thwart it. Unless someone is being directly asked to act, this wouldn’t necessarily explicitly apply, would it?

 

[christus_vincit]

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.

Why else would a couple use a perforated condom if not for contraceptive purposes (excluding valid medical reasons)?? The use of a perforated condom seems to me like an attempt to find a moral “loophole”. If a couple uses a regular condom during sex and it breaks without their knowledge and in essence becomes a “perforated condom”, does this somehow make the act moral? Of course not because their intention in using the condom was contraception. There is NO just reason for engaging in contraceptive sexual intercourse. The same goes for a couple who uses an intentionally perforated condom. This is still contraception because of the intentionality of the user: to prevent conception. I think it is that simple.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Why else would a couple use a perforated condom if not for contraceptive purposes (excluding valid medical reasons)?? The use of a perforated condom seems to me like an attempt to find a moral “loophole”. If a couple uses a regular condom during sex and it breaks without their knowledge and in essence becomes a “perforated condom”, does this somehow make the act moral? Of course not because their intention in using the condom was contraception. There is NO just reason for engaging in contraceptive sexual intercourse. The same goes for a couple who uses an intentionally perforated condom. This is still contraception because of the intentionality of the user: to prevent conception. I think it is that simple.

I don’t know. I see contracepting as removing something from the marital act that would potentially cause childbirth. Complete or attempted complete removal.

But I think as long as the man deposits in the woman his semen, then it is procreative . The amount of semen is inconsequential. If 1 sperm is deposited, God can use it to create new life.

So the question is, is inhibiting the likelihood of the soerm to reach the egg immoral?

This could be done with time, by only having intercourse at times distant from ovulation. Or perhaps it is not having the woman orgasm which aids fertilization, or perhaps it is depositing a smaller volume of fluid.

 

[Rau]

So if the act is procreative, and there is just cause to “lessen the odds” of pregnancy. I can see no reason this does not meet the church’s qualifications.

So, why not add a spermicide and lessen the odds a bit more? Eliminate say 99% of the sperm ?

There being just cause to avoid pregnancy justifies using the infertile times only, not seeking to make those times less fertile than they might already be.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think the “Onan argument” is worth having, as Onan was asked directly by God through Judah to do something and attempted to thwart it. Unless someone is being directly asked to act, this wouldn’t necessarily explicitly apply, would it?

Because contraception is intrinsically evil, no circumstance or qualifier to the main intention, can alter its evil nature. Onan intended to thwart the sex act to avoid impregnation. The circumstances and reasons behind that intention are immaterial.

 

[Rau]

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.

You are equating “wearing perforated condom” to “firing a gun pointed toward another person”. You wish to say the acts are good, knowing no more. Firing a gun at a person can be a moral act. It can also be the outward sign of murder (even when the Intention that drove us to pick up the gun was the good of self-defence!). What did the person holding the gun will?

Spacing children by limiting sex to infertile times is moral. Doing so by “lessening the odds”, by hoping to thwart nature, is not.

 

[LongingSoul]

This could be done with time, by only having intercourse at times distant from ovulation. Or perhaps it is not having the woman orgasm which aids fertilization, or perhaps it is depositing a smaller volume of fluid.

An idea only a man could come up with as contraception. ppffft How about having sex but stopping the man short of ejaculation? That sounds better to me!

 

[Rau]

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.

Because wearing the condom in the scenario you paint is not the moral object. The moral object is interfering with sperm, diminishing the chances of procreation. Just like firing a gun is not the moral object, it is death of another (in case of murder), or protecting life (in case of self-defence).

 

[Jon_S_1]

So, why not add a spermicide and lessen the odds a bit more? Eliminate say 99% of the sperm ?

There being just cause to avoid pregnancy justifies using the infertile times only, not seeking to make those times less fertile than they might already be.

Now you made a valid point well done.

So are perforated condoms really moral for non essential medical tests?

 

[Rau]

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.

Double Effect is relevant in all cases where an act involves both good and evil outcomes. Life or death has no particular relevance, but makes for the most interesting and compelling examples.

 

[LokisMom]

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.

The church does not allow semen sample to be taken unless it is through a procreative/unitive means. This is why Catholic theologians have speculated that perforated condoms are ok for taking perm sample. Because they do not take away the unitive/procreative aspect.

 

[LokisMom]

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.

1ke, can you answer my question? I am interested in knowing your answer.

 

[LokisMom]

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.

Correct. It is not contraception. It does not take away the unitive and procreative aspect of sex. That is why it is said to be licit for sperm samples. Otherwise, it would not be. For ANY reason.

 

[Rau]

Correct. It is not contraception. It does not take away the unitive and procreative aspect of sex. That is why it is said to be licit for sperm samples. Otherwise, it would not be. For ANY reason.

So, you must agree that adding a 99% effective spermicide is also not contraception?

 

[LokisMom]

ATTENTION EVERYONE.

This is getting a little out of line. Please please please remember a few things. Because it is these things that make the question worthwhile in the first place. And we are drifting away from the theological aspect of the issue. I think because like I said earlier, people don’t like the idea of this.

Let’s break it down.

-Avoiding pregnancy is NOT wrong if done for just reasons.

-Doing something with the intention of avoiding pregnancy for just reason is not wrong, unless the thing itself is wrong.

-That is why a couple cannot use condoms to avoid pregnancy even when the reasons are just. NOT because of the intent to avoid pregnancy, but because condoms take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex by blocking out the sperm.

-For this very reason, it is always always always wrong to use a condom. Even if done for medical samples, even if done to avoid life threatening pregnancy, even if done for preventing the spread of HIV from one spouse to the other.

-The woman could be completely infertile, not even have a uterus, or could be pregnant already… and it would STILL be wrong to wear a condom, because it takes away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex by blocking out all semen. NOT because a couple is trying to avoid pregnancy.

• So, the ONLY reason that it is ok to use perforated condoms for medical sampling is because the condoms are perforated, and thus do not block out the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. If it still blocked out the unitive/procreative aspect of sex, it would still be wrong to use it. No matter what.

-Therefore, if perforated condoms do not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex, and if the reasons for using it are just (such as a just reason to avoid pregnancy), then I do not see how, in the realm of Catholic moral theology, it could be wrong to do so.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

There are 2 different issues.

The question is if a couple can use a perforated condom as a contraceptive.

If there is the intention to use it as a contraceptive, then no. The answer would be the same for any questionable " method" of contraception.

Boccaccio’s Decameron featured a story of a simpleton who feared he could become pregnant and was conned into thinking a chicken broth was a contraceptive. Chicken broth isn’t a contraceptive, but the simpleton thought it was. His intention was to consume the broth and then be infertile.

The second issue is the perforated condom. I think the reason they are permitted for sperm analysis is not because of double effect, but more simply because it is no longer a contraceptive.

Contraception is never permitted, the Church hasn’t permitted condom use for couples where 1 partner is HIV positive. Medical testing with a perforated condom isn’t sinful, because it is no longer a contraceptive.

 

[LokisMom]

So, you must agree that adding a 99% effective spermicide is also not contraception?

Spermicide takes away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. Therefore it would NEVER be permissible to use it, because taking away those aspects of sex is intrinsically evil. Wrong all the time, no matter who what where when why. Perforated condoms, on the other hand, do not take away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex. That is precisely why many theologians, including the USCCB, have deemed it licit for sperm sampling.

 

[LokisMom]

There are 2 different issues.

The question is if a couple can use a perforated condom as a contraceptive.

If there is the intention to use it as a contraceptive, then no. The answer would be the same for any questionable " method" of contraception.

Boccaccio’s Decameron featured a story of a simpleton who feared he could become pregnant and was conned into thinking a chicken broth was a contraceptive. Chicken broth isn’t a contraceptive, but the simpleton thought it was. His intention was to consume the broth and then be infertile.

The second issue is the perforated condom. I think the reason they are permitted for sperm analysis is not because of double effect, but more simply because it is no longer a contraceptive.

Contraception is never permitted, the Church hasn’t permitted condom use for couples where 1 partner is HIV positive. Medical testing with a perforated condom isn’t sinful, because it is no longer a contraceptive.

Contraception is defined as something that takes away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex, not something that avoids pregnancy. Otherwise there would be no difference between that and NFP. Perforated condoms do not take away the unitive/procreative aspects, that is why they are said to be licit for sperm sampling, and that is why they thus cannot be called contraception.

 

[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 those who claim this is utilizing double effect principle. How does it for in this part?

How does having sperm counted meet this definition?

the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.[2]