Using perforated condom as birth control... moral?

[underacloud]

Either something does or does not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. Using a perforated condom for semen sample does not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex anymore than using it for any other reason. Either it takes it away or it doesnt.

As has been repeatedly addressed, this is an erronious way of viewing it, since no method of contraception is completely effective.

Contraception is not a binary principle with regard to the outcomes.

But it is with regard to the intent. You either intend to reduce your chances of procreation, or you do not.

In the example of semen collection, the contraceptive effect is not intended.

In your example, the contraceptive effect is directly intended. And thus immoral.

 

[LokisMom]

As has been repeatedly addressed, this is an erronious way of viewing it, since no method of contraception is completely effective.

Contraception is not a binary principle with regard to the outcomes.

But it is with regard to the intent. You either intend to reduce your chances of procreation, or you do not.

In the example of semen collection, the contraceptive effect is not intended.

In your example, the contraceptive effect is directly intended. And thus immoral.

My post #77 explains my reasoning more thoroughly than all my other posts. What do you think of it? Can you break it down and show me exactly where it’s wrong?

 

[Rau]

As has been repeatedly addressed, this is an erronious way of viewing it, since no method of contraception is completely effective.

Contraception is not a binary principle with regard to the outcomes.

But it is with regard to the intent. You either intend to reduce your chances of procreation, or you do not.

In the example of semen collection, the contraceptive effect is not intended.

In your example, the contraceptive effect is directly intended. And thus immoral.

Yes. He repeatedly fails to acknowledge the moral object (proximate end) of the actual act, he stops at naming the act itself, calling that the moral object, despite repeated correction, and says “hey, the bishops say it’s ok”, never mind the different moral end. He refuses to think about the other analogies I’ve provided.

 

[LokisMom]

Rather than telling me I’m wrong “because… contraception!”, Id like for you all to reference my post #77 and explain to me where/how the rationale I have presented is wrong.

My post #77 is where I really break it down and explain what reasonings have led me to ask this question in the first place.

 

[Rau]

I think the fatal flaw to this issue is the idea that there is something about a perforated condom that could inhibit reproduction.

I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think there is any "contraceptive " benefit in wearing a perforated condom. It just retains some sperm but plenty gets through. Even regular condoms are only 75% affective and I’d think a perforated one would go down close to zero.

I am thinking this is why it’s aloud and also why no one uses them as a “contraceptive” loophole.

The reality matters less than the outcome willed by the wearer. And that is to secure a contraceptive effect. Wearing them has been allowed for another end, with the contraceptive effect judged a bad, unintended consequence, outweighed by the good consequences (enabling the medical test).

 

[underacloud]

My post #77 explains my reasoning more thoroughly than all my other posts. What do you think of it? Can you break it down and show me exactly where it’s wrong?

I don’t wish to go into a detailed thesis on the problems in post #77, but let’s look at a few things.

“To avoid pregnancy for just reason”

In NFP, this is a good summary of what is happening.

In contraception, it is not. In contraception, something else is happening - namely, sex. So you are not just avoiding pregnancy, you are preventing it (frustrating it) while having sex.

If your real intent in the third example is to avoid pregnancy, you would not have sex. Not having sex will always (unless one is sterile) be a better way to avoid a pregancy than having sex, no matter the contraception used (since none are 100% effective).

The moral object you are talking about is contracepted sex, which the Church has taught to be intrinsically evil - which is to say, no good intention can ever justify it. It is, in itself, a moral object that cannot be chosen.

The reason why in one case the use of a perforated condom is (arguably) acceptable and in the other case it is not is in the intended effect of its use. In the former, the intended effect (moral object) is semen collection. In the later, the indended effect (moral object) is contraception.

I hope that makes it clearer.

 

[LokisMom]

Yes. He repeatedly fails to acknowledge the moral object (proximate end) of the actual act, he stops at naming the act itself, calling that the moral object, despite repeated correction, and says “hey, the bishops say it’s ok”, never mind the different moral end. He refuses to think about the other analogies I’ve provided.

Hi.

First, I’m a SHE… hence the name Loki’s Mom.

Second, I’m right here lol. I can see you talking about me to another poster.

Third, I think the way you talk about me is a little unfair and degrading. I am not “refusing” anything. I’ve asked a worth while moral theology/philosophical question, and have broken down and explained why I think what I think. I want to have an intelligent discussion about this. I am open to being proved wrong, but so far, I feel like my arguments have not been addressed directly…

 

[Jon_S_1]

The reality matters less than the outcome willed by the wearer. And that is to secure a contraceptive effect. Wearing them has been allowed for another end, with the contraceptive effect judged a bad, unintended consequence, outweighed by the good consequences (enabling the medical test).

You have continuously refused to answer why this medical test is so essential that a couple could "contracept " for the test.

This test is never essential.

 

[LokisMom]

I don’t wish to go into a detailed thesis on the problems in post #77, but let’s look at a few things.

“To avoid pregnancy for just reason”

In NFP, this is a good summary of what is happening.

In contraception, it is not. In contraception, something else is happening - namely, sex. So you are not just avoiding pregnancy, you are preventing it (frustrating it) while having sex.

If your real intent in the third example is to avoid pregnancy, you would not have sex. Not having sex will always (unless one is sterile) be a better way to avoid a pregancy than having sex, no matter the contraception used (since none are 100% effective).

The moral object you are talking about is contracepted sex, which the Church has taught to be intrinsically evil - which is to say, no good intention can ever justify it. It is, in itself, a moral object that cannot be chosen.

The reason why in one case the use of a perforated condom is (arguably) acceptable and in the other case it is not is in the intended effect of its use. In the former, the intended effect (moral object) is semen collection. In the later, the indended effect (moral object) is contraception.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Not really.

I spent a lot of time on my post #77, and feel like I have not gotten a proper break down of it explaining why the rationale shown is wrong.

I also feel like people are responding to me as though I am “challenging” Catholicism, or looking for loopholes. I honestly am not. I think this would be an intrusting discussion to have, and I may end up learning a lot… but I have yet to have someone take it up.

 

[LokisMom]

You have continuously refused to answer why this medical test is so essential that a couple could "contracept " for the test.

This test is never essential.

Right. If perforated condoms are contraception, then why does…

1. …Jimmy Atkin specifically say that they do not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex, and that is why they are licit for taking samples?
2. …it become immoral if they just used a non perforated condom for the test instead?
3. …a semen sample get deemed as good enough reason to contracept, but an HIV infected partner, or a life/death pregnancy do not?

 

[underacloud]

Not really.

I spent a lot of time on my post #77, and feel like I have not gotten a proper break down of it explaining why the rationale shown is wrong.

I also feel like people are responding to me as though I am “challenging” Catholicism, or looking for loopholes. I honestly am not. I think this would be an intrusting discussion to have, and I may end up learning a lot… but I have yet to have someone take it up.

You need to start with a more thorough grounding in what a moral object is.

Your description of “Using a perforated condom during intercourse” is not a full moral object. The moral object is not merely the means of an act, but the intended ends. There is no inclusion of why (intended ends) you are using the perforated condom.

Thus, I will repeat:

The reason why in one case the use of a perforated condom is (arguably) acceptable and in the other case it is not is in the intended effect of its use. In the former, the intended effect (moral object) is semen collection. In the later, the indended effect (moral object) is contraception.

Contraception - having sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative effect - is not a moral object that can be chosen - it is defined by the Church as intrinsically evil. In your first two examples, it is not the moral object. In your second two examples, it is the moral object. Thus, the second two cannot be moral.

 

[LokisMom]

You need to start with a more thorough grounding in what a moral object is.

Your description of “Using a perforated condom during intercourse” is not a full moral object. The moral object is not merely the means of an act, but the intended ends. There is no inclusion of why (intended ends) you are using the perforated condom.

Thus, I will repeat:

The reason why in one case the use of a perforated condom is (arguably) acceptable and in the other case it is not is in the intended effect of its use. In the former, the intended effect (moral object) is semen collection. In the later, the indended effect (moral object) is contraception.

Contraception - having sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative effect - is not a moral object that can be chosen - it is defined by the Church as intrinsically evil. In your first two examples, it is not the moral object. In your second two examples, it is the moral object. Thus, the second two cannot be moral.

I dont know what you mean by the “intended effect being contraception.” Either something IS contraception, or it is not. That is why we cannot wear a normal condom and say “oh this was used for a semen sample, so it’s ok” or “oh this was used to prevent my HIV from infecting my wife, so it’s ok.”

For something to be contraception means it takes away the untivie/procreative properties of sex. A perforated condom, according to multiple credited sources, does not take away the unitive/procreative properties of sex. Therefore it is not contraception.

Also, no one has yet answered my question of why then, it is permissible to wear perforated condom and not a normal condom? If they are both contraception, as you say, then why does the condom worn for the sample have to be perforated??

One more thing… it would help a lot of you listed the intent, moral object, and circumstance like I did in my post 77. So I can better see what I did wrong.

 

[underacloud]

I dont know what you mean by the “intended effect being contraception.” Either something IS contraception, or it is not. That is why we cannot wear a normal condom and say “oh this was used for a semen sample, so it’s ok” or “oh this was used to prevent my HIV from infecting my wife, so it’s ok.”

No, contraception is not merely the effect, but the intended effect.

eg:

A woman may use hormonal pills to treat a medical condition. This is not contraception, even though her fertility is affected.

Aother woman may use a condom for the purpose of contraception, but the condom fails and she falls pregnant. She has, however, still committed the sin of contraception.

For something to be contraception means it takes away the untivie/procreative properties of sex. A perforated condom, according to multiple credited sources, does not take away the unitive/procreative properties of sex. Therefore it is not contraception.

No. Contraception is in the intended effect of frustrating procreation, which is precisely what you propose.

Also, no one has yet answered my question of why then, it is permissible to wear perforated condom and not a normal condom? If they are both contraception, as you say, then why does the condom worn for the sample have to be perforated??

The condom is perforated for a reason that exists in double effect. The bad effect is to be avoided if possible. Thus, the bad effect is reduced as much as possible by perforating the condom.

One more thing… it would help a lot of you listed the intent, moral object, and circumstance like I did in my post 77. So I can better see what I did wrong.

In post #77 you wrote:

So what does using a perforated condom to avoid pregnancy for just reasons look like? It looks like this:

1. Intent - To avoid pregnancy for just reason
2. Moral Object - Using a perforated condom during intercourse
3. Consequence - Pregnancy was avoided for the just cause

But this is not correct. The moral object, as I explained, is contracepted sex. The moral object includes the intended effect of using the perforated condom, and by your not including it in this and the first example (the medical example) in that post, you have incorrectly equated them. That is where the logic fails.

If you go back and include the intended effects in your moral objects, you should start to see why the examples differ.

 

[LokisMom]

But this is not correct. The moral object, as I explained, is contracepted sex. The moral object includes the intended effect of using the perforated condom, and by your not including it in this and the first example (the medical example) in that post, you have incorrectly equated them. That is where the logic fails.

If you go back and include the intended effects in your moral objects, you should start to see why the examples differ.

I thought the object was one thing, and the intent was another thing?

1. intent
2. object
3. circumstance

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[LokisMom]

Contraception is in the intended effect of frustrating procreation.

This is not correct. Consider this…

A wife has had a hystorectomy and is thus unable to have kids. She is also allergic to her husband’s sperm. If her husband were to use a condom, it would still be considered contraception. Even though 1. the intent is not to avoid pregnancy, and 2. she can’t have kids anyway. Even though those 2 things are true, wearing a condom would STILL be contraceptive because condoms make the marital act lose its unitive/procreative aspect.

 

[LokisMom]

The condom is perforated for a reason that exists in double effect. The bad effect is to be avoided if possible. Thus, the bad effect is reduced as much as possible by perforating the condom.

Nothing I have read on the matter has explained that perforated condoms are ok for semen samples due to double effect. They all say it is ok for semen samples because it does not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. I dont doubt this is true, im just surprised ive missed it. can you show me where it says this?

 

[LongingSoul]

This is not correct. Consider this…

A wife has had a hystorectomy and is thus unable to have kids. She is also allergic to her husband’s sperm. If her husband were to use a condom, it would still be considered contraception. Even though 1. the intent is not to avoid pregnancy, and 2. she can’t have kids anyway. Even though those 2 things are true, wearing a condom would STILL be contraceptive because condoms make the marital act lose its unitive/procreative aspect.

That doesn’t logically follow. If the possibility of conception does not exist in the first place, a thing can’t be called contraception. For example, gay men using a condom aren’t ‘contracepting’. Also, couples past menopause using a condom for the reason of sperm allergy (is that a thing?) aren’t contracepting.

 

[LokisMom]

That doesn’t logically follow. If the possibility of conception does not exist in the first place, a thing can’t be called contraception. For example, gay men using a condom aren’t ‘contracepting’. Also, couples past menopause using a condom for the reason of sperm allergy (is that a thing?) aren’t contracepting.

For the gay men, it does not apply because gay men cannot have intercourse. For the post menopause couple, it is still called contraception, and it is still wrong. I did not make that up, that is what the church teaches.

 

[LongingSoul]

For the gay men, it does not apply because gay men cannot have intercourse. For the post menopause couple, it is still called contraception, and it is still wrong. I did not make that up, that is what the church teaches.

So a post menopausal couple are frustrating the sex act to avoid pregnancy?

 

[underacloud]

I thought the object was one thing, and the intent was another thing?

1. intent
2. object
3. circumstance

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Yes and no. It can be hard to work through.

The object includes the intended effects of what you are doing. In the catechism it is described as “The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself.”

“Deliberately directs itself” is another way of saying that the person intends something (the end) in acting this particular way.

The “intention” on the other hand is the reason why we are seeking a particular end.

So if we take contraception as an example:

Contraception is a moral object. It is an act that a person chooses, with the intended (deliberately directed) end of having sex but frustrating the procreative aspect.

The intentions, on the other hand, are more broadly why one is doing this in the first place. eg expressing love for a spouse, just for the fun of it, a cure for concupisence, etc.