Using perforated condom as birth control... moral?

[LokisMom]

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

Yes. If a completely sterile couple uses condoms, they are still taking away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. Taking away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex is intrinsically evil.

 

[Rau]

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…

You fail to answer my question of you. You don’t adapt to info I provide or ask about it or seek to identify error in my posts. You merely repeat your views. Perhaps that’s an oversight, but if like you to engage with my posts, not just repeat yourself.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes. If a completely sterile couple uses condoms, they are still taking away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. Taking away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex is intrinsically evil.

Why would they be using a condom in the first place though?

 

[LokisMom]

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.

Hmmm… I dunno… something just doesn’t seem right here. I think I’m still stuck on the fact that perforated condoms are not contraception. I know you think they are, but I’m still stuck on the sources Ive seen that state they do not take away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex.

 

[LokisMom]

Why would they be using a condom in the first place though?

If the wife was allergic to the sperm, if one of them had an STD they were trying not to spread, etc.

 

[LokisMom]

You fail to answer my question of you. You don’t adapt to info I provide or ask about it or seek to identify error in my posts. You merely repeat your views. Perhaps that’s an oversight, but if like you to engage with my posts, not just repeat yourself.

I know I hate to repeat myself, but I feel like my answer to your posts are the same because you are making the same points, and that is why I am repeating myself. What question did I not answer?

 

[Rau]

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.

I failed to realise you were wanting my view on that. The test is not essential (ie to save anyone’s life). But that is not required. The good effect just needs to outweigh the bad. I have no view about that. If you were having problems conceiving, would you see no moral good at all in pursuing a treatment (requires evidence of the problem), or are you saying that the good is far to little to outweigh the bad of the condom? I posted another thread posing just such an assessment where the answer is not clear to me.

 

[LokisMom]

I failed to realise you were wanting my view on that. The test is not essential (ie to save anyone’s life). But that is not required. The good effect just needs to outweigh the bad. I have no view about that. ** If you were having problems conceiving, would you see no moral good at all in pursuing a treatment (requires evidence of the problem), or are you saying that the good is far to little to outweigh the bad of the condom? ** I doted another thread posing just such an assessment where the answer is not clear to me.

A regular condom is not licit for the test. Only a perforated condom is, because it does not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of sex.

I still dont think this is a matter of double effect at all. None of the sources I have read about it have said that it is licit because of double effect. Of course, I may have missed it, but I have yet to see a poster reference one.

 

[LongingSoul]

If the wife was allergic to the sperm, if one of them had an STD they were trying not to spread, etc.

Contraception… contra… ception. This literally means foiling conception through a deliberate act. The moral object specifies the act of the will. There is no will in this scenario to foil conception. It is not contraception. That’s wacky and illogical.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Why would they be using a condom in the first place though?

Perhaps one of them is a nurse or paramedic and got stuck with a needle and they wish to not potentially infect their partner while they wait a year to find out if they got the disease.

 

[LokisMom]

Contraception… contra… ception. This literally means foiling conception through a deliberate act. The moral object specifies the act of the will. There is no will in this scenario to foil conception. It is not contraception. That’s wacky and illogical.

Im not sure why you are arguing with me about the morality of a sterile couple using condoms. This is church teaching. Not something that I made up.

To tell you the truth, it doesnt make much sense to me either, but it is what it is, and all Im doing is repeating what the Church teaches.

 

[underacloud]

Hmmm… I dunno… something just doesn’t seem right here. I think I’m still stuck on the fact that perforated condoms are not contraception. I know you think they are, but I’m still stuck on the sources Ive seen that state they do not take away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex.

And yet taking away the procreative aspect of sex is exactly what you propose!

Perhaps not in full, but as has been explained, no contraception acheives this.

Here is a definition of contraception: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32788

“Deliberate interference with marital intercourse in order to prevent conception.”

Noting the above:

Using a perforated condom to collect semen does not fit this definition. It is not done “in order to prevent conception”.

Using a perforated condom to reduce the chance of pregancy does. It is done precisely “in order to prevent conception”.

I will note that you have raised examples involving menopause, allergies, STDs etc. As per the link to Jimmy Akin you posted, the Church has not commented directly on these issues. It may do so in the future. They are examples that fall outside of the moral principles being discussed here. But the example you are arguing does not - the intended end is abolutely contraception.

 

[LokisMom]

And yet taking away the procreative aspect of sex is exactly what you propose!

Perhaps not in full, but as has been explained, no contraception acheives this.

Here is a definition of contraception: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32788

"Deliberate interference with marital intercourse in order to prevent conception.

Noting the above:

Using a perforated condom to collect semen does not fit this definition. It is not done “in order to prevent conception”.

Using a perforated condom to reduce the chance of pregancy does. It is done precisely “in order to prevent conception”.

Then why is it still considered contraception when a couple uses a regular condom for reasons other than avoiding pregnancy?

Lets also remember that there is nothing inherently wrong with preventing conception, in and of itself.

Condoms are wrong because they take away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex, not necessarily because avoiding pregnancy is inherently wrong (since it isnt).

I will note that you have raised examples involving menopause, allergies, STDs etc. As per the link to Jimmy Akin you posted, the Church has not commented directly on these issues. It may do so in the future. They are examples that fall outside of the moral principles being discussed here. But the example you are arguing does not - the intended end is abolutely contraception.

Hm? The link I posted was merely to show that 1. perforated condoms are deemed licit for sperm samples by many theologians, and 2. that they are deemed licit because they do not frustrate the unitive/procreative aspect of sex. I know it does not mention pregnancy prevention on there.

My examples involving menopause, allergies, etc were merely to show that using condoms in this case is still wrong, not to make an argument for the use of perforated condoms in these scenarios.

 

[LongingSoul]

Im not sure why you are arguing with me about the morality of a sterile couple using condoms. This is church teaching. Not something that I made up.

To tell you the truth, it doesnt make much sense to me either, but it is what it is, and all Im doing is repeating what the Church teaches.

Unfortunately repeating something doesn’t make it true. Contraception specifically refers to the process around conception. Any action taken before, during or after conception to foil this natural process… is called contraception. A postmenopausal couple can do nothing whatsoever to contracept. That is not a Church teaching because it isn’t even sensical I’m afraid.

 

[LokisMom]

Unfortunately repeating something doesn’t make it true. Contraception specifically refers to the process around conception. Any action taken before, during or after conception to foil this natural process… is called contraception. A postmenopausal couple can do nothing whatsoever to contracept. That is not a Church teaching because it isn’t even sensical I’m afraid.

So you are telling me that I am incorrect in claiming the church teaches that sterile couples would be sinning if they used condoms for other reasons?

Rau, Underacloud, Jon S, and anyone else out there… please tell longingsoul that the Church does teach that the above would still be a sin. She doesnt believe me. Lol.

 

[underacloud]

Then why is it still considered contraception when a couple uses a regular condom for reasons other than avoiding pregnancy?

As discussed, the Church has not spoken directly on these issues yet.

The Church is actually silent on these issues for now. The general understanding among theologians is that it is wrong, but nothing is definitive at present.

Lets also remember that there is nothing inherently wrong with preventing conception, in and of itself.

Condoms are wrong because they take away the unitive/procreative aspects of sex, not necessarily because avoiding pregnancy is inherently wrong (since it isnt).

There is a difference in “preventing” conception (while having sex) and “avoiding pregnancy” (by not having sex). As has been addressed.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So you are telling me that I am incorrect in claiming the church teaches that sterile couples would be sinning if they used condoms for other reasons?

Rau, Underacloud, Jon S, and anyone else out there… please tell longingsoul that the Church does teach that the above would still be a sin. She doesnt believe me. Lol.

Yes it would be sin. It is not just about contraception, it is about a full giving of oneself to the other. The church talks about the procreative and unifying nature of the sex act. The unifying nature involves the sex act without some sort of barrier involved.

 

[LongingSoul]

So you are telling me that I am incorrect in claiming the church teaches that sterile couples would be sinning if they used condoms for other reasons?

Rau, Underacloud, Jon S, and anyone else out there… please tell longingsoul that the Church does teach that the above would still be a sin. She doesnt believe me. Lol.

I am telling you yes, that a post menopausal couple who use a condom because of the emergence of a sperm allergy, is not committing the sin of contraception.

 

[LokisMom]

As discussed, the Church has not spoken directly on these issues yet.

The Church is actually silent on these issues for now. The general understanding among theologians is that it is wrong, but nothing is definitive at present.

The Church is silent on whether or not its wrong to wear a condom for reasons other than to avoid pregnancy??? I dont think so… I’ve repeatedly heard that the church teaches that wearing a condom is intrinsically evil, even when avoiding pregnancy is not the intention.

 

[LokisMom]

I am telling you yes, that a post menopausal couple who use a condom because of the emergence of a sperm allergy, is not committing the sin of contraception.

Do you at least acknowledge that they are still committing a sin?