Using perforated condom as birth control... moral?

[underacloud]

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.

The Church has not directly addressed such issues in a formal doctrinal sense as yet. Every now and then a bishop may say something to strongly indicate that this is what the Church holds, but there is nothing that could be considered magisterial teaching that I know of.

I think most moral theologians would say that yes it is wrong. But others may disagree. There are complex matters here, with regard to what being “ordered to procreation” may mean for sterile couples, and how double effect may apply in certain cases.

Note: you’ve questionned whether double effect applies here. As others have said, doube effect always applies when there are potentially both good and bad effects of any given act.

 

[underacloud]

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.

You’ve “heard” that the church teaches…

That doesn’t cut it. If you want to claim that the Church teaches a certain thing, you should offer your sources.

I’ll save you time though - there are no authoritative Church sources at present that cover these particular cases.

 

[LokisMom]

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

This is the first time in this thread that it has been put that way, and I think it might be the smoking gun…

So basically:

1. Intent - To prevent conception while having sex (morally wrong)
2. Moral object - Using a perforated condom during sex (morally neutral)

Since the intent is wrong, the whole act is rendered immoral…

 

[LokisMom]

You’ve “heard” that the church teaches…

That doesn’t cut it. If you want to claim that the Church teaches a certain thing, you should offer your sources.

I’ll save you time though - there are no authoritative Church sources at present that cover these particular cases.

Ive been a lurker for a long time. People talk about it on here ALL the time, and have provided multiple sources, even stuff the popes have said. I’m going to start a thread asking about it right now.

 

[LongingSoul]

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

What woud this sin be?

 

[LokisMom]

What woud this sin be?

I am telling you that it is a sin for a sterile couple to use condoms due to sperm allergies. Are you telling me that it is not a sin?

 

[underacloud]

This is the first time in this thread that it has been put that way, and I think it might be the smoking gun…

So basically:

1. Intent - To prevent conception while having sex (morally wrong)
2. Moral object - Using a perforated condom during sex (morally neutral)

Since the intent is wrong, the whole act is rendered immoral…

I did attempt to address this back in post #87, but it may have been missed as there are many issues being talked about at once here.

But yes what you say above is essentialy true.

 

[LokisMom]

I did attempt to address this back in post #87, but it may have been missed as there are many issues being talked about at once here.

But yes what you say above is essentialy true.

 

[LokisMom]

LongingSoul,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=732619&highlight=condom

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8609&highlight=condom

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=910761

 

[Rau]

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

I know of no formal teaching that addresses that point specifically. But I provided some thoughts and a pointer to a Jimmy Akin treatment of similar ground here on your other thread at following link - see Post #4:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=910761

 

[Rau]

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.

Does the Church address the specific scenario above in any document? Or do you mean to say that the general teaching about the sexual relationship in marriage would logically lead you to conclude that the above is immoral?

 

[Rau]

[Loki(name removed by moderator)'s analysis of ordinary contraceptive sex with condom]:

1. Intent - To prevent conception while having sex (morally wrong)
2. Moral object - Using a perforated condom during sex (morally neutral)

Since the intent is wrong, the whole act is rendered immoral…

Alas, that is not quite the correct description.

The **Act **being assessed for morality is **wearing a condom **(during sex). [Or, if you wish, using a spermicide or any other contraceptive device, or withdrawing just prior to ejaculation, etc.]

1. Q: What **Intention **gives rise to this act? Ans: To avoid falling pregnant.
2. Q: What is the moral object of this act - that is what is **the immediate end ** to which the act (putting on the condom, withdrawing, etc.) is directed? Ans: Prevent conception / thwart the natural course of the marital act / corrupt the marital act. By this description, seeing its moral end, we recognise the act as “contraception”.

We don’t need to go on to consider the Circumstances (which includes Consequences) in light of the problem we’ve struck with Point 2. Catholic teaching is that the moral object in point 2 is evil. An intrinsically evil act is an act with an evil moral object. Every knowingly chosen act with an evil moral object is an intrinsically evil act. The intentional (deliberate, voluntary) choice of such an act by the free will is always a sin, regardless of the Intention (the purpose / goal / motivation) and regardless of the circumstances (the good and bad consequences).

 

[Rau]

This is the first time in this thread that it has been put that way, and I think it might be the smoking gun…

So basically:

1. Intent - To prevent conception while having sex (morally wrong)
2. Moral object - Using a perforated condom during sex (morally neutral)

Since the intent is wrong, the whole act is rendered immoral…

Certainly, a bad Intention is enough to render an act immoral. But it is more instructive to express the Intention differently - even as a good - see below:

The **Act **is: **Using a perforated condom (during sex) **

The **Intention **is: Avoid a Pregnancy this month.

The **Moral Object **of the Act is not what is written above. The Moral Object is not the observable act, but rather the immediate end to which the act (putting on the condom, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, or such similar acts you might consider, etc.) is directed towards. *Noting *the Intention, it is clear that the Moral Object is to thwart the natural progress of the marital act - to thwart its “procreativeness”.

We don’t need to go on to consider the Circumstances (which includes Consequences) in light of the problem we’ve struck with the Moral Object. Catholic teaching is that the moral object above is evil. An intrinsically evil act is an act with an evil moral object. Every knowingly chosen act with an evil moral object is an intrinsically evil act. The intentional (deliberate, voluntary) choice of such an act by the free will is always a sin, regardless of the Intention (the purpose / goal / motivation) and regardless of the circumstances (the good and bad consequences).

From the CCC

*1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. *

This same teaching is what makes immoral:

• Euthanasia
• Abortion

The Act done in each of these cases has an evil Moral Object - directed toward death of a person - notwithstanding that good Intentions may exist (eg. Ease/End Suffering; Protect a Mother).

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

1. I think there is a faulty understanding regarding why the perforated condom is permitted. A few have stated it is because of double effect. A perforated condom, and especially the types used for this type of testing do not prevent or reduce pregnancy. It isn’t a contraceptive device anymore.
2. The OP has produced a scenario where a fictional couple wants to use a perforated condom as a sort of back up method. The problem in the logic is, the couple wants it to act as a method to lower the chance of conception. The intent when using it is to avoid pregnancy. So the couple for all intents and purposes are using it believing it will have an effect in preventing pregnancy.
3. The fact that realistically a perforated condom does nothing to prevent or lower the chance of pregnancy means nothing to our couple. They believe it does. The same is true for Boccaccio’s fictional character who believed he could become pregnant, and consuming a chicken broth would prevent him from becoming pregnant. Even though men don’t become pregnant and chicken broth is in no way a contraceptive, he thought it was, and he used it as one.

 

[Rau]

…A perforated condom, and especially the types used for this type of testing do not prevent or reduce pregnancy.

Are you familiar with these actual condoms? The OP posited that they let through a tiny proportion of the ejaculate. Just out of interest - do you know the facts here?

You are quite right that the hypothetical couple utilising it in the **belief ** that it impedes conception is enough to corrupt the marital act, regardless of whether it actually impedes conception.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

Are you familiar with these actual condoms? The OP posited that they let through a tiny proportion of the ejaculate. JustI if testingt of interest - do you know the facts here?

You are quite right that the hypothetical couple utilising it in the **belief ** that it impedes conception is enough to corrupt the marital act, regardless of whether it actually impedes conception.

I’m not personally familiar with them, but I understand that they are not the type one can purchase in a store. They normally are provided by a physician for the purpose of analysis. I understand that they permit enough semen to escape for it to be considered a true act of intercourse.

Interestingly enough, when googling it, the first entry was from a place in Jerusalem, explaining that the Orthodox Jews need to use this method of testing as well.

I think the Pope Paul institute might describe it on their website.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

I’m not personally familiar with them, but I understand that they are not the type one can purchase in a store. They normally are provided by a physician for the purpose of analysis. I understand that they permit enough semen to escape for it to be considered a true act of intercourse.

Interestingly enough, when googling it, the first entry was from a place in Jerusalem, explaining that the Orthodox Jews need to use this method of testing as well.

I think the Pope Paul institute might describe it on their website.

I can’t post a link because I’m using my phone. But there is a description on the site, under the Napro link, then click male infertility.

 

[LokisMom]

Does the Church address the specific scenario above in any document? Or do you mean to say that the general teaching about the sexual relationship in marriage would logically lead you to conclude that the above is immoral?

The latter (except it isn’t me that concludes it). The Church doesn’t always highlight every single little scenario for us, but given what the Church teaches about sex and contraception and condoms, we have concluded as Catholics that it would be immoral to use condoms in any case. Even when the couple is infertile and using it for health reasons.

Its like saying the Church doesnt specifically address the morality of killing an innocent person by pulling the trigger with your big toe. Correct, it doesn’t… but given what the Church teaches about killing and about human life, of course we can conclude that it would still be wrong.

Everyone in my other thread is saying its to use a (regular) condom for any reason.

 

[LokisMom]

Does the Church address the specific scenario above in any document? Or do you mean to say that the general teaching about the sexual relationship in marriage would logically lead you to conclude that the above is immoral?

The latter (except it isn’t me that concludes it). The Church doesn’t always highlight every single little scenario for us, but given what the Church teaches about sex and contraception and condoms, we have concluded as Catholics that it would be immoral to use condoms in any case. Even when the couple is infertile and using it for health reasons.

Its like saying the Church doesnt specifically address the morality of killing an innocent person by pulling the trigger with your big toe. Correct, it doesn’t… but given what the Church teaches about killing and about human life, of course we can conclude that it would still be wrong.

Everyone in my other thread is saying its wrong to use a (regular) condom for any reason.

 

[LokisMom]

One thing Ive learned after joining CAF a few weeks ago is that… first of all, you guys are awesome, but you are SO difficult to have discussions with! Lol, you take something simple and always have to pick apart words and complicate it. It’s very confusing.

Me: “It is against Church teaching to jump off a tall building while wearing green socks, to commit suicide”

CAF member: “Incorrect. There is no Church document that illustrates the above scenario.”

Me:

Still love you all though!