Using perforated condom as birth control... moral?

[thewanderer]

Ok, I’m late to the party and there have been a lot of different aspects brought up and discussed. OP, do you think you could sum up what your current understanding is to make sure we’re all on the same page?

 

[LokisMom]

Ok, I’m late to the party and there have been a lot of different aspects brought up and discussed. OP, do you think you could sum up what your current understanding is to make sure we’re all on the same page?

I was thinking that wearing a perforated condom to decrease the chance of pregnancy for just reason was licit, since perforated condoms do not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of the marital act (which is why they are licit for sperm samples while regular condoms are not). I break down my thoughts on it on my post #77, below:

Ok, lets break it down this way.

We KNOW that using a perforated condom for sperm sample is licit. It looks like this:

1. Intent - To collect semen sample
2. Moral Object - Using a perforated condom during intercourse
3. Consequence - semen sample was collected

All 3 of those things have to be licit in order for the whole act to be licit.

Therefore we can establish that collecting semen sample, in and of itself, is licit. We can also establish that using perforated condom during intercourse, in and of itself, is licit. We can also establish that it is licit for the semen sample to have been collected. All those things are licit, in and of themselves, so when you put them all together to form an act, the act is licit.

We also KNOW that using NFP to avoid pregnancy for just reason is licit. It looks like this:

1. Intent - To avoid pregnancy for just reason
2. Moral Object - Abstinence during fertile times
3. Consequence - Pregnancy was avoided for the just reason

Once again, all 3 of these must be licit for the whole act to be licit.

Therefore, we can establish that avoiding pregnancy for just reason, in and of itself, is licit. We can also establish that abstinence during fertile times, in and of itself, is licit. We can also establish that it is licit for a pregnancy to have been avoided for just cause. All those are licit in and of themselves, so the whole act of using NFP to avoid pregnancy for just reason, is licit.

Now lets change it up a bit for an act that we KNOW is NOT licit. We know that using a condom during intercourse to avoid pregnancy for just reason is not licit. This is what it looks like:

1. Intent - To avoid pregnancy for just reason
2. Moral Object - Using a condom (not perforated) during intercourse
3. Consequence - Pregnancy was avoided for the just reason

Again, all three of these need to be licit in order for the whole act to be licit.

We have already established from the blue, that avoiding pregnancy for just reason, in and of itself, is licit. We have also already established from the blue that it is licit for a pregnancy to have been avoided for just reasons. However, the moral object, using a condom during intercourse, is intrinsically wrong (because frustrates the unitive/procreative aspects of sex). Since one of these 3 things is wrong, the whole act becomes wrong. So that is why having intercourse with a condom to avoid pregnancy for just reason is wrong.

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

Once again, we’ve already established from the blue that the intent and the consequence both check out. Now we must determine whether the moral object checks out - that is, using a perforated condom during intercourse. But look at the red. We have also already established, back in the red, that the moral object of using a perforated condom during intercourse checks out!

So if we have established that the intent is licit, the moral object is licit, and the consequence is licit, then, as stated earlier, the whole act is licit.

(PS - The red is per the USCCB and other Catholic Theologians. The Church has not officially spoken on the matter either way.)

Since then, someone has suggested that the intent would actually NOT be “to avoid pregnancy”… it would instead be “to avoid conception while having sex”. After they said that, I made this post:

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 am still not completely convinced, but definitely feel like I’m getting there. What would you say?

 

[LokisMom]

Oh yeah, and there’s another mini discussion going on about whether or not it would be against Church teaching to use a regular condom for non contraceptive purposes. For example, in the case where a woman has had a hysterectomy, but is allergic to her husband’s sperm. Would it be licit for them to use a regular condom for allergy purposes?

I ALWAYS thought the answer was still no, it would not be licit according to Catholic moral theology. But There are posters now saying that church doesnt actually teach that so it’s basically up to the individual to discern.

…Which blows my mind because I was ALWAYS under the impression that Church teaching is that its always wrong to use a regular condom during the marital act for ANY reason. I just recently started a thread about it.

Thoughts on that? Am I going crazy here? Lol.

 

[Rau]

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.

Killing intentionally with your big toes is plainly contrary to explicit teaching. Numerous issues are not so plainly the subject of teaching - it is what keeps theologians and ethicists in business.

As to your last sentence, it is not wrong to use a condom as a water bomb at your pool party. I would however struggle to see any use for it on your penis during sex that would be licit. Doing such would appear to amount to contraception or mutual masturbation. How the former outcome can arise is clear in Church teaching, how the latter can arise is less clear - but is my current conclusion.

 

[Rau]

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!

That example is nonsense as you well know. What part does ridicule play in your search for understanding in moral theology?

 

[Rau]

…Which blows my mind because I was ALWAYS under the impression that Church teaching is that its always wrong to use a regular condom during the marital act for ANY reason. I just recently started a thread about it.

Thoughts on that? Am I going crazy here? Lol.

Impression don’t count for much in moral theology

 

[LokisMom]

Killing intentionally with your big toes is plainly contrary to explicit teaching. Numerous issues are not so plainly the subject of teaching - it is what keeps theologians and ethicists in business.

Lol, right… and likewise, it doesnt explicitly say in any formal doctrine “using a condom is still wrong even if it is in the case of a woman who has no uterous but is allergic to her husband’s sperm.” But it DOES say that for a sex act to be moral, it must be unitive/procreative, and the sperm needs to be deposited in the right place. So it is not incorrect, or inaccurate to say that the Church teaches its wrong to use a condom for non contraceptive purposes, since a condom would keep the sperm from going in the right place. My mind is seriously blown right now lol.

As to your last sentence, it is not wrong to use a condom as a water bomb at your pool party.

Well obviously, I am talking about using it during intercourse. At this point I dont feel the need to have to say “for intercourse” every time I talk about using a condom, Lol.

 

[LokisMom]

That example is nonsense as you well know. What part does ridicule play in your search for understanding in moral theology?

That was rude.

 

[LokisMom]

Impression don’t count for much in moral theology

ok

 

[Rau]

I was thinking that wearing a perforated condom to decrease the chance of pregnancy for just reason was licit, since perforated condoms do not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of the marital act (which is why they are licit for sperm samples while regular condoms are not). I break down my thoughts on it on my post #77, below:

Since then, someone has suggested that the intent would actually NOT be “to avoid pregnancy”… it would instead be “to avoid conception while having sex”. After they said that, I made this post:

I am still not completely convinced, but definitely feel like I’m getting there. What would you say?

See post 133.

 

[Rau]

That was rude.

I don’t think so. Ridicule is rude.

 

[LokisMom]

I don’t think so. Ridicule is rude.

I was playing around. Being funny and light hearted.

 

[Rau]

Church teaching that would oppose use of perforated condom during sex with a mindset of reducing the chance of pregnancy:

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical , of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.

This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.

 

[LokisMom]

Church teaching that would oppose use of perforated condom during sex with a mindset of reducing the chance of pregnancy:

This is helpful. But then I find myself getting stuck on where he talks about intrinsically evil act… since using a perforated condom during sex is not intrinsically evil (as is evident by the allowed use of them for sperm sample). That is why it helped when I changed the intent to one that is immoral, therefore rending the whole act immoral.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

Church teaching, to simplify hopefully, allows only abstinence as a way to avoid pregnancy, either periodic or long term.

All other methods (actual contraceptives, practices that involve climax without intercourse, and even the use of makeshift contraceptive devices) are not permitted.

The op features a couple who thinks that the perforated condom will work somehow to limit fertility, and want to use it as such. The intention is to have intercourse and limit fertility as a back up method. No, it’s not permitted.

The fact that a similar type condom is permitted for semen analysis is irrelevant. It isn’t a condom one buys in a store, but is usually supplied for the purpose of semen analysis. I don’t have first hand knowledge, by I understand that they are made in such a way that conception is not prevented at all.

In fact I understand that regular condoms should not be modified, because they can compromise the test.

So, no, a perforated condom is not permited as birth control. if the pretend couple uses one to lower the chance of conception while engaging intercourse, it becomes contraceptive.

 

[LokisMom]

The op features a couple who thinks that the perforated condom will work somehow to limit fertility, and want to use it as such.

Just for the record, I made this post purely for learning/discussion purposes. I do not use perforated condoms, neither do I ever intend to lol.

 

[LokisMom]

Church teaching, to simplify hopefully, allows only abstinence as a way to avoid pregnancy, either periodic or long term.

All other methods (actual contraceptives, practices that involve climax without intercourse, and even the use of makeshift contraceptive devices) are not permitted.

The op features a couple who thinks that the perforated condom will work somehow to limit fertility, and want to use it as such. The intention is to have intercourse and limit fertility as a back up method. No, it’s not permitted.

The fact that a similar type condom is permitted for semen analysis is irrelevant. It isn’t a condom one buys in a store, but is usually supplied for the purpose of semen analysis. I don’t have first hand knowledge, by I understand that they are made in such a way that conception is not prevented at all.

In fact I understand that regular condoms should not be modified, because they can compromise the test.

So, no, a perforated condom is not permited as birth control. ** if the pretend couple uses one to lower the chance of conception while engaging intercourse, it becomes contraceptive.**

This helps too, thank you.

 

[thewanderer]

I was thinking that wearing a perforated condom to decrease the chance of pregnancy for just reason was licit, since perforated condoms do not take away the unitive/procreative aspect of the marital act (which is why they are licit for sperm samples while regular condoms are not). I break down my thoughts on it on my post #77, below:

Since then, someone has suggested that the intent would actually NOT be “to avoid pregnancy”… it would instead be “to avoid conception while having sex”. After they said that, I made this post:

I am still not completely convinced, but definitely feel like I’m getting there. What would you say?

Thanks for the summary and for claryfing where you stand. I know that a persons opinion can change over the course of a long thread so wanted to make sure I actually address your current thoughts.

Now, because this topic is a very nuanced and difficult one, and because so many people tend to make stronger claims about the force of their opinion on this topic than actually exists, I’m going to try coming at it from a slightly different approach. I’m going to start by focusing on the main official teaching of the Church on the topic of contraception and move from there, because, at the very least, we will know that that teaching is an an accurate description of actual official Church teaching.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. 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)

From: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Now, seeing as I can’t see any other way to describe wearing a perforated condom as extra protection against conception than as an “action that is specifically intended to prevent conception” it seems pretty clear that whatever else is true, the Church teaches definitively and officially that using perforated condoms to avoid pregnancy is immoral.

(In fact, I would sum up the bolded passage as saying that the only moral method of regulation of births is abstinance. That means no pill, no condom, no “natural herbal” remedies, and, which was not a popular view when brought up in another thread here on CAF, not even ecological breastfeeding, because any action which is taken for the sake of avoiding conception is called immoral here. Which means the only moral means must involve inaction, ie, abstinence)

Ok, so, with that in mind, lets take a look at your argument.

Basically, your argument is that since the morality of an action is determined by the morality of the means, and intention and neither the means or the intention in the case in question is intrinsically immoral, the action itself must not be intrinsically immoral. A nice logical syllogism.

First thing, you take as an assumption that perforated condoms are permissible in certain medically indicated situations. I tend to believe this is probably true, but it is still good to recognize that this is an assumption based on the opinion of moral theologians, not an official teaching of the Church, so, if we really can’t resolve the problem brought up by your reasoning we should be willing to let go of the opinion of the moral theologians before we allow ourselves to disagree with the official Church teaching.

Second, I know you’ve dismissed the idea that the principle of double effect comes into play here, but I think its actually very important and pertinent. Could you explain again why you think it does not apply?

Third, while you’ve brought up intent and means you haven’t really factored in “circumstances” into the equation. Now, I can’t blame you as I tend to avoid talking about circumstances as an aspect of the morality of a situation too, mostly because I have yet to find a clear definition of what exactly is covered under “circumstances” and how exactly we are to use the concept in determining the morality of an action. So I would say there is a good chance that the answer to this problem will become more clear if we can get a better understanding of exactly what is meant by these “circumstances”. If anybody has links to any good articles on this topic please post them here because I would love to read them and I really think they would help the OP.

As for the idea of changing what the intention is from avoiding conception to avoiding conception while having sex… I’m not sure about that. For one, I’m hesitant to change it without a clear explanation and rule of how to determine what the intention of an action is. And, secondly, I think there are other unexplored nuances here (as mentioned above) and I suspect the answer to this question lies in them rather than in changing what the intent is.

 

[thewanderer]

Oh yeah, and there’s another mini discussion going on about whether or not it would be against Church teaching to use a regular condom for non contraceptive purposes. For example, in the case where a woman has had a hysterectomy, but is allergic to her husband’s sperm. Would it be licit for them to use a regular condom for allergy purposes?

I ALWAYS thought the answer was still no, it would not be licit according to Catholic moral theology. But There are posters now saying that church doesnt actually teach that so it’s basically up to the individual to discern.

…Which blows my mind because I was ALWAYS under the impression that Church teaching is that its always wrong to use a regular condom during the marital act for ANY reason. I just recently started a thread about it.

Thoughts on that? Am I going crazy here? Lol.

To be honest, I’ve pretty much always heard from people that the Church teaches that would be immoral, while, at the same time, have never managed to see the connection as to why that would be immoral from official Church teaching. I suspect that this is a matter of an area of ongoing development in official Church teaching and so something for which there is not yet official teaching but for which strong opinions exist. I haven’t seen any official teaching on this topic specifically, however I believe there have been strong statements from bishops and theologians in good standing against this, whereas I have never heard of such people speaking for it, which is an indicator that it is probably, ultimately, immoral, but the question is not yet entirely closed. Which, of course, means that there is still room for disagreement. I could be wrong, but that is my assessment of the situation.

 

[Eternal_One]

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.

The Church does not teach this. Taking life under Self Defense or a Just War are acceptable according to Church teaching.