Why are condoms wrong?

[Holly3278]

Condoms are wrong because they close off the sexual act to the possibility of life. The birth control pill and other forms of barrier and hormonal forms of birth control are also wrong because they also close the sexual act off to life. However, if a hormonal form of birth control is prescribed as a treatment for a disorder for which there is no other treatment, it is not wrong.

You can find out more specifics of this by reading the encyclical, Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI. The relevant portion is in paragraph 15:

Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

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

 

[Truthlover]

Not sure if Abu already posted this link re Card. Ratzinger and conscience:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning. emphasis added

Naughty, naughty, choose,

You left out the sentence before your quote, a very important sentence:

“It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.”

I wonder why you left this out, choose, and started your quote from the next line?

 

[choose_to_love]

Well, several reasons. First, that one should obey one’s conscience above all is the point you have been making, and I have been disputing, all along, so I saw this section as a qualification of your position, and a very significant one at that.

Two, the whole point of the quoted section is that one must question one’s own conscience when it is formed in opposition to authority duly instituted by Christ. Judgments of conscience can contradict one another, and they both cannot be right.

I think you are really not considering the whole of Church teaching when you place conscience above the Magisterium on issues which have been decided.

 

[Abu]

choose to love
I think you are really not considering the whole of Church teaching when you place conscience above the Magisterium on issues which have been decided.

Correct. The whole tenor of the posts of “Truthlover” is relativism – reducing the certain truth to feelings, opinions, prejudices, wishful thinking and obfuscation – typical of dissenters.

The petard on which he is hoist is the wilful projection of uncertainty and confusion to the fact that:

1. Engaging conscience is an act of responsible moral judgment as to whether to do good or evil.
2. Conscience has to be formed by truth, it is not independent nor an infallible whim. It is not a god.
3. The truth, for the Catholic, can come only from the natural moral law affirmed by Catholic doctrine as to what is the true good.
4. The act of right judgment of the conscience has to be accompanied by the integrity of the will to do the good and avoid the evil.
5. So formed correctly, the certain conscience judging rightly and wilfully obeyed produces the right act.
6. Only the Magisterium defines what is truth and what is error on which conscience can be formed correctly with certainty.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Correct. The whole tenor of the posts of “Truthlover” is relativism – reducing the certain truth to feelings, opinions, prejudices, wishful thinking and obfuscation – typical of dissenters.

The petard on which he is hoist is the wilful projection of uncertainty and confusion to the fact that:

1. Engaging conscience is an act of responsible moral judgment as to whether to do good or evil.
2. Conscience has to be formed by truth, it is not independent nor an infallible whim. It is not a god.
3. The truth, for the Catholic, can come only from the natural moral law affirmed by Catholic doctrine as to what is the true good.
4. The act of right judgment of the conscience has to be accompanied by the integrity of the will to do the good and avoid the evil.
5. So formed correctly, the certain conscience judging rightly and wilfully obeyed produces the right act.
6. Only the Magisterium defines what is truth and what is error on which conscience can be formed correctly with certainty.

Well my conscience says Truthlover is wrong. Since like he says my conscience cannot be wrong, he must be…

 

[Daniel6312]

I don’t understand this, either. Does this mean that a married couple with financial troubles isn’t allowed to have any sex at all because they can’t support a child?

What if a couple already has 3 children - they’re never allowed to have sex again unless they have more? They have to be married to each other for 30 years without having sex at all?

 

[Abu]

Daniel6312
What if a couple already has 3 children - they’re never allowed to have sex again unless they have more?

Do you know nothing of the teaching of Christ’s Church? As a Catholic, please listen, learn and love.
Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae:

Recourse to Infertile Periods
16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Note
(20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.

 

[Daniel6312]

Do you know nothing of the teaching of Christ’s Church? As a Catholic, please listen, learn and love.
Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae:

Recourse to Infertile Periods
16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Note
(20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.

I’m afraid I’m pretty ignorant about many of the specific details of the teachings - that’s why I asked. Thank you for your very, very enlightening post.

 

[Abu]

Daniel6312
Glad to be of some help.
You can find the whole Encyclical at:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

There is a dynamic explanation of its infallibility, precisely because of the unfaithful and false attacks of dissenting theologians, the results of which you may have noticed in this thread. It is at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE
by Fr Brian W. Harrison

There are many great articles at the same website – *Living Tradition *of The Roman Theological Forum:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

Happy hunting.

 

[dswearin]

I think you kind of missed the original argument here. Lets try structuring it a bit differently.

1. Premise: Sex was created by God to be the most total possible sharing possible between a husband and wife. That sharing occurs on multiple levels, physical, emotional and spiritual.
2. Premise: Any act which reduces this sharing is reducing the good that God intended for sex.
3. Premise: Any act which knowingly reduces God’s intended good is intrinsically evil.

Contraception limits the total sharing between a husband and a wife. It is the deliberate denial of access to the fertility of one’s partner (Even if both sides agree to that denial). In addition, contraception adds an artificial element to the equation and thus goes against natural law. Lets consider that condoms actually place a physical barrier between the husband and the wife. The most intimate parts of them are not united, as God intended, but rather, separated by the condom. In addition, it prevents part of the husband’s gift to his wife (his fertility) from entering her.

Now, lets consider the objection that many raise that NFP is in fact a similar with-holding. This comparison fails for follow reasons. The Church has never mandated that Catholics may only have sex when fertile nor has it implied that having sex outside a fertile period is less of a total giving of oneself to one’s spouse than having it during the wife’s fertile period. Therefore Catholic spouses are allowed to choose, for their own legitimate reasons when they will and won’t have sex. If I don’t go home and have sex with my wife tonight, it might be for many reasons, not just to prevent pregnancy (for example, tonight it might be because I am dog tired and not feeling the best).

In addition, NFP does not contradict natural law. Essentially a couple works with the natural cycle of the woman to determine when the best time to have sex is.

Finally of course, NFP is not just used for contraception. Couple can and do also use it to help them get pregnant (If they are having trouble otherwise).

Anyway, I hope for some this clears things up a bit.

–
Bill

Thank you so much for this post. I was starting to struggle with doubts over converting to Catholicism because of the imcompleteness of the previous arguments.

 

[dswearin]

#1 reason I really like the Church’s teaching:

I don’t have to make excuses for not wearing annoying and sometimes painful condoms.

#2 reason I really like the Church’s teaching:

My wife’s hormones (which are strong enough) don’t go even more haywire with the addition of birth control pills or other forms of contraceptive medication.

 

[bkayw]

To the OP, artifical contraception (against conception) is a physical extension of mental perspective on individuality, unity, motherhood, fatherhood, children, family.

 

[Jobelo]

among other reasons, any form of intercourse not open to life is condemned by the Catholic Church
sex is meant for procreation, that is it’s purpose,
of course it was made to be enjoyable, and that is a good thing, but just like all good things, it can be misused.

it is also essentially like a “birth” control, insomuch as it is an attempt at preventing birth.

ok, hope this helps, take care.

One issue I have always been confused with is that for whatever reason you use NFP one of the reasons will always be trying to prevent pregnancy. Honestly I think you are just as closed off to life with NFP as condoms… they are about the same effectiveness. Even if you are using it for good reason, you can use condoms for the same reason and that is considered wrong. No one has given me a good answer for it. People generally end up calling me bad and say I don’t trust the church enough. I just want an answer.

 

[bkayw]

IS ABORTION USED AS BIRTH CONTROL?

Percentage of abortion patients who were using a contraceptive during the month in which they became pregnant - 51.3%.

By age:

17 or under - 39.4%
18-19 - 48.8%
20-29 - 51.9%
30 or over 58.8%

By birth control method:

condom - 28.6%
Pill 26.0%
withdrawal - 11.1%
diaphragm - 10.1%
sponge - 9.1%
rhythm - 7.3%
foam - 4.0%
suppository 2.6%
IUD - 0.6%
sterilization - 0.4%
other/don’t know - 0.2%

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

One issue I have always been confused with is that for whatever reason you use NFP one of the reasons will always be trying to prevent pregnancy. Honestly I think you are just as closed off to life with NFP as condoms… they are about the same effectiveness. Even if you are using it for good reason, you can use condoms for the same reason and that is considered wrong. No one has given me a good answer for it. People generally end up calling me bad and say I don’t trust the church enough. I just want an answer.

I think you need to do some study on your own to see the official Church position, as NFP is a matter of inner perception. CONTRAception is against life. Natural Family Planning is open. Basically it means that if you are using CONTRAception you want the pleasure without the ramifications as you are trying to prevent a pregnancy, and IF your wife becomes pregnant it is likely a curse. NFP although very successful at “avoiding” pregnancy does not try and prevent it and makes no such promises. If you are using it you and your spouse have an understanding, up front, that a pregnancy might result and if it does it is meant to be.

Read Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubii. You can also search on Dr. Janet Smith for a lot of information on this topic. You can also read Patrick Coffin’s book Sex Au Naturel at shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=16717&cat=7&page=2

In any event the modern culture of death seems to be a direct result of the contraceptive mentality of our current society. It is almost not even a matter of debate any more than cancer and tobacco was in the 70’s and 80’s. The linkages between the moral decay, abortion and treatment of women is here for all to look at. In the past the Tobacco Institute had a very successful run at the argument, “You can’t prove smoking causes cancer”, which is really humorous when people think about it now. This is the same arguments that Planned parenthood’s has now. They have taken the same position as the Tobacco Institute with the argument “You can’t prove a fetus is…(Fill in the blank)” . In any event I think you need to take some time to educate yourself. You will hear people say it is up to you to form your own conscience, but without the right information you could end up worshiping Baal and these people would say you are a good Christian, possibly a good Catholic, although to me you would be listening to the whispering words of Baal.

 

[Abu]

Jobelo
Honestly I think you are just as closed off to life with NFP as condoms… they are about the same effectiveness. Even if you are using it for good reason, you can use condoms for the same reason and that is considered wrong. No one has given me a good answer for it.

Having a chance of conceiving is not the same as maintaining the procreative nature of the act. One cannot on the one hand take a deliberate action by which one frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility and at the same time say they are maintaining the procreative character of the act. Put another way, effectiveness does not determine whether an act of intercourse is ordered to life. NBR is much more effective than condoms. Have you read or heard any of Dr Janet Smith on this topic?

That the use of contraception is gravely wrong is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church to which all Catholics have to assent and follow if they wish to be faithful to Jesus Christ.

The Holy Father has given you the answer – see post #303, including:
“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.” [Pope Paul VI, *Humanae Vitae, 16, 1968].

Do you not know that God has provided the infertile periods and has nowhere commanded that they are not to be used, when sufficient reason is present?

 

[Jobelo]

Please do not talk to me as if I were an idiot. I am not, I am college educated and know all about female fertility and the churches standings on things. I feel like everyone denies that you can be open to life and be using condoms. They make judgments on peoples attitudes without knowing them. I really still don’t see a difference in the openness to life. Both are still trying to prevent life with a 98-99%. And people telling me that I am ignorant or that I should just shut up and drink the Koolaid doesn’t sit well with me. I am open to the fact that I am wrong, I just haven’t seen proper evidence and everyone tells me the same things over and over which tap dance around the issue.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Please do not talk to me as if I were an idiot. I am not, I am college educated and know all about female fertility and the churches standings on things. I feel like everyone denies that you can be open to life and be using condoms. They make judgments on peoples attitudes without knowing them. I really still don’t see a difference in the openness to life. Both are still trying to prevent life with a 98-99%. And people telling me that I am ignorant or that I should just shut up and drink the Koolaid doesn’t sit well with me. I am open to the fact that I am wrong, I just haven’t seen proper evidence and everyone tells me the same things over and over which tap dance around the issue.

Sorry if I offended you that was not my intention. I do not know your level of education in this area and was trying to point out what the Church teaching per your request on the post I answered. After reading this post you say you don’t see the difference, maybe this will help?

“A useful analogy for discerning the difference is the different means individuals could use to lose weight. One individual may choose to eat and then to throw up. Another may choose to diet. Those contracepting are much like those who wish to eat but who then throw up: they want the pleasure that comes with an action, but not the consequences. Those who use NFP are like dieters; they refrain from sexual intercourse during the fertile period, a time they treat somewhat like sacred ground. Since they believe it would not be good to have a baby at a certain time, they refrain from actions that may result in a baby. They confine their acts of sexual intercourse to the infertile period; they are engaging in non-procreative actions rather than antiprocreative actions.”
-Janet Smith (PPT slide)

Hope this helps…
God Bless…

 

[Abu]

Jobelo
I…know all about female fertility and the churches standings on things. I feel like everyone denies that you can be open to life and be using condoms. I really still don’t see a difference in the openness to life. I just haven’t seen proper evidence and everyone tells me the same things over and over which tap dance around the issue.

Most are in denial – “feeling” cannot substitute for reason. “Proper evidence” can be appreciated only by those who face reality – the Church does not have mere “standings on things” as though this is a “view” or an “opinion” on unimportant “things”.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=460 (Dr Jeff Mirus, September 3, 2010)
“Most people slip into a lifestyle based on this relatively superficial understanding of sexuality through the practice of contraception, which distorts the nature of sexuality and seems to permit a more casual definition. This is why, in treating the question of contraception within marriage, the Catechism quotes John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation *Familiaris Consortio *(On the Family):
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality…. The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle…involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. (Cat 2370; FC 32)”

Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[Fr Torraco is the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answers questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

In addition to the natural moral law, we face the reality that the Christ who is God the Son gave His authority to His Church to teach infallibly on faith and morals. No faithful Catholic can deny that.

 

[Truthlover]

the whole point of the quoted section is that one must question one’s own conscience when it is formed in opposition to authority duly instituted by Christ.

choose, the text reads “placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something”. Note “freedom” not “conscience”. If you read further into the document we come to what Ratzinger means by something “deeper”.

I have included some of his relevant quotes below:

"“It has become apparent that the question of conscience leads in fact to the core of the moral problem and thus to the question of man’s existence itself.”

“But then the silencing of conscience leads to the dehumanization of the world and to moral danger, if one does not work against it.”

Conscience must not be silenced and blind obedience to anything does silence conscience.

“Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand and now takes its revenge is the actual guilt which first lulls man into false security and then abandons him in the trackless waste.”

Ratzinger outlines the dangers of an erroneous conscience which is why we should all inform our conscience before making decisions. However, he does emphasise the primacy of conscience by saying we must follow, even, “an erroneous conscience.”

“Newman embraced an interpretation of the papacy which is only then correctly conceived when it is viewed together with the primacy of conscience, a papacy not put in opposition to the primacy of conscience but based on it and guaranteeing it.”

I think anyone arguing against “primacy of conscience” should read this section in detail. This is part of the “deeper” thing Ratzinger was talking about; the papacy is not in opposition to the "primacy of conscience " but is "based on it ".

“For Newman, the middle term which establishes the connection between authority and subjectivity is truth. I do not hesitate to say that truth is the central thought of Newman’s intellectual grappling. Conscience is central for him because truth stands in the middle.”

“Much more than that, conscience signifies the perceptible and demanding presence of the voice of truth in the subject himself. It is the overcoming of mere subjectivity in the encounter of the interiority of man with the truth from God.”

“A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth.”

“John could say: you do not need such instruction, for as anointed ones (i.e., baptized) you know everything (cf. 1 Jn 2:20). This does not mean a factual omniscience on the part of the faithful. It does signify, however, the sureness of the Christian memory. This Christian memory, to be sure, is always learning, but proceeding from its sacramental identity, it also distinguishes from within between what is a genuine unfolding of its recollection and what is its destruction or falsification. In the crisis of the Church today, the power of this recollection and the truth of the apostolic word is experienced in an entirely new way where much more so than hierarchical direction, it is the power of memory of the simple faith which leads to the discernment of spirits. One can only comprehend the primacy of the Pope and its correlation to Christian conscience in this connection. The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. For this reason the toast to conscience indeed must precede the toast to the Pope because without conscience there would not be a papacy. All power that the papacy has is power of conscience.”