Why is Condom Use a Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RWMorris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
I can easily see how it can be explained without any focus on ‘alternatives’.

See my post (#30) above, particularly the analogy of the TV set.
Could the concept of working for a TV set be explained without any focus on theft?[Insert absolutely]

As opposed to what, morally evil or a moral good?

I don’t understand your use of “Nothing” here. I see NFP as a method with two possible moral goals.
  1. The conception of a child
  2. The postponement of conception for serious reasons. [Insert will couples not practicing NFP concieve regardless of their actions?]
Which of those two functions are you associating with being “Nothing”?
Click to expand...
Thanks
In your analogy you defined stealing and working as equal moral behaviors, so it is of little help to me. Is stealing moral? The answer is no; it rivals God’s commandments AND natural law. Is working moral? Yes, working in the greater contexts feeds the hungry and clothes the naked. Please notice the moral determination is not relative, which means you do not select between stealing verses working forced to assign one as moral and the other as immoral.

As for “NOTHING” some are saying NFP is nothing thus it is morally neutral but is that true? I think not.

NFP can certainly be used for increasing conception, but is that the primary use?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
NFP can certainly be used for increasing conception, but is that the primary use?
Click to expand...
The primary use of NFP is as a morally licit method for married couples to consciously and willfully enjoin their vocational responsibility and capacity of responsible parenthood.

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (CCC)
 
Let’s try it this way, in Post #2 1ke gave the best answers to date but it implies many things, can we verify the implications? (read post #32)
 
Texas_Roofer said:
In your analogy you defined stealing and working as equal moral behaviors, so it is of little help to me.
Click to expand...
No, I did NOT define them as being morally equal, in fact quite the opposite.

I was pointing out that CatholicCentrist’s focus entirely on goal was flawed. And gave the example of work vs. theft.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
NFP can certainly be used for increasing conception, but is that the primary use?
Click to expand...
It is for many. It was for us. NFP engages our knowledge of human biology in a way that helps us p(name removed by moderator)oint the time when we will be fertile and take advantage of it.

In our case, the result is named Katharine.
 
Brendan said:
Let’s say I wanted to purchase a new TV, I could work extra hours and earn the money, or I could mug someone and get the money,

By your logic, they are morally equivelent, since they both result in the same end.

The main flaw in your argument is that you think that the Church does not allow a couple to space children, or even avoid a pregnancy.

It does. Like owning a TV, the goal is NOT immoral.

And, as with the TV, the Church recognizes that there are moral means to obtain that goal, and immoral means.

A Catholic may pursue the moral means, but not the immoral means.

NFP is a moral means towards the licit goal of spacing children because it maintains the marital act as God created it, in full acceptance of both spouses AS GOD CREATED THEM.

Condoms and other artificial means involve a rejection of a God created aspect of the spouse, their fertility as God created it.

Imagine a man saying to his wife, “Yes, I will make love to you, but put this bag over your face because I do not like that part of you and I do not want to involve your face in our lovemaking”

I think most of us would be appalled to hear that. How would that be a sign of love and acceptance in that man.

Now what is the difference in a wife asking her husband to place a bag over his genitals because she does not want to involve his fertility in their lovemaking.

How is that less appaling? How is THAT a sign of love or acceptance?
Click to expand...
Brendan said:
No, I did NOT define them as being morally equal, in fact quite the opposite.

I was pointing out that CatholicCentrist’s focus entirely on goal was flawed. And gave the example of work vs. theft.
Click to expand...
Brendan
I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut but these are your words not Centrist. As was mentioned in Post #31 the extreme positions only serve to separate people. What I am looking for is a comfortable foundation for the church teaching on NFP. I am not confused on what the church teaches only WHY it teaches that. - thanks again
 
mercygate said:
It is for many. It was for us. NFP engages our knowledge of human biology in a way that helps us p(name removed by moderator)oint the time when we will be fertile and take advantage of it.

In our case, the result is named Katharine.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, children are truly a blessing; I hope you enjoy a rich lifetime relationship.
 
OP, I too am a convert. In fact, I remember saying to Catholics before I EVER thought about converting, “Why do you let some old man in Rome tell you that you have to have 12 kids when he isn’t the one paying to take care of them?” :rolleyes: Shows just how far away I was, and what a miracle it was that God brought me to the one true Church! How I got over this fallacy: trust and submission. I knew the Church was right, I just didn’t understand it. So I said, “Lord, help my unbelief”. And when I trusted, THEN started studying the issues, it all became clear. I suggest you read everything you can by Dr. Janet Smith, or get her tapes. Christopher West also has some good books on the subject. And of course, JPII’s Theology of the Body. There are wonderful resources out there for you. I figure if I can go a total 180 on this subject, anyone can! Trust first, then seek confirmation of your trust. God will provide it.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
We seem to be circling again why? If NFP is morally neutral that should be easily explained without focus on alternatives. Why is NFP morally neutral?
Click to expand...
I cannot imgaine how it could be more easy? The point is one is simply engaging in the marital embrace. The women’s cycle is recorded and contact is made, or not made, depending on the will of the couple. God ordained the cycle for a reason. Human intellect discern’s this and uses it to conceive or avoid conceiving.
If NFP is actually doing NOTHING would it be NFP?, how would so much work be put in to doing nothing?
Click to expand...
It is not about how much or how little “work” is involved. It is about keeping the act intact as God ordained it. The couple is doing it “naturally” meaning they have not altered it.
 
…The present question turns only on the point of morals: may a married couple restrict intercourse to such periods?
Click to expand...
The answer is affirmative, with two qualifications. First, there
must be no desire of evading an obligation to have children, when
such exists; in other words, the reasons against pregnancy at
that time must be valid. Secondly, intercourse must be really and
genuinely desirable for good reasons at such times (though
clearly the need may not be so solemn as this language suggests)
and must serve to express and strengthen the sacramental love of
the man and woman. The habit of restricting intercourse to such
periods may become mixed with meanness and impurity, a selfish
prudence on one hand, mere indulgence on the other. But given
healthy motives, the action itself is sound and life-offering in
the sense described above, and intercourse at such periods is not
wrong…
Click to expand...
[MORALS AND MARRIAGE

The Catholic Background to Sex](http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT)
 
would it be a sin for a married couple to use a condom during sex if the woman were already post menopause?
 
would it be a sin for a married couple to use a condom during sex if the woman were already post menopause?
Click to expand...
Then why use a condom, huh? Answer us that. If the woman is already naturally infertile, why are you asking if the couple can use a condom?
 
Seatuck said:
The marital act must remain procreative and unitive whether either partner is fertile or not. In this way the act retains it’s meaning.
Click to expand...
**
How does that even make sense?**

If a woman isn’t able to have children ( hysterectomy…ovaries removed) the possibility of getting pregnant is zero, it is a biological impossibility through male / female copulation.

How can you suggest the intention of the act remains…the reality is that the intercourse is not to have children…but is either for pleasure, for love or lust.

Do you have a response?
 
Traddy said:
Then why use a condom, huh? Answer us that. If the woman is already naturally infertile, why are you asking if the couple can use a condom?
Click to expand...
Maybe the woman has a chronic yeast infection or maybe the woman wants a condom for reasons of hygiene…or maybe the man has some kind of an infection like HEP B or Hep c.

There could be tonnes of reasons. You’ve asked the question like you think it’s a really tough question, it isn’t even a remotely difficult question.

I have given you a very reasonable and realistic answer.
 
onetimeposter said:
How does that even make sense?

If a woman isn’t able to have children ( hysterectomy…ovaries removed) the possibility of getting pregnant is zero, it is a biological impossibility through male / female copulation.

How can you suggest the intention of the act remains…the reality is that the intercourse is not to have children…but is either for pleasure, for love or lust.

Do you have a response?
Click to expand...
Yes, I suggest you read Theology of the Body. It teaches on how the use of our bodies has theological meaning. Especially in a sacrament. The act itself has a meaning which reflects a deep theological reality. For instance in marriage the couple’s action reflect the relationship within the Trinity and the relationshipe between Christ and his church. Those relationships are total, free and all giving. Holding nothing back. The marital act must retain that characteristic . I did not say the intention , I said the “meaning”. It’s a bit different. The infertile couple does not intentionally hold something back. Therefore the meaning is still a total gift of selves. Condoms put something in the mix that holds back something. The couple is not becoming one flesh and the husband is not presenting his wife with the gift that comes from his body. This gift from husband to wife has a connection to the Eucharist which is Christs gift from himself to his bride - the church. There are articles out there showing the relationship from the marital act and marriage in general to the Eucharist. John Martignoni has an article or an audio file on his website. I’m sure Christopher West has written on it as well as others.
I’m sure I have mangled the explanation so I direct you the resources I’ve named here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top