Why is Condom Use a Sin?

[Patman]

The Catholic teaching on contraception is a teaching that challenges even some of the most devout catholics. Although I personally don’t think contraception is as bad of a thing that the church believes, the church is certainly more than justified in teaching the way that it does. Clearly, there is a difference between a contraceptive act of intercourse versus a contraceptive free act of intercourse. The church believes that any artificial barrier is a potential barrier to God’s love, while contacpetive free acts leave it totally in God’s hands. I believe that is a certainly valid point of view. However, I can also see how someone could make the argument that of God really wants conception to occur, contraception isn’t going to stop him. I think that is the reason Protestant’s have “caved” on the issue. If I were the Pope, I’d probably ok contraception in limited cases provided a couple makes a vow to keep the baby if conception were to occur. But I am not the Pope, so I have to respect the church’s teaching.

What bothers me a bit more is the NFP exception. To me, if a married couple doesn’t want to have more children, abstience seems to make more sense. Although NFP is clearly superior to artificial contraception, I just find it a bit confusing that since the church teaches the way it does on artificial contracpetion - it sorta allows for quasi recreation intercourse for married couples through NFP. But all things considered, I applaud the church for sticking to its teachings even if I have some reservations.

 

[Abu]

Patman #81
The church believes that any artificial barrier is a potential barrier to God’s love, while contacpetive free acts leave it totally in God’s hands. I believe that is a certainly valid point of view.
Although NFP is clearly superior to artificial contraception, I just find it a bit confusing that since the church teaches the way it does on artificial contraception

It certainly is NOT a mere “point of view” but an infallible doctrine which condemns contraception.

He has given us His Church to teach infallibly on faith and morals and She confirms the natural moral law with Her doctrines.

The difference is that, with contraception (like condoms), a couple deliberately places a barrier to procreation while seeking the pleasure of the marital act. With Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) the couple uses what God has provided without deliberately placing a barrier to thwart the procreative end of marriage. NBR may be used only for serious reasons which Christ’s Church has identified, without which the action would be objectively gravely sinful also because it uses a natural process for a wrong end.

**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 was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church].

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Old thread.

 

[Patman]

Yes, it is an old thread. I am a new member as I stumbled upon this thread using a search engine. The church’s view on contraception is clear to me - so even though I personally don’t see it as grave of a sin as the church does, I certainly respect the teaching and I realize that as catholics we are obligated to follow church doctrine whether we personally agree with it or not.

But, as far as NFP is concerned, it just seems to me that if conditions are grave enough for a married couple not to have more children, absitinence makes more sense. For example, if a married woman were not healthy enough to have another child, I would think that would qualify as a “grave” reason to not actively try to expand her family. So, wouldn’t abstience make more sense? Or, are sexual realtions between husband and wife so vital to a marriage that even if having another child is not a good idea for various reasons, you must practice NFP over abstienence? I just can’t help but think that even though I understand the benefits of NFP over artificial contraception, the church would be better off simply encouraging abstience over NFP in these cases. Perhaps NFP should still be an option - but complete abstienence would seem to make more sense so a married couple isn’t faced with the dilemna of having intercourse with the hope that conception does not occur.

 

[Abu]

Patman #84
The church’s view on contraception is clear to me - so even though I personally don’t see it as grave of a sin as the church does

To develop reason and faith it is essential to realise that Christ empowered His Church to teach truth on faith and morals infallibly, on which “views” are useless, and not a part.

There is no real faith when an infallible definition against contraception is not believed as “grave”, offered to others, and acted upon as “grave”.
Pope Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae *as The Australian Bishops in 1976 affirmed:
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.”

Having approved both abstinence and the partial abstinence of Natural Birth Regulation, and with the very high success rate of the latter, real Catholic couples are free to make their own decision but it is not facing reality to try to say that “complete abstinence would seem to make more sense…”

 

[Patman]

Ok - I don’t need to be lectured on the church’s teaching on birth control. I completely understand it, respect it and get it. I was simply offering my personal thoughts about the subject that differ slightly. Yet, I wrote that as catholics we are obligated to follow church teaching whether we personally agree or disagree so I don’t need another lecture.

As far as NFP vs.complete absitence, it would appear that the church would leave that up to married couple to decide. The church teaches that in order for a married couple to use NFP, the reasons need to be “grave”, yet the church does not define would qualify as “grave”, so I suppose that means each couple needs to follow their conscience on the subject. However, take the example I used before of a married woman who may not be healthy enough to have another child. I would think that would qualify as grave. Certainly, using NFP would be an option - and if conception would occur, the woman would have to accept that and have the child.

But, you did not answer my perfectly reasonable question, that if the woman wants to be 100% sure of avoiding pregnancy, complete abstience would be the only way. I understand that if NFP is used effectively, the odds of conception are very small, but it is still possible and if NFP is not used correctly - which is difficult to do particularly if a woman has an irregular cycle, NFP is not all that effective.

You wrote is not "not facing reality to try to say that “complete abstinence would seem to make more sense…” Ok, maybe that is true, but you need to explain that more. Why is that the case? The church call us on all non married persons and religious life persons to live completely chaste lives. Obviously, married persons have to have sexual relations for purposes of procreation. Yet, when procreation is no longer the goal, it would seem abstinence would make sense. You did not answer my question if the churc h values sexual relations between man and wife to be so vital, that even when procreation is no longe the goal, man and wife should continue to have sexual relation because otherwise their marriage is lessened??? I don’t know, maybe it is???

I

 

[Abu]

Patman #86
my question if the churc h values sexual relations between man and wife to be so vital, that even when procreation is no longe the goal, man and wife should continue to have sexual relation because otherwise their marriage is lessened??? I don’t know, maybe it is???

In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage, and shows the value of the secondary ends of marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Current knowledge of how a woman’s body works we see that women were designed so that almost 2/3rds of the time sex is inherently infertile. This fact shows that the unitive function of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. At one time it was thought infertility was always an “abnormal” state. Now we find that infertility has been designed as a “normal” state a majority of the time in women.

 

[Patman]

Abu,
I admire your knowledge of cahtolic doctrine but that doesn’t exactly answer my question. The “unitive” part may be as important as the “procreative” part but if your goal is to engage in the “unitve” part hoping that the “procreative” part does not occur - ok, technically that may be morally acceptable, but again this my personal view, exposes a bit of loophole in the teaching.
So, what would you advise a unhealthy married woman to do? Complete abstinence or roll the dice with NFP?"

 

[Abu]

Patman #88
So, what would you advise a unhealthy married woman to do? Complete abstinence or roll the dice with NFP?"

Post #85; “Having approved both abstinence and the partial abstinence of Natural Birth Regulation, and with the very high success rate of the latter, real Catholic couples are free to make their own decision but it is not facing reality to try to say that “complete abstinence would seem to make more sense…” And serious reasons are required.

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives
Answered by Fr. Richard Hogan, NFP Outreach‘Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving “from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.’
ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm

A faithful spiritual advisor is the person to consult for particular cases.

“Roll the dice with NFP” is a very unscientific lampoon of NBR, as Wilson’s Family of the Americas Foundation now teaches NBR in more than 100 countries, including China.

EWTN News Story 10-July-2003 – Catholic World News Brief
“Unlike the rhythm method, the Billings method does not depend on a stable menstrual cycle. Numerous independent trials have confirmed the 99 percent success rate of the Billings Method, including a recent study following thousands of women for more than a year. If any further proof is needed, the method has been regularly used up to date by over 2,686,400 fertile couples in China for avoiding pregnancy with an overall success rate of approximately 99 percent.”

 

[ahs]

  ...  The "unitive" part may be as important as the "procreative" part but if your goal is to engage in the "unitve" part hoping that the "procreative" part does not occur - ok, technically that may be morally acceptable, but again this my personal view, exposes a bit of loophole in the teaching.

Hi Patman. (BTW, you may want to start a whole new thread on this topic. Many times old threads that are dug up will be closed. )

An important thing to keep in mind is: hoping that there is no procreation as a result of a sex act is not the same as omitting the procreative aspect of the act. Couples who use NBR/NFP hope to avoid conception out of fear or for some other grave/serious/just reason. That does not mean they have found a loophole. They are sill obligated to engage in an act that is both unitive and procreative in its nature, even if procreation won’t result. In other words, despite their desires/wishes, the couple still presents the totality of their nature to each other. The totality of each person is presented completely at any given act. It doesn’t matter what their desires are (to wish for pregnancy or to not). What matters is that they complete the act as ordered by Natural Law.

Also, you mention that abstinence would be better than NFP. Well, NFP involves abstinence…during the period when a couple might most want to be together. They make a sacrifice by abstaining from sex for a period of time. When the fertile phase is over, the couple then resumes sexual acts…yet in these acts they still present their totality to their spouse completely and without reserve.
The difference from permanent total abstinence and NBR/NFP is that a couple is able to chart the wife’s cycle and find days when they can enjoy the marital union in a total unitive and procreative manner while having some assurance that pregnancy will not result. And the difference between that and contraception is that God can still intervene if He chooses to create life because the couple has left the act open to God’s intervention and is fully presenting the reproductive material in that particular act.
Hope that helps clear things better instead of making them more muddy.

-ahs

 

[Patman]

I am not really sure how to start a new thread but y’all seem to be finding this one fine so I am going to stick with it for now. And, I do appreciate y’all taking the time to respond in a respectful, dignified manner.

First of all, pertaining to articificial contraception - the church’s is view is pretty clear - so there is no debate. In earlier threads, I was speaking from a completely, personal outsider view who could see how one (notably our Protty friends) could make a case for artifical contraception. Yet, the church makes a certainly convincing argument of its own - and I admitted that as a catholic I am obligated to follow church doctrine whether it suits me or not. (Personally, I am single so I admit this isn’s an issue that I am going to exactly loose sleep over for now anyways, but I digress. Furthermore, I am far more concerned about Obama forcing catholics to administer birth control against their will - but I’m sure that is already being discussed in another thread.)

So, that leaves the issue of NFP vs. absitinence for married couples when it comes to family planning. Ok, it is clear that the chruch says NFP is ok if the conditions are “grave.” I am not sure exaclty what “grave” is, but it appears the church leaves that to the discretion of the married couple so I used the example of an unhealthy married woman, which I think most people would agree would constitute as grave.

You say “The difference from permanent total abstinence and NBR/NFP is that a couple is able to chart the wife’s cycle and find days when they can enjoy the marital union in a total unitive and procreative manner while having some assurance that pregnancy will not result.”

Ok, this comment I do have concerns with. First, any sexual act of intercourse, particularly birth control free, is not 100% effective. So, there is NO assurance that pregnancy will not result -it is simply very unlikely (and that is assuming a woman’s cycle is regular and NFP is being used properly) - but that is a significant difference between NFP and total absitinence, which is 100% effective.

So, this is where I am bit confused. If a married couple wanted to be 100% sure, wouldn’t complete abstience make sense? Or, is the “unitive” aspect of a marriage so vital that it sinful on the part of the married couple not to have intercourse???
So, this where I am bit confused. If a married couple wanted to be

 

[ahs]

…So, that leaves the issue of NFP vs. absitinence for married couples when it comes to family planning. Ok, it is clear that the chruch says NFP is ok if the conditions are “grave.” I am not sure exaclty what “grave” is, but it appears the church leaves that to the discretion of the married couple so I used the example of an unhealthy married woman, which I think most people would agree would constitute as grave.

First of all, yes, you are correct that the Church leaves it to each couple’s discretion whether they have grave reasons. The Church uses the words “grave”, “serious”, and “just” and basically they are reasons/causes that are not based on selfish desires.

You say “The difference from permanent total abstinence and NBR/NFP is that a couple is able to chart the wife’s cycle and find days when they can enjoy the marital union in a total unitive and procreative manner while having some assurance that pregnancy will not result.”

Ok, this comment I do have concerns with. First, any sexual act of intercourse, particularly birth control free, is not 100% effective. So, there is NO assurance that pregnancy will not result -it is simply very unlikely (and that is assuming a woman’s cycle is regular and NFP is being used properly) - but that is a significant difference between NFP and total absitinence, which is 100% effective.

So, this is where I am bit confused. If a married couple wanted to be 100% sure, wouldn’t complete abstience make sense? Or, is the “unitive” aspect of a marriage so vital that it sinful on the part of the married couple not to have intercourse???
So, this where I am bit confused. If a married couple wanted to be

Again, you are right. It would only be a guarantee of avoiding pregnancy if a couple avoided sex completely. And, if the reason/situation is grave enough the a couple may really need to abstain perpetually. One would hope this is not the case, since sex is a very powerful way for a couple to show their unity and the marital embrace has many, many benefits for the couple. Not to mention that procreation is the primary end of Marriage. But, the reality is that there may be couples who absolutely cannot risk pregnancy for a time due some grave reason, and total abstinence may be needed.

NBR/NFP are quite reliable…to the tune of 99% accurate when charting whether “is today a fertile day or not”. There is 1 day that the wife ovulates, and the few days before and after ovulation would be the “fertile” days during which a couple would avoid. Days outside that window would be days the couple could enjoy the embrace. But, yes, if the situation is serious enough, even those days may be unsafe. It’s a discussion that a couple must have daily, or at least monthly…“are we in a position this month/week/today where we can support a(nother) child?”