Why is Condom Use a Sin?

[Scott_Waddell]

If God wants a pregnancy a condom isnt gonna stop one.

By this logic I can go up to a person, put a loaded gun to his chest thinking that if God doesn’t want me to kill him, He will cause the gun to jam.

Survey sez: *BRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPP! *Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

 

[CathCentrist]

I know you’re going to take a lot of heat for that crack, not that it will do a bit of good.

But quite honestly, if your opinion is that condom use is as moral as NFP in marriage, then you really, really, really do not understand the issues. Really. And I’ll bet you have not used NFP.

I hope you are circumspect in sharing this opinion with others who might be encouraged to join you.

So, according to you, if I really, really, really, really, knew about NFP I would ultimately have to see things the way you see them? I do know about it, and I never said I disagree with it, but that condoms are the same thing in my opinion within marriage. The purpose n both is to space out children or attempt to prevent a pregnancy, the Church can spin it any way but thats what it is, and condoms do the same thing.

Being willing to have the child if an “accident” occurs whether doing NFP or using condoms is where being open to God’s plan and will come into my lexicon of being a good christian.

 

[CathCentrist]

By this logic I can go up to a person, put a loaded gun to his chest thinking that if God doesn’t want me to kill him, He will cause the gun to jam.

Survey sez: *BRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPP! *Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Sorry, but your example isnt even close of what I am saying.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Sorry, but your example isnt even close of what I am saying.

Yes it is. You are saying that since God can override our attempts to do something, then any of those attempts are morally acceptable or justfiable. It’s the same argument applied to a different situation that demonstrates its inconsistency.

 

[setter]

So, according to you, if I really, really, really, really, knew about NFP I would ultimately have to see things the way you see them? I do know about it, and I never said I disagree with it, but that condoms are the same thing in my opinion within marriage. The purpose n both is to space out children or attempt to prevent a pregnancy, the Church can spin it any way but thats what it is, and condoms do the same thing.

Being willing to have the child if an “accident” occurs whether doing NFP or using condoms is where being open to God’s plan and will come into my lexicon of being a good christian.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

2399 Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). (CCC)

 

[fix]

So, according to you, if I really, really, really, really, knew about NFP I would ultimately have to see things the way you see them? I do know about it, and I never said I disagree with it, but that condoms are the same thing in my opinion within marriage. The purpose n both is to space out children or attempt to prevent a pregnancy, the Church can spin it any way but thats what it is, and condoms do the same thing.

Being willing to have the child if an “accident” occurs whether doing NFP or using condoms is where being open to God’s plan and will come into my lexicon of being a good christian.

The morality of any act is not only dependent on the intention. The means are important as well. The act of contracepting is morally different from abstaining.

 

[mercygate]

So, according to you, if I really, really, really, really, knew about NFP I would ultimately have to see things the way you see them? I do know about it, and I never said I disagree with it, but that condoms are the same thing in my opinion within marriage. The purpose n both is to space out children or attempt to prevent a pregnancy, the Church can spin it any way but thats what it is, and condoms do the same thing.

Being willing to have the child if an “accident” occurs whether doing NFP or using condoms is where being open to God’s plan and will come into my lexicon of being a good christian.

Although NFP and condoms both accomplish the spacing of children, they do it in fundamentally different ways. Abortion also accomplishes the spacing of children; I doubt you would equate abortion and NFP. The means and the end are intimately related.

I KNOW how hard it is to grasp the distinction because it IS subtle. I, too, struggled with it. But think about it: before we understood the physiology of NFP, couples who needed to space children abstained from sexual relations entirely.

Even though you use the word “accident,” in referring to condom failure, I do not believe you mean it because you seem to believe that a child is never an “accident.”

Romans, chapter 1 vss 18 ff has eloquent things to say equating idolatry and sexual deviations (ok, that’s also kind of hard to get your head around, but it makes sense), including “unnatural sexual acts.” Mechanically (or chemically) contracepted intercourse certainly qualifies as an “unnatural sexual act.”

 

[mlchance]

Why is NFP allowed when condom use is far less effective at preventing pregnancy than NFP?

The issue isn’t related to effectiveness. It is related to integrity. Human acts have objective as well as subjective meanings. The objective meaning trumps the subjective meaning when determining the morality of an action.

Sexual intercourse is, as hinted at by the term itself, a form of communication. During sexual intercourse, the man says with his body, in effect, “I love only you. Everything I am and have to give is yours.” The woman, in turn, says with her body, “I love only you. I accept all you have to give, and trust you to honor and care for me.”

Contraception turns this communication into a lie. By using a condom, the man, for example, is saying with his body, “I love you, but I’m going to withhold myself from you. You can have only this much of me, but no more.” The woman, for example, says with her body, “I love you, but not so much that I’m willing to accept all you have, because I do not trust you honor and care for me.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[dulcissima]

So, according to you, if I really, really, really, really, knew about NFP I would ultimately have to see things the way you see them? I do know about it, and I never said I disagree with it, but that condoms are the same thing in my opinion within marriage. The purpose n both is to space out children or attempt to prevent a pregnancy, the Church can spin it any way but thats what it is, and condoms do the same thing.

Being willing to have the child if an “accident” occurs whether doing NFP or using condoms is where being open to God’s plan and will come into my lexicon of being a good christian.

I used to share your opinion, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that if you really, really, really knew about NFP you would understand the Church’s stance on artficial birth control and the beauty of cooperating with God in the planning of your family. It goes way beyond merely being open to life.

Besides that, why on earth would a healthy married couple ever WANT to use condoms?

 

[Brendan]

I do know about it, and I never said I disagree with it, but that condoms are the same thing in my opinion within marriage. The purpose n both is to space out children or attempt to prevent a pregnancy,

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?

 

[SemperJase]

The problem with discussing NFP here is that too many of its supporters make absurd leaps in logic in defense of it. As a result the NFP position is undermined. Some of the most uncharitable posts I’ve seen on these boards are from people who support NFP.

While I’m coming to understand the teaching, remarks that claim one should leave the church if he doesn’t fully embrace NFP or that use of a condom is the equivalent to random attempted murder lead me to question the foundation of logic for NFP.

Use of a condom is not comparable shooting someone. Leave the church for not practicing NFP? If we’re kicking out sinners, the church is going to be nothing more than an empty building.

 

[RWMorris]

NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.

Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves us.

Your reasoning is very good and you have cleared up a lot for me.

Another series of questions; I know that the act is supposed to serve God, but isn’t the act also supposed to serve each other, the married couple? Isn’t it designed to unify the couple and make them one? Isn’t that just as important as serving God, i.e., isn’t the unifying act and the pleasure derived from it a service to God and his plan for married people?

Isn’t the act of abstainence just to avoid pregnancy in violation of Pauline theology concerning marriage? Now I know that last question was a stretch but maybe we can entertain the question just for the sake of reason. I know that some Christians will use Paul’s instructions as a springboard for arguments for artificial birth control.

Thanks for the discussion, it has been most enlightening and a blessing from God.

 

[mercygate]

Your reasoning is very good and you have cleared up a lot for me.

Another series of questions; I know that the act is supposed to serve God, but isn’t the act also supposed to serve each other, the married couple? Isn’t it designed to unify the couple and make them one? Isn’t that just as important as serving God, i.e., isn’t the unifying act and the pleasure derived from it a service to God and his plan for married people?

Yes, the act is unitive and good. It can never be “just as important” as serving God. And a contracepted act of intercourse certainly does not serve God. It is also service to God to honor one another by abstinence when there is reason to abstain, even if it might mean one of you will be chewing on the bedpost all night (been there!). You also honor God by honoring your mutual decision concerning conceiving and raising your children. Some people, btw, are pure providentialists: no ABC, no NFP: just rejoice in all the babies God will give us. God love 'em! But not everybody can lift that much weight.

Isn’t the act of abstainence just to avoid pregnancy in violation of Pauline theology concerning marriage? Now I know that last question was a stretch but maybe we can entertain the question just for the sake of reason. I know that some Christians will use Paul’s instructions as a springboard for arguments for artificial birth control.

Paul allows abstinence for a time “for prayer” but counsels coming together again. We read this as an analogy of periodic fasting. It can be good for you! He also counsels men who have wives to “live as though they had none.” To claim Paul had only one position on this issue is to ignore half of what he says. He is a strong champion of self control.

 

[Crumpy]

The problem I have has to do with the underlying assumptions of natural law.

The “natural law” of body parts, in this context, is that they have one primary purpose, the procreation of life.

But, those body parts are connected to people who have reason, as we know, and there are natural laws I suspect to pertain to the whole persons and not just their parts.

Humanae Vitae legitimates that people can refrain from carnal acts and it does that without much explanation. As I understand it, if one totally refrained as such it would be grounds for annulment of a marriage.

How can anybody justify NFP saying that there is always the possibility of conception, when the people practicing it are doing so to achieve the opposite? And, given the complexity of NFP, how can anyone say it is “natural”?

My problem here is not a “persistent post-baptismal doubt” of something the Church teaches, I just don’t understand the words.

You know, if someone takes a vow of chastity, then one is deliberately not using a God-given procreative faculty, isn’t that a violation of natural law?

It seems clearer to me that God has put a brain on top of those body parts and given people considerable control over and responsibility for the same. Some will take this as sarcasm, so be it. What is the natural law of the brain?

 

[mercygate]

The problem I have has to do with the underlying assumptions of natural law.

The “natural law” of body parts, in this context, is that they have one primary purpose, the procreation of life.

Yes.

Crumpy:

But, those body parts are connected to people who have reason, as we know, and there are natural laws I suspect to pertain to the whole persons and not just their parts.

Yes! Reason, in the natural law, is an order higher than the flesh and must govern the flesh in order for human beings to live according to their full human dignity.

Crumpy:

Humanae Vitae legitimates that people can refrain from carnal acts and it does that without much explanation. As I understand it, if one totally refrained as such it would be grounds for annulment of a marriage.

Humanae vitae does not advocate perpetual continence in the normal course of marriage. Hv allows for a prayerful periodic continence to allow the spacing of children for serious reasons (allowing considerable latitude to couples to evaluate their own circumstances with maturity and good faith).

How can anybody justify NFP saying that there is always the possibility of conception, when the people practicing it are doing so to achieve the opposite?

No artificial or chemical means is being placed in the way of any individual human act of intercourse.

And, given the complexity of NFP, how can anyone say it is “natural”?

Because it works with the natural cycle and not against it. A friend of mine did some math, and noted that even without looking at cycles, a couple having intercourse every day could have intercourse 300 times for every time they could conceive. Clearly, the system is set up for considerable enjoyment of one’s conjugal privileges, even without using instruments of contraception.

Crumpy:

My problem here is not a “persistent post-baptismal doubt” of something the Church teaches, I just don’t understand the words.

Congratulations! That puts you about 3 miles ahead of the pack! Keep plugging. It’ll click! Ask the Boss to show you. Keep reading Romans, chapter 1 – on the parallel between idolatry and “unnatural sexual acts.” Sounds like gobbledy-gook until after a while it starts to seep in.

Crumpy:

You know, if someone takes a vow of chastity, then one is deliberately not using a God-given procreative faculty, isn’t that a violation of natural law?[/auote]Again, it goes to the higher good. Virginity, because it retains the pristine primary relationship between God and the individual soul, is – though a rare gift – a higher gift than marriage. See Catechism.

Crumpy:

It seems clearer to me that God has put a brain on top of those body parts and given people considerable control over and responsibility for the same. Some will take this as sarcasm, so be it. What is the natural law of the brain?

The natural law of the brain is to govern the passions.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

[chopped]
…
Because it works with the natural cycle and not against it. A friend of mine did some math, and noted that even without looking at cycles, a couple having intercourse every day could have intercourse 300 times for every time they could conceive. …

could you elaborate?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My opinion is condoms within a marriage is as acceptable as NFP. Yes, I know what the teaching is, but thats my opinion. The main thing in my opinion is the couple be open to a pregnancy if one occurs, whether by NFP or condom. If God wants a pregnancy a condom isnt gonna stop one. The same with NFP…so I find them both neither moral or immoral, simply neutral in a marriage. I believe thiis is one instance where the Church needs to be progressive.

I some what agree with you
The church obviously wants us to control our urge which really means to practice discipline. NFP is understandable but not with out problems as 1) intent, 2) education level. The idea of intent in regard to NFP seams opposite all other teaching to include the definition of sin. It has always seemed to me the only way to follow all the church rules was to abstain unless you were willing to parent from the act, and thus the contradiction.

 

[mercygate]

I some what agree with you
The church obviously wants us to control our urge which really means to practice discipline. NFP is understandable but not with out problems as 1) intent, 2) education level. The idea of intent in regard to NFP seams opposite all other teaching to include the definition of sin. It has always seemed to me the only way to follow all the church rules was to abstain unless you were willing to parent from the act, and thus the contradiction.

You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to practice NFP; you just need commitment (if you need to avoid conceiving a child). Mother Teresa had great success in the slums of Calcutta.

Intent? Relax, Tex! Abstaining because you have serious reasons for not conceiving a child is not sinful. NFP CAN be used with sinful intent, but sinful intent is not intrinsic to the process, as it is with devices.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
Intent? Relax, Tex! Abstaining because you have serious reasons for not conceiving a child is not sinful. NFP CAN be used with sinful intent, but sinful intent is not intrinsic to the process, as it is with devices.

Thanks
But I think you missed something, what is the purpose of NFP, and how does it differ from the couple using a condom in purpose or intent?

 

[mark_a]

I am a new Catholic, former Evangelical Christian. I am in the process of working out my salvation “with fear and trembling.” I have worked through all the normal issues that Evangelical usually have with Catholic theology and agree with Catholic teachings. My current difficulties have to do with “Just War Doctrine” and certain sexuality issues.

The first issue I wish to discuss is condom use. Now I know that the Church teaches that condom use is wrong. What I want to understand is the reasoning behind this teaching. Why is NFP allowed when condom use is far less effective at preventing pregnancy than NFP? It seems to me that a couple that uses condoms during intimate relations is actually more open to the possibility of pregnancy that the family that uses NFP. I’ve read that NFP can be 99% effective while condom use is, at best 95% effective, with some experts putting the effective rate as low as 85%. Since effective condom use does not result in the sin of abortion, what is the rationale behind prohibiting condom use?

Please feel free to quote the catechism and/or the Bible to me. I’m all ears. But what I am really looking for is an answer that weaves tradition, Church teaching, and the Bible with a good dose of reason and logic.

Now I know there are Christians out there who will tell me that they believe that condom use is a sin because the Church tells them it is. There is nothing wrong with believing that way, in fact there is a certain strength to such an argument and I respect that. God bless you, your belief is a tribute to your faith, a wonderful gift from God. I pray for faith such as you have; please pray that I may one day have that faith. Sometimes I feel like the father in Mark 9:24, " Straight away the father of the child gave a cry, saying, I have faith; make my feeble faith stronger."

Please understand that my Catholic faith is not contingent on anyone convincing me that their viewpoint is correct. I’m know God will answer my prayers and give me the ability to understand this teaching. Maybe you can be part of God’s answer to my prayer and help me to understand.

I sure hope I don’t get suspended, but we have a saying here in the south:

Using condoms is like washing your feet with your socks on!