Why not condoms?

[Lightbee]

Hi everyone

I’m trying to get my head around some of the Catholic doctrines which I’ve not had to deal with before in my Protestant life.

I can totally get on board with the no abortions and no birth control that prevents implantation (e.g. pill or IUD) because that would essentially be depriving a soul of life. I certainly would not ever want to have to answer to God about why I thought I had a right to kill another person who was helpless and in my care - whether I knew it or not.

But since the Catholic church has declared that life begins at conception (can’t remember where I read that, but please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), what’s wrong with using a barrier method such as condoms to prevent pregnancy? How is that any different from just avoiding a fertile time of the month with NFP? I figure if God wants to give someone a child, its going to be just as easy for Him to cause a couple to conceive at a non-fertile time as it is to make a teeny, tiny hole in a condom (or cause it to fail in one of the other myriad of ways it can).

I would be really grateful of some learned advice to help me understand this teaching more.

 

[LilyM]

Hi everyone

I’m trying to get my head around some of the Catholic doctrines which I’ve not had to deal with before in my Protestant life.

I can totally get on board with the no abortions and no birth control that prevents implantation (e.g. pill or IUD) because that would essentially be depriving a soul of life. I certainly would not ever want to have to answer to God about why I thought I had a right to kill another person who was helpless and in my care - whether I knew it or not.

But since the Catholic church has declared that life begins at conception (can’t remember where I read that, but please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), what’s wrong with using a barrier method such as condoms to prevent pregnancy? How is that any different from just avoiding a fertile time of the month with NFP? I figure if God wants to give someone a child, its going to be just as easy for Him to cause a couple to conceive at a non-fertile time as it is to make a teeny, tiny hole in a condom (or cause it to fail in one of the other myriad of ways it can).

I would be really grateful of some learned advice to help me understand this teaching more.

The teaching about life beginning at conception is probably in Humanae Vitae if not other documents.

The ban on condoms is all to do with the nature of the sex act, which is designed for two purposes, the first being procreative and the second unitive. Of course condoms frustrate the procreative purpose of sex, by preventing the pregnancy that is a natural outcome of the sex.

Sex with a condom is actually NEITHER unitive NOR procreative. There is a mental barrier that goes along with the literal physical barrier that means one is not totally giving of oneself to one’s spouse when indulging in sex with a condom - thus not in true union with them. So sex with a condom achieves neither of the purposes for which it was designed and is illicit.

For similar reasons masturbation is also a grave sin - for it too is contrary to both the unitive and the procreative purposes of sex. Remember Onan being punished in Genesis for using the withdrawal method of contraception? God has plans for us all before we are even conceived, and Onan was disobeying God’s wish that he give his brother’s widow a child.

NFP, on the other hand, is OK because God DESIGNED women to be infertile for portions of each month, and yet still capable of sex during those times. Most if not all other animals can ONLY have sex at the times when the female is ovulating and not at times when she isn’t. The fact that humans are designed the way they are tells us that there’s nothing wrong with doing what humans naturally do - choose not to have sex at times - and coinciding those periods of abstinence with the woman’s fertile times.

I’d suggest you read John Paul II’s ‘Theology of the Body’ (and/or Christopher West’s commentary on it) for a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind the ban on condoms.

Your reasoning of ‘if God wants someone to have a child He can easily cause a rupture in the condom’ is fallacy. By that same logic, of course, if God wants someone to have a child He can cause their pill or IUD to fail or be ineffective, and all these methods DO fail surprisingly frequently. The fact that they can and do fail doesn’t justify their use - to say so is like saying ‘I’ll just stab everyone I don’t like, after all God can heal them and let them survive’.

 

[choose_to_love]

First, I would say that science, not the Church, shows that life begins at conception. If you mean when does ensoulment occur, the Church has not specifically defined that, but the overwhelming balance of opinion is in favor of immediate ensoulment.

Two, intentionally sterilizing the marital act is very different from respecting the way we are created in God’s own trinitarian image (have you read any theology of the body material?). In NFP, the wife is sterile naturally, i.e., the way God designed her, and NFP respects that design.

Responsible parenthood means prayerfully considering what the couple is being called to do by God, with reference to one spouse existing responsibilities to the other spouse, the existing family, and to society. NFP is one moral means of accomplishing that good end of responsible parenting.

 

[phoooiee]

When I came back to the Church after many years of absence, I spoke to the priest and told him that this was my one objection.

His explanation really surprised me and I thought it was very beautiful.

What he said was that avoiding artificial birth control forces the man to understand the woman’s body, and that the two must work together to understand one another in order to practice NFP. He said that at the time that artificial birth control became mainstream the Church predicted that women would start to be treated as objects and that this has in fact happened as we can see from the mainstreaming of pornography and other trends in society.

For me the bottom line is that the connection between the spouses is incomplete through the use of artificial birth control. Less is asked of them- things become “easier” so neither spouse really experiences the other exactly as God created them.

 

[Kay_Cee]

God designed human biology.
God does not err.
Therefore, God did not err when He designed human biology.

Why would you use condoms to thwart God’s design? Did God make a mistake when He designed men, a mistake you will correct for Him by adding a condom? Is God’s design not good enough for you?

The use of any kind of contraception seeks to re-design our human biology. It’s essentially telling God He doesn’t know what He’s doing, but we know better than He does.

 

[hellopeople]

God designed human biology.
God does not err.
Therefore, God did not err when He designed human biology.

Why would you use condoms to thwart God’s design? Did God make a mistake when He designed men, a mistake you will correct for Him by adding a condom? Is God’s design not good enough for you?

The use of any kind of contraception seeks to re-design our human biology. It’s essentially telling God He doesn’t know what He’s doing, but we know better than He does.

This same argument could be used against prosthetic limbs…or back surgery, or all sorts of medical treatments we use today. What about a pace maker? Isn’t that re-designing human biology?

 

[laomath]

As stated before, the Church condemns all forms of ABC (artificial birth control) because all of them violate the nature of the marital embrace. But, from a married standpoint, I would be violating my vows if we were to use ABC. Let me explain.

When I got married, I was asked if I came freely without reservation. I said ‘yes’. Right then, I made the vow to love Freely and Totally. I was also asked if I promised to be faithful and if I would accept children as a gift from God. I said ‘yes’. There, I made the vow to love Faithfully and Fruitfully.

So Vows = Free, total, faithful, fruitful. Each time we renew our marriage covenant with the marital embrace, we are supposed to be saying yes to all those vows again.

When contraception is used, it violates at least three of these vows. Whether its a condom or chemical birth control, I cannot give my self free or totally if I am witholding my fertility. Obviously, I am not giving myself fruitfully. These vows are not just things to do every once in a while. What if I was only faithful once in a while? No. These vows are to be fulfilled everytime we embrace.

I would also suggest to read Theology of the Body and Christopher West’s Commentary. But, if you’re just looking for some good answers, try “The Good News about Sex and Marriage” By Christopher West. It is written in Q & A format and may answer a lot of your questions.

God Bless you!

 

[phoooiee]

This same argument could be used against prosthetic limbs…or back surgery, or all sorts of medical treatments we use today. What about a pace maker? Isn’t that re-designing human biology?

The difference here is a difference of purpose. Artificial contraception does not heal anything.

 

[laomath]

This same argument could be used against prosthetic limbs…or back surgery, or all sorts of medical treatments we use today. What about a pace maker? Isn’t that re-designing human biology?

That’s a flawed arguement. Those treatments are efforts to make the human body work the way God created it. The individual’s body may need a limb or surgery or a pace maker, but God’s design of the healthy human body doesn’t. So, those treatments are helping an individual be more like the way God created the human body. Contraception re-designs the body to work the way God didn’t create it. In many cases, it purposefully breaks a normal working reproductive system to ensure that it won’t work for some human imposed convenient length of time.

 

[Kay_Cee]

This same argument could be used against prosthetic limbs…or back surgery, or all sorts of medical treatments we use today. What about a pace maker? Isn’t that re-designing human biology?

Not at all.

What you are describing is an attempt to bring the human body to the design for humanity that God created, not an attempt to take God’s design and re-create it into something else. In every case you describe, the attempt is to get back to God’s design.

Contraception seeks to thwart God’s design. What you are describing is trying to conform to God’s design. Huge difference.

 

[CD_Michels]

More information about sex in marriage can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church starting on paragraph 2360.

The issue of condoms was something I struggled with, especially after starting NFP with my wife. I the issue I had, was “how is this different?” Both are having sex without the intent of producing a life. AND that really is the issue. Condoms are always having sex for the pleasure and keeping God out of it.

CCC 2370 states that “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.”

So the issue here is with intent. My intent at that time was to have sex for my own benefit (for the pleasure) and not for the intent of creating a life with my wife. This is a VERY hard issue to break for those who have had sex before marriage, with contraception, and/or masturbated. Since all of those situations easily lead to a skewed view of sex.

The devil has done a very good job of convincing almost everyone that sex is for fun, not for making babies. The proof of this is how much people take offense to the idea that sex is for making babies. Some people react to this idea the way a child reacts to a lollipop being taken away.

Now back to my issue with NFP. The problem I was having, was I was using it for the wrong reasons. The reason it was developed was to help people know when to have sex to HAVE babies. If you are ONLY having sex when the wife is infertile, then it is only slightly better than other forms of contraception. If it is used to space children, that is ok (since we know that having too many children in a row can cause financial hardship).

NFP should be coupled with lots of praying as a couple for knowing God’s will for the timing of children.

 

[1ke]

I can totally get on board with the no abortions and no birth control that prevents implantation (e.g. pill or IUD) because that would essentially be depriving a soul of life. I certainly would not ever want to have to answer to God about why I thought I had a right to kill another person who was helpless and in my care - whether I knew it or not.

But since the Catholic church has declared that life begins at conception (can’t remember where I read that, but please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), what’s wrong with using a barrier method such as condoms to prevent pregnancy?

The “wrongness” of contraception is unrelated to the abortifacient nature of some methods of contraception.

Those methods of contraception that are abortifacient violate the 5th commandment in addition to the 6th commandment.

How is that any different from just avoiding a fertile time of the month with NFP?

Contraception is an action taken by the couple to attempt engaging in the sex act while simultaneously sterlizing it. Each act of intercourse must be ordered per se (by its nature) to unity and procreation. The contraceptive act disrupts the per se order to procreation (whether or not it is subjectively successful in preventing conception). NFP does not separate the unitive and procreative, elements. The woman is naturally infertile, and the act is unaltered and remains ordered to procreation, per se.

I figure if God wants to give someone a child, its going to be just as easy for Him to cause a couple to conceive at a non-fertile time as it is to make a teeny, tiny hole in a condom (or cause it to fail in one of the other myriad of ways it can).

And Satan said to Jesus, cast yourself down from the parapet and God will rescue you. And Jesus said, “Do not tempt the Lord your God.”

I would be really grateful of some learned advice to help me understand this teaching more.

Perhaps reading some Catholic books on sexuality would help.

 

[Doc_Keele]

NFP, on the other hand, is OK because God DESIGNED women to be infertile for portions of each month, and yet still capable of sex during those times. Most if not all other animals can ONLY have sex at the times when the female is ovulating and not at times when she isn’t.

Not true. Animals can have sex at any time. Human females are not “fertile” for part of the month because of the way that the mammalian genital tract functions, all mammals are very similar - so attributing the non-fertile period to an intent on God’s part that humans be able to practice NFP is pretty dubious.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Read this article right here.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml

If condoms are ok why not mutual masturbation or buggery? And if mutual masturbation and buggery are ok it is hard to see any real convincing reason for condemning homosexual acts. Also, if you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive kind of act it is hard to see why it should be restricted to people bound together in a union whose fundamental purpose is the raising of children. Then, if marriage is not about raising children there is really no reason why is should be restricted to people of the opposite sex either. You see, once you approve contraception the whole tapestry of Christian sexual ethics comes unravelled.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Another fallacious slippery slope argument!

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Another fallacious slippery slope argument!

Sometimes a slippery slope argument is fallacious and sometimes it is not. It is not a fallacy to say that the same rule should be applied to everyone. The same logic is applied in condemning contraception, premarital sex, and sodomy. So, if you reject the logic and accept one act then you should accept all of them or come up with another convincing reason for accepting one and not the other.

 

[phoooiee]

Not true. Animals can have sex at any time. Human females are not “fertile” for part of the month because of the way that the mammalian genital tract functions, all mammals are very similar - so attributing the non-fertile period to an intent on God’s part that humans be able to practice NFP is pretty dubious.

My understanding was that animals could only have sex when the female was in heat?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Sometimes a slippery slope argument is fallacious and sometimes it is not

Yes, I know, which is why my statement wasn’t a tautology

It is not a fallacy to say that the same rule should be applied to everyone

I didn’t state why it was fallacious.

The same logic is applied in condemning contraception, premarital sex, and sodomy. So, if you reject the logic and accept one act then you should accept all of them or come up with another convincing reason for accepting one and not the other.

There’s plenty of reasons for not equating contraception and sodomy. The Catholic Churc’s logic is flawed, and not a good reason to equate contraception with premarital sex and sodomy.

 

[Doc_Keele]

My understanding was that animals could only have sex when the female was in heat?

No, not true.

 

[rpp]

No, not true.

Your answer, while technically correct for many animal, is misleading. Animals have little or no voluntary control over their sexual impulse. That is why animals go into “heat” and give off scents containing pheromones to attract and excite the opposite gender.

People, on the other hand, do have voluntary control. Free will is one of the attributes that separates us from animals.