Why not condoms?

[Lightbee]

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.

…

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…

This is a great explanation. Thanks for the posting. It’s much appreciated.

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’.

LOL! - Extreme example but very good point.

 

[Lightbee]

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…

I read this exact point - that we are imbued with a soul at conception and therefore life - in a Catholic writing. Given my limited knowledge, it could have only been an answer on Catholic Answers website, or in the Catechism. I will get back to you on where exactly, but I have not based this comment on science at all (which depending on who you read has different ideas of when life begins. Certainly a legal definition doesn’t admit life until about the 26th week I believe).

 

[Lightbee]

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.

I agree with you that that is a really beautiful explanation. Thank you so much for sharing it.

 

[Lightbee]

God designed human biology.
Is God’s design not good enough for you?

Kay Cee - I feel this comment was very uncalled for. As you will see if you read my original question in the intent it was posted, I am seeking information about Catholic beliefs which are contrary to what I have been taught all my life.

Just because I have not the teaching or understanding that you do yet doesn’t mean I am rejecting God’s design. The very fact I am reaching out for answers rather than just carrying on my merry way would show that I have great respect for God’s design.

 

[Lightbee]

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.

That is a really great perspective. Thank you so much for sharing it.

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.

Thank you for the references. I will be looking into those more.

 

[Lightbee]

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.

Thanks so much for sharing your experience with NFP. It really does provide a new way of looking at things. I am curious, based on your experience which redefined sex as a procreative act (if I’m understanding rightly), how it works as a unitive act - which is the other goal (? I’m struggling to find the right word) for marital relations. Surely that is based on giving and receiving pleasure with your spouse, not just creating children?

 

[Lightbee]

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.

You make a very good point. Hmm… You’ve given me a lot to think about…

 

[Lightbee]

Gen 2:24 – That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

When barriers (either physical or chemical) are in place, the two cannot become one body. They remain two bodies separated by a barrier.

I hadn’t ever looked at that verse in that way before. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

In fact- I don’t know how I’m going to sleep tonight with all the stuff I’ve got running around in my head to think about now!!

 

[Lightbee]

God’s love is a procreative love, i.e. it creates. Our love, at it’s most God like (the wedding embrasse) should follow this standard.

I really like that way of looking at things. Thank you.

 

[Lightbee]

Here’s a good article that explains the Jewish roots of traditional Catholic teaching. It even explains your next question about the “m” word.

ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php

It’s a bit of a read, but well worth the 10 minutes it’ll take.

Thanks so much for that. I’ve definitely got some “light reading” for my Easter weekend!!

 

[crazzeto]

A few points need to be addressed:

He was talking about HIV infection, not AIDS specifically which is a syndrome associated with later stages of HIV infection. Also, “terminal” refers to a phase of a disease, not the disease itself. HIV infection is a chronic infection. AIDS is an advanced phase of the disease. “Terminal” is the phase of AIDS (or any other disease) when death is imminent. Some people with HIV will go on to die of other causes than their infection. Also, AIDS is a blood-borne pathogen that is transmitted by the exchange of or contamination with body fluids. Sex is perhaps the most common means of transmission, but not the only one. Google Dr. Lucille Teasdale.

But, semantics aside, I agree with you that condoms are not an a completely effective means of preventing HIV infection.

In order to be controlled, HIV requires (for most) a prohibitivly expensive drug regimine, thus regardless of whether you’re talking HIV or AIDS in technical terms, once your infected you best consider your self as having a terminal illness.

The failure rate of condoms is fairly known and relatively constant. It is safe to assume that with millions of daily acts of coitus with condoms, a finite number will result in condom failure, and a finite proportion of that number of that number will result in HIV infection, and a finite number of HIV-infected people will die of it.

And thus your flawed logic begins, you’ve forgotten an important factor which the Pope addressed not all too terribly long ago, and got lambasted for. More below the rest of your post.

As a result, by “promoting” condom use, you are actually condemning a fairly predictable number of people to death, should they follow your advice. Condoms are no better than a roulette game although the odds are slightly better than one in six.

It is the reason the Church could never promote condom use to fight HIV. She cannot promote an act that will lead to certain death for some who follow her advice. She can only promote what is known to be virtually 100% effective, abstinence. We know compliance with that is a pipe dream, but the choice then becomes the choice of the individual. Responsible behaviour starts at home.

Condoms may make some sense as a epidemiological means of reducing the overall infection rate. However the Church is in the business of counseling individuals in what is known Truth and on behaviours that lead to salvation, not in the business of weighing relative outcomes.

But, big caveat here… we have to include cultural factors into the equation. In some cultures males are rather dominant. If a non-infected wife is, for all intents and purposes forced to have coitus with her infected husband, would she be sinning in insisting, and perhaps convincing him, to don a condom prior to violating her? Or that in the heat of the moment she manages to slip one on him without him noticing in the heat of passion?

In an area where economic conditions are so harsh that women feel compelled to turn to prostitution to survive, should they insist their johns use condoms? Common sense says yes as it is the only real weapon they have to hopefully retard their infection with HIV, even though they are so ineffective that eventually most prostitutes in their area will become infected.

Unfortunately the world is not such a neat place where everything goes as it should. Sometimes plain common sense must prevail over a theological truth that is so far from the harsh reality of very miserable lives that it is almost irrelevant.

I think in such a circumstance it becomes a legitimate act of self-defense.

You’ve forgotten human nature, the failure rate of condoms is really an aside. Please, look at the African AIDS crisis, the only nation on the Continent which is having success against aids is Uganda, you want to know why they’re the only one’s succeeding? Because they’re the ones the Church has the greatest control over, UN-AIDS isn’t there passing out condoms. Instead they’re getting a heavy dose of Abstiance only from the Church, and it’s working.

Contrast with the rest of the continent, getting condoms all the time from UN-AIDS. They’re still in the midst of a ravaging epidemic, why? Because not only do condoms not always get used properly, but as the Pontiff correctly pointed out it embolds bad behaviour! You start having more sex because you think you’re safe, but then of course in your rush to have sex you don’t put on the condom right away at all, or maybe you don’t put it on properly etc etc.

This can be seen played out even in UN-AIDS so called “success stories” with condoms. In nations like Thiland, the AIDS crisis was averted when risky sexual behaviour was curbed. Short and sweet, condoms are just plain bad medicine all around. Best stick to Gods plan, it’s your best bet for keeping out of trouble.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay Cee - I feel this comment was very uncalled for. As you will see if you read my original question in the intent it was posted, I am seeking information about Catholic beliefs which are contrary to what I have been taught all my life.

Just because I have not the teaching or understanding that you do yet doesn’t mean I am rejecting God’s design. The very fact I am reaching out for answers rather than just carrying on my merry way would show that I have great respect for God’s design.

I did not intend it to be insulting.

I thought it was a legitimate question. Why would anybody want to redesign his biology if he thought God’s design was already good enough? He wouldn’t, would he? But if he thought he should redesign his biology, doesn’t it follow that he thinks God’s design isn’t good enough?

It was an exercise in logic, which is why I began my post with a syllogism. It was never intended to be about you personally; I used “you” in the generic sense. But you seem to have read into my post an insulting, saracastic tone that was never intended.

I apologize that its tone was ambiguous.

 

[Erich]

Is it a sin despite the fact that she is menopaused?

Abraham’s wife Sarah and Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth were thought to be infertile… until, of course, they gave birth to Isaac and John the Baptist respectively.

What if Abraham and Zechariah had used condoms? Fortunately, the nearest Walgreen’s was still two- to four thousand years away

 

[Paul1961]

Abraham’s wife Sarah and Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth were thought to be infertile… until, of course, they gave birth to Isaac and John the Baptist respectively.

What if Abraham and Zechariah had used condoms? Fortunately, the nearest Walgreen’s was still two- to four thousand years away

If he can part the Red Sea, I really don’t think a pinhole in a condom would strain him too much.

 

[crazzeto]

If he can part the Red Sea, I really don’t think a pinhole in a condom would strain him too much.

From the Douay-Rhiems bible:

(Gen 38:6) And Juda took a wife for Her, his first born, whose name was Thamar.

(Gen 38:7) And Her, the first born of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.

(Gen 38:8) Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.

(Gen 38:9) He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.

(Gen 38:10) And therefore the Lord slew him,*** because he did a detestable thing***:

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Some animals “can” mate at any time, but they usually don’t. And this makes sense because for a male to waste precious resources on an infertile female would be very unproductive, especially in the case of say, a male praying mantis who has his head bitten off by the female after mating.

Attributing a non-fertile period in human females to an intent by God makes perfect sense. He created us. It’s up to Him. To use NFP (either to start a pregnancy or to use sexual relations as an act of physical love between husband and wife) gives merit to God’s intent.

In any case, if a pregnancy starts during what is mistakenly seen as a “non-fertile” period, the pregnancy is a gift from God and is seen as such among Catholics.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

Kay Cee - I feel this comment was very uncalled for. As you will see if you read my original question in the intent it was posted, I am seeking information about Catholic beliefs which are contrary to what I have been taught all my life.

Just because I have not the teaching or understanding that you do yet doesn’t mean I am rejecting God’s design. The very fact I am reaching out for answers rather than just carrying on my merry way would show that I have great respect for God’s design.

Lightbee, I honestly think you read Kay Cee’s post in a way that made it sound condescending and insulting. I’m sure she didn’t mean it that way. I’ve read many of her posts and she is always charitable.

That’s one of the problems with using the Internet to carry on conversations. All the body language and speech inflections are missing. Several times I’ve gotten very angry while reading a post and then have gone back and read it again in a different light and it has a completely different meaning.

I’m sure she didn’t mean to insult you, but to help you with your questions.

God bless!

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[OraLabora]

A few points need to be addressed:

In order to be controlled, HIV requires (for most) a prohibitivly expensive drug regimine, thus regardless of whether you’re talking HIV or AIDS in technical terms, once your infected you best consider your self as having a terminal illness.

And thus your flawed logic begins, you’ve forgotten an important factor which the Pope addressed not all too terribly long ago, and got lambasted for. More below the rest of your post.

You’ve forgotten human nature, the failure rate of condoms is really an aside. Please, look at the African AIDS crisis, the only nation on the Continent which is having success against aids is Uganda, you want to know why they’re the only one’s succeeding? Because they’re the ones the Church has the greatest control over, UN-AIDS isn’t there passing out condoms. Instead they’re getting a heavy dose of Abstiance only from the Church, and it’s working.

Contrast with the rest of the continent, getting condoms all the time from UN-AIDS. They’re still in the midst of a ravaging epidemic, why? Because not only do condoms not always get used properly, but as the Pontiff correctly pointed out it embolds bad behaviour! You start having more sex because you think you’re safe, but then of course in your rush to have sex you don’t put on the condom right away at all, or maybe you don’t put it on properly etc etc.

This can be seen played out even in UN-AIDS so called “success stories” with condoms. In nations like Thiland, the AIDS crisis was averted when risky sexual behaviour was curbed. Short and sweet, condoms are just plain bad medicine all around. Best stick to Gods plan, it’s your best bet for keeping out of trouble.

I am NOT promoting the use of condoms against HIV. Perhaps what I wrote wasn’t clear enough about that.

I am aware of, and I fully agree with, the Holy Father’s analysis.

There may be, however, circumstances where, say a wife who is not infected with a husband who is, and whose husband insists on conjugal relations, she may be moral by insisting he use a condom, for her own self-defense. It might not be a perfect defense. But she may have the choice between sex with a condom, or a good beating. That unfortunately is the reality in some parts of the world.

In those areas, empowerment of women would be a much more powerful defense than condoms. Alas, we are not in a perfect world, but a fallen one. Until that happens I think a woman is justified in taking whatever limited means she has at her disposal to defend herself.

Not that it matters, most likely he won’t wear the condom anyway and she’ll end up infected.

Statistically, in some parts of the world I think you have as much chance at getting 10% of people to practice chastity (abstinence before marriage, spouse as only sex partner after marriage) as getting 10% condom use. And 10% chastity will definitely produce a better result than 10% condom use for reasons that are a combination of condom failure and promiscuity being encouraged by condom use.

 

[Lightbee]

Kaycee & Little Soldier

Thank you for your replies and for clearing up the miscommunication. I had been feeling insulted, but definitely feel better now that it’s been explained. The lack of tone and body language is definitely one of the issues with the internet - or any written word for that matter.

Bless you both.

 

[Holly3278]

Condoms close the marital act to the possibility of life just as other forms of birth control do. See the following article for more information:

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp