Why not condoms?

[LittleSoldier]

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.

God bless you too, Lightbee. I get insulted easily and really have to watch myself because then my posts do become uncharitable and after those twenty minutes are up I can’t delete them. They’re there to mock me every single day.

I have to keep telling myself we’re all in this together and we’re all children of God. :grouphug:

I hope you have a wonderful Easter!

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

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

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

I don’t think the problem is the condom itself. A condom doesn’t have any consciousness or culpability. Obviously. Please bear with me.

God could easily put a tiny hole in the condom, or make it disappear completely, or transmogrify it so that it becomes a white rabbit. The problem is that a man and a woman decide they want to have sexual intercourse and attempt to stop the conception of a child even if the woman is fertile.

They are not willing to accept God’s gift - the fostering of a child.

We should always accept God’s gifts because they are given in love.

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

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

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth. *

 

[crazzeto]

OraLabora: sorry I do have a response, I’ve been too busy though to type it

 

[crazzeto]

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.

Well thank goodness for that, but that was sort of where you jumped into the conversation.

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.

She would not be, contraception is intrinsically evil per the CCC. There’s good reason for it, I’m not sure if I’ve discussed it in this thread, I’m sure someone has. Condoms, and other barrier or chemical contraceptives (i.e. anything that doesn’t prevent birth through abstiance) is designed first and formost (even condoms) to allow for permissive sexual behavior. I.e. the primary purpose is to seperate the life giving aspect of sexuality from the act, there by changing one’s attitude about the act from being sacramental to purely self indulgent. This has already lead to a host of major problems in our culture, for instance abortion.

In the normal case, it would be better for the woman to know who she’s marrying. That is to say, to know this person is living a moral life too, that way neither will be getting infected with HIV. But allowing for the senario you describe, you’re allowing for immorality, that is to say the possibility of infidelity or other such factors which would introduce the possibility of infection when otherwise it should (virtually) not exist.

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.

Ugh, the “e” word… I’m sorry, it is a word which otherwise should be great, but it’s been usurped and twisted. I’m inclinded these days to think “empowerment” (no matter who it is being “empowered”) is the answer. At anyrate, as I describe, the answer isn’t condoms, nor is it empowerment. It’s living a good moral life, against I cite Uganda as opposed to the rest of Africa. I even cite Thiland, which the UN has deluted it’s self into thinking condoms has turned around the AIDS crisis. But again, empirical data show’s clearly that what turned Thiland around was a simutanious drop in immoral sexual behaviour (at the same time condoms were being distrubted). In the rest of Africa this hasn’t happend, and they still have AIDS.

This makes it pretty clear, women being “empowered” didn’t do anything, condoms didn’t do anything… What turns around an AIDS crisis (yes I know you said you agree, but wait for it) and in fact actually protects anyone, even here in the USA where we don’t have an analogous crisis is obeying the natural law.

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.

 

[OraLabora]

But allowing for the senario you describe, you’re allowing for immorality, that is to say the possibility of infidelity or other such factors which would introduce the possibility of infection when otherwise it should (virtually) not exist.

Only a fool would think that the world will exist without immorality. I am not “allowing” for it. I am recognizing that it is going to exist whether we like it or not, and if it does exist, we need to deal with it.

 

[crazzeto]

Only a fool would think that the world will exist without immorality. I am not “allowing” for it. I am recognizing that it is going to exist whether we like it or not, and if it does exist, we need to deal with it.

No, you’re pandering to it rather than insisting one raise them selves above it. More over, you’re endorsing means which you have already agreed, are ineffective to do so.

 

[CD_Michels]

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?

(for those who didn’t read my other posts in this thread, please go back and read them before commenting so I don’t have to repeat everything I have already posted.)

Yes, God wanted sex to be pleasureful, It is a great gift to us. However, most people who entered into the marriage act of sex before marriage twisted the meaning of sex. This twisted meaning has really come to define sex for most people (thanks to the culture of our world and today’s media). With this twisted understanding of sex, of course most people will have a hard time understanding why condoms are a sin. Just saying, ‘it keeps God’s plan for children out of it’, doesn’t do it justice and really opens up a whole new set of arguments which we have seen here in this thread…

To answer your question about what it was that changed my view of sex. It really was a deep contemplation of what the Church teaches about sex and marriage and why. As humans, we are created in the image and likeness of God. God is a family. The Father loves the Son so completely and the Son loves the Father the same. This love is so total and unrestricted that it can only be contained in a third, The Holy Spirit. It is in the marriage act of sex that we complete this image of God.

The desire that should bring a person into sex, is the desire to unite the husband and wife in a unifying experience with God. When you have experienced sex in this manner, having sex with a condom feels very cold and empty.

If it is the pursuit of pleasure that causes one to want to have sex, it is a slippery slope that creates a difficult place to draw a line of what is acceptable and what is not. And like all slippery slopes, the farther down the slope you go, the harder it is to stop the decline as well as to return to the correct position.

Again, when we had sex ONLY when she was infertile and were using NFP to allow us to continue our lives as we desired, ‘unrestricted by children’, sex was very selfish and not open. We were selfish as a couple. Nothing is better and more uniting then a sexual experience when you have full knowledge and acceptance that this very act could be creating a new life.

Now to take this whole thing deeper yet, a person would have to look at the reasons people get married today verses 50+ years ago. The number one reason people got married in the past was to start a family and they didn’t wait. Marriage as well as sex has been skewed and really is the underlying issues for ‘why not condoms?’, but that should probably be in a different thread.

 

[Lightbee]

As humans, we are created in the image and likeness of God. God is a family. The Father loves the Son so completely and the Son loves the Father the same. This love is so total and unrestricted that it can only be contained in a third, The Holy Spirit. It is in the marriage act of sex that we complete this image of God.

Thanks so much for sharing this. So much of what you’ve written rings true to me. It’s immensely challenging when, like me, you’ve been used to a completely different purpose for sex. But also it is very attractive.

I definitely have sooooo much to learn…

 

[crazzeto]

Thanks so much for sharing this. So much of what you’ve written rings true to me. It’s immensely challenging when, like me, you’ve been used to a completely different purpose for sex. But also it is very attractive.

I definitely have sooooo much to learn…

Isn’t it great (and perhaps scary! lol) when you first start listening for the truth?

 

[Lycorth]

Indeed, some great posts, here!

Just wish I could get others to listen…

 

[camerong]

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.

I have to disagree with you. Insisting on using a condom, for whatever reason, is a sin. Frankly, in light of eternity, it may be that contracting HIV is a better fate than committing a grave, possibly mortal, sin. Christ, after all, said it would be better to pluck our our eyes or cut off our hands than to sin.

 

[Lauds]

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.

I believe it should be ok to use condoms

 

[Erich]

I believe it should be ok to use condoms

Seeing as you quoted the original post in this thread, did you come to this conclusion before or after reading the entire thread?

 

[OraLabora]

I have to disagree with you. Insisting on using a condom, for whatever reason, is a sin. Frankly, in light of eternity, it may be that contracting HIV is a better fate than committing a grave, possibly mortal, sin. Christ, after all, said it would be better to pluck our our eyes or cut off our hands than to sin.

Not if you have young children to care for.

It may be still a sin but the circumstances probably make it a venial sin.

God is just, God is merciful. He will always make His mercy available if someone in horrible circumstances is forced to make terrible choices and under duress, makes the wrong choice.

If that is not the case, then the death of Jesus on the Cross was pointless.

 

[peary]

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 Church’s teaching is based on Natural Law; that is, natural law is good because God created it and He put it there for our advantage. ‘Avoiding’ a fertile time of the month with NFP is quite different than *purposely and willfully *putting a barrier there (such as condoms) to prevent pregnancy. The purpose of NFP is not to prevent pregnancy so much as it is to *still be open *to the transmission of life for God’s purposes.

The insidious reason for birth control is for population control and to separate sex from its procreative meaning that God intended. Its purpose was to make sex into recreation rather than procreation.

 

[Metalhead_Harry]

The teaching about life beginning at conception is probably in “Humanae Vitae if not other documents.
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.” Not necessarily because my neighbor uses condoms with his wife and he’s 39 and they’ve been married over 10 year’s. They use condoms and yet they probably give themselves to each other (i wouldn’t know cause i’m not with them while they are doing it.)

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’.

Yes condoms do fail… but if i really could just stab anyone i wanted, it would be a bigger wetwork (meaning bloodbath) than the Night of The Long Knives for the Nazis (my grandpa was one). Man, such good times would those be…

 

[edwest2]

Why not? Sex is designed for having babies. That’s it’s function. Pleasure is in second place.

In the late 1960s, the Sexual revolution claimed Pleasure was first, followed by babies, maybe.

True love means true commitment. How about self-control? It’s cheaper than a condom.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TrueLight]

I’m in my forties with three kids (ages 18, 16 &13).

If I got married again, I would use condoms. I cannot believe that God would not understand my plight and expect me to risk pregnancy at my age.

In my case, I would not be getting married to have children for sure.

 

[SnakeMauler]

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.

Condoms are awkward and tight and I don’t see why anyone would want to wear them anyway. it’s like telling your partner, “you’re dirty.” Just do it on the days where the woman can’t get pregnant. Its not like we’re animals and can’t “hold it in.” I mean if you can’t stop yourself from having sex, what does that say about life?

 

[crazzeto]

I’m in my forties with three kids (ages 18, 16 &13).

If I got married again, I would use condoms. I cannot believe that God would not understand my plight and expect me to risk pregnancy at my age.

In my case, I would not be getting married to have children for sure.

Condoms are not the only way to regulate births, they just happen to be an intrinsically evil approch. Therefore, the usage of condoms, no matter the reasoning is grave matter. It just is, your age and number of children not withstanding.

That doesn’t mean however, that God didn’t provide us effective, moral ways in which to regulate births. I would encourage you to reach out to your parish/diocese about NFP. Yes, there’s a lot more to know about it than having your husband slip on a condom, but it is a very beautiful, effective and moral way to regulate births.

God bless, I will be praying for you!