Why It’s Okay To Speak Religiously in the Face of Tragedy »

When Can Catholics Use Condoms? Part II

August 20, 2012 By Marc 131 Comments

I learned a lesson with my last post — don’t think out loud on the Internet. People freak out, the Friendly Atheist gets his friendly on, and all sorts. But lesson learned, the upswing of it all is that thanks to the remarkably thoughtful comments and correspondence with people far more intelligent than myself, I can happily say I was wrong in regards to the question of whether a married couple with an HIV-infected individual could have sex with a condom.

The problem that I began thinking of at the end of my last post, the fact that the condom never fully reduces HIV risk, seems to be the problem that sealed the deal (pun in there somewhere?) for most people. And I would agree…almost. Love is desiring the ultimate good of the beloved. Risking the health of your beloved — even if she wants you to — is not to desire her ultimate good.

But this has nothing to do with the contraceptive nature of the condom, and it seems to me that the premise is subjective. For instance, say you have a mild cold. Is it wrong for your spouse, knowing you have a cold, to kiss you, and you her? I don’t think so.

In that kiss you are – technically speaking — risking the health of your beloved. But colds are little things, while kisses are beneficial, ennobling and sanctifying to the human person, and so most of us would see it as no crime against love, to intentionally risk the beloved’s health for a smooch. And so the premise (risking the health of your beloved — even if she wants you to — is not to desire her ultimate good) becomes a matter of degree that hinges on the severity of the disease.

The better argument is simply that this “never-100%” quality of the condom takes away its justification via the principle of Double Effect. This principle states that the good effect (disease prevention) must outweigh the bad effect (contraception) in order for condom use to be licit. It does not state that the probable good effect (which is what the condom actually presents) must outweigh the bad effect. Thus it’s not just that it’s never right to risk the health of your spouse, it’s that the reality of this ever-present risk makes it impossible for your disease-preventing condom-use to outweigh the unintended contraceptive effect…almost.

Even here there is a problem. The condom does not just come with a risk of failure in regards to STD prevention. It comes with a risk of failure in regards to contraception. Much of the counterargument took as an assumption that the condom was only partially reducing your risk of disease, while totally eliminating the chance of you getting pregnant. If this was the case, I’d agree, the matter is clear cut and dried, and condom use in this situation would fail to meet the principle of Double Effect, and would thus be illicit. But condoms are not 100% effective at reducing pregnancy, and thus — like a balanced equation — that “probable” would go on either side of the mandate: The probable good effect (disease prevention) must outweigh the probable bad effect (contraception).

Does it? Now I used Humanae Vitae’s allowance of hormonal contraceptives for medical purposes to reason that it does. I was wrong. As a reader wrote:

While in the case of oral contraceptives taken for medicinal use, the contraceptives are not being taken *in order to have sex,* that cannot be said about the condoms. The “telos” of the condom in this case is dual: not only to avoid disease, but to have sex (in other words, the telos of wearing the condom would be to-avoid-disease-while-having-sex). In the case of the oral contraceptive, the woman “happens” to be infertile due to treatment for a disease while she is having sex with her husband, just as she might happen to be infertile because of any other environmental reason that affects her cycle (say, because she is breastfeeding, or pregnant, or undergoing chemotherapy). But with the condom the man doesn’t “happen” to be anything: he is diseased and using the condom *in order to have sex* despite that. To give you a rather unpleasant analogy, it would be exactly the same thing, from a moral point of view, if the woman had some sort of condition that could give the man a disease if they engaged in vaginal intercourse, and so the couple decided to simply replace this with oral or anal intercourse all the way until climax.

Word. The fundamental issue then, is that the condom interrupts the unitive nature of the act. As the reader goes on to write:

My main point is that with condoms, the behavioral conditions of the act aren’t met: it is no longer the type of act that can be ordered toward procreation. To make a baseball analogy, the case of oral contraceptives that are taken to treat a disease, which make a woman infertile when she makes love to her husband, is like a neighborhood baseball team that shows up to play the New York Yankees. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the end of what they are doing (winning the baseball game), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end. But in the case of the condom, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats (assuming the other team can’t lend you any), so that even if you have the *intent* of winning a baseball game, what you are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because you are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

Now I’m understanding it better. You?

Filed Under: Another Look 131 Comments

« Dappled Things, My Dear Readers

Why It’s Okay To Speak Religiously in the Face of Tragedy »

http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Germain/755940081 James Germain

Hey, I knew you’d see it my way.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Germain/755940081 James Germain
  
  Also, FIRST! hehe
MC88

Good for you. Admitting error in a public forum takes guts – keep that humility and you’re head and shoulders above most bloggers by default.
Cal-J

”
I learned a lesson with my last post — don’t think out loud on the Internet.”

Well, it’s been a while, but you got it.
http://profiles.google.com/tobie.rose Rosemary M

That was put much more clearly and eloquently than my own attempt. Thanks for the interesting conversation.
ninjaandy1975

See, this kind of discussion is what I point to when some Catholics say the internet is nothing but a tool for evil. How long might it have taken you to find a sensible, satisfying answer to your question without the ability to connect immediately with other knowledgeable people?

And what doubts and fears might have resulted in the time you had to wait? Would you even have followed through to find the answer, if it proved too difficult? How many phone calls would you have made, or how many letters written, to track down theologians? How many trips to visit distant libraries that may have the books with the answers you seek? How much bad advice would result from these visits, how much bad information from the research, before you finally hit on something that made sense?

In short: God bless the internet.
Denise

You sought the truth, found it, and embraced it publicly. What more can a person ask for? Thanks for posting.
Askim

Great! Think we have all come to a good conclusion. And I think there’s nothing wrong with thinking out loud, that’s how the medievals gave these great principles. It was thought argumentation (through responde obviously) than we have great philosophical and theological writings. Congratulations for your humility and your posts. Keep it up!!!!
Askim

Sorry for the typos, my computer kind of slowed down when I was typing…
http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus

According to the USCCB contraception, in addition to treating conditions like endometriosis, can sometimes be licitly used in treating rape victims.

The USCCB in “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” Directive 36 provides the rubric for contraceptive use in an emergency room setting for rape victims:
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum”.

Its my understanding that Catholic theology dictates that there are two realities involved in sex. There is the physical reality which is the anatomical/physiological mechanics of sexual intercourse that is pleasure, reproduction etc. and then there is the theological reality that sex is procreative and unitive. Note that the physical reality of reproduction (the mere promulgation of the species also existent in every animal on Earth) is distinct from the theological reality of procreation (where man and women cooperate with God to bring a new person into the world) and pleasure is distinct from unity. Contraception (as distinct from abortifacients which are never permissible because they have as their action the destruction of a human embryo) is wrong because it violates the theological realities of procreation and unity. However, rape is neither procreative nor unitive and therefore contraception use to prevent pregnancy in this instance is acceptable.

Perhaps unsurprisingly this stance gets a lot of heat from fellow conservative Catholics who’ve told me that the USCCB is just flat out wrong – but they’ve never been able to offer a counter-argument. It seems to me that if the USCCB is wrong on this then NFP would also be wrong because you’re still preventing a potential pregnancy even though procreation and unity are not violated. Maybe the difference is that to use NFP properly one must remain open to life but the rape victim by their use of contraception cannot be open to life. However, it seems to me that a rape victim would have no more obligation to being open to life than, say, a celibate woman would have an obligation to being “open to life”. Such an obligation in the second case would imply that the woman had a responsibility to get pregnant which is untrue. I think the same would apply to a rape victim. What are your thoughts, Marc?
- jojosmom
  
  The explanation that I have heard is that the woman has as much right to protect her eggs (a part of her body) from her rapist as she does to protect the other parts of her body from her rapist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman attempting to fight off a rapist, and nothing wrong with her attempting to fight off any part of him. She has no right to kill an innocent person (through chemical abortion) in her attempt to defend herself though.
  The reason that contraceptives or anything that prevents the unitive aspect of sex is wrong is because it distorts what the couple is saying with their bodies. What they should be saying is renewing their wedding vows to love each other totally, faithfully, fruitfully and imaging Christ and the Church. In a rape situation this message is not there to begin with and so there is no truth to be distorted. It’s not a “well this good act is being corrupted with contraception”, it’s “this act should NEVER occur in the first place.”
  - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
    
    Yes, it all makes sense to me theologically. I wanted other opinions because some conservative Catholics have argued that the USCCB violates church doctrine by saying that contraception may be permissible in cases of rape and those are allegations I take very seriously. I’m no expert in church doctrine or canon law, however, so when the bishops say something and I can see no clear violation of Catholic doctrine present in their statement I’m going to obey my bishops.
    - Olivia
      
      Rape is an act of aggression and a woman has the right to defend herself against this act, even to the point of asking her attacker to wear a condom if there is even a chance (also in hopes of preventing diseases the rapist may carry). It is not consetual (sp?), therefore the Unitive aspect is missing, thus changing the nature of the act from sexual intercourse to violence against a woman.. In the hospital, if it can be reasonably ascertained that she has not ovulated then there can be drugs administered, spermicides, etc. to prevent ovulation at that time and “kill” sperm that may stick around until she ovulates. If a woman, such as myself, who practices NFP knows that she has ovulated recently then the Church’s teaching is that the woman is not permitted to take abortifacients but can, again, use spermicide to help prevent fertilization.
      
      Listening to your Bishops, even when you don’t understand the teaching is such a mature decision. I know it is hard for some, myself included, but I have faith in the Holy Spirit and the guidance they receive that far outweighs my abilities at times to put my selfishness aside and accept their teachings. Good for you.
      
      I don’t agree with the Catholic’s that do not accept the Church’s teachings on this. The Church is never unreasonable. To expect a woman to feel about sexual intercourse nad treat it the same as an attack against her body is ridiculous and the Church does not ask this of women, ever. I understand those hwo wish for this to be a 100% contraceptive free zone, that would be much easier, and it would not allow for “loopholes” but that is just the way life is. Case by case.
Mike R

This is still a legitimately debated issue in moral theology, though the heavy-hitters are coming down on the side you articulate in this post and it’s only a matter of time before something official is written on it, I’m sure. This is a good theological look at the issue: http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/crawford33-3.pdf

Incidentally, there are still debates about the use of a perforated condom for analysis in fertility treatment as well.
- enness
  
  Perforated? You mean deliberately putting holes in it?
  - Lin
    
    Yes. A small hole is made in the condom. A couple uses the perforated condom in a normal act of intercourse to collect a sperm sample for a semen analysis as part of an infertility work-up. The perforated condom allows the act to be open to life.
Noe

I figured/hoped there was some new data you were aware of on married couples where HIV/AIDS was a factor that triggered the first post, and was awaiting a followup with more unpacking…
Scott_In_OH

In reading the comments on Part I, I saw many people assert that the “unitive” outcome of sex is the exchange of fluid between penis and vagina (so a condom is always a problem since it prevents penis and vagina from touching). Where is this teaching coming from? I always thought sex was meant to be unitive in the sense of helping a man and woman become closer to each other emotionally and spiritually.
- silicasandra
  
  Unitive means the emotional and spiritual as well, but you can’t ignore the physical aspect either. The two become one flesh – man and woman physically joined together. I know in some forums I’ve participated in some contracepting folks have tried to argue that the unitive aspect is still present because of how they feel about their relations, but that isn’t enough – unitive means soul AND body. If one is not present, then the sex isn’t unitive.
  - Scott_In_OH
    
    That doesn’t make any sense to me, even at the physical level, given how much other physical contact occurs between two people have sex–tongues, hands, whatever.
    
    But you might be right that this is a formal Catholic teaching, and I just haven’t heard it. Can anyone point me somewhere to read the Church’s teaching on this?
    - silicasandra
      
      I am going to try and not be overly graphic here, but there is an enormous difference between merely touching (or being touched by) another person (even if that touch is intimate) and then having that person literally inside your body (or being inside that person).
      Based on your name, I am going to guess you are a man. I don’t think that necessarily means you “can’t” understand, but from my place as a woman and a wife, the “feel” of sexual intercourse – physical and emotional, and spiritual, are very, very different from all other touches shared between people. I can’t speak to what you have experienced, and my experiences don’t speak for all women – but I do think they have helped me understand Church teaching on sexuality.
      One great resource for you might be Dr. Greg Popcak’s book Holy Sex.
      - GoodCatholicGirl
        
        Just read a short review of Holy Sex. One “rule” was that a man must always climax while in his wife. Really?! So there are rules about how to have orgasms?!
      - pagansister
        
        If you are indeed a “GoodCatholicGirl” you know the Church feels it needs to be in your bedroom—with instructions–from men who supposedly are celibate.
      - GoodCatholicGirl
        
        Ah, no . . . . not the way I was taught in my Catholic high school. I had a wonderful biology teacher (a young widow who had been madly in love with her husband) who also taught the Catholic marriage course. She told us that when you are married, lovemaking is pretty much without rules. I remember one thing in particular very clearly – she told us that we would surprise ourselves at what we would say and do in the heat of the moment. I can’t imagine intellectualizing such an intimate act. I don’t think that is what God intended at al
      - pagansister
        
        GCG: If I read your post correctly it sounds like your biology teacher was smarter than the author of Holy Sex. That is good.
      - Crunchy Cradle Catholic
        
        From Christopher West: “The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other
        for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But
        stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act
        of normal intercourse is
        nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is
        needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked
        with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t
        necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as
        it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during
        actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm],
        but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if
        the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and
        consummation, it would be the loving
        thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so
        desired).”
      - Crunchy Cradle Catholic
        
        When God told Abram, at the age of 99, he was to be circumcised as a sign of God’s covenant, Abram didn’t tell God to get out of his bedroom, but he obeyed.
      - pagansister
        
        Sorry, but if I were a 99 year old man (and I’m certainly not) I think I’d be telling him to buzz off. Really? He was supposed to be 99! Ouch! IMO, much in the Bible is exaggerated, and this IMO again, would be one example. No one really knows if that is true. It could have been written to attempt to prove that one should do whatever their divine being needs to prove his/her all loyalty to said being.
      - http://www.crunchycradlecatholic.blogspot.com/ Crunchy Cradle Catholic
        
        IMO because I love God with with all of my being and I believe that my religion is truth, I will obey God in all aspects of my life, including those private areas of my life that happen in my bedroom. If we truly believe that God is all powerful and all knowing then we cannot hide from Him, even in marriage. Even in the context of marriage sex can be abused and spouses can use and abuse each other, that is why the Church cares what and how spouses love each other.
      - GoodCatholicGirl
        
        Yes, of course married people can be abusive to each other (and not just in their intimate lives) but if both people are into whatever it is they are doing when making love, there is no abuse. I seriously doubt God meant for loving, married couples to over-intelectualize their love lives. I cannot imagine why you would even think that you would have to “hide” from God. You can’t and I would think God knows when people are making beautiful love. Beautiful love doesn’t necessarily mean candlelight and roses; sometimes it’s a little, let’s say, earthier than that.
      - pagansister
        
        Well said!!!!!
      - pagansister
        
        Obviously even in the context of marital sex, partners can be abusive and unkind to each other. I would think that could go without saying. Those situations have nothing to do with what faith the couple might belong to, or whether there is any religion/faith involved at all. However, I contend that no religion has any business in my bedroom regarding my personal activities, nor should any church have any business in the bedroom with my partner. I sure would hate to think that some divine being was peeking into my activities. That’s just spooky. I can understand a religion teaching kindness, understanding etc. between spouses. In some cases, perhaps ministers, rabbis and maybe a priest(since they have not been married thus how do they know anything about the actual activity—-and supposedly do not enjoy a woman behind the scenes or worse, a child) and those leaders of other faiths could help counsel troubled marriages. In the case of a marriage counselor being a person of the cloth, I would expect the marriage bed might come into play a point of discussion. Otherwise—no ones business, IMO. In your case, your love of God, you are willing to “obey” in all aspects of your life. That’s good for you. I admire it but it’s so totally not for me. I, however, would not be willing to cut myself for some being I couldn’t see or even one I could. My version of a divine being wouldn’t ask his/her follower to hurt themselves to prove that loyalty. That would be the OT God, right? Jesus would have been circumcised being a Jewish man. Guess when the NT was written, the new religion decided not to order that of the men, or I would guess the RCC would have require it too, since the RCC considers itself to be the ONE true faith. What does that make all the other religions, I wonder, especially the ones much older? Lesser faiths? As for condoms? The use of those would not be the business of anyone else either. I know, be open to make babies, etc. but again, no one business of the Church—who would like more Catholics to be born.
      - Cal-J
        
        Your version of a divine being has been duly noted. We’re now moving on.
        
        The circumcision was a sign of the old Covenant, yes, and Jesus was circumcised.as a sign of his Obedience to the Law (and an act of particular humility on his part, as with the crucifixion). However, being the New Covenant himself, the circumcision as a sign of the covenant was rendered no longer necessary; Christian Baptism, as the rite of initiation, counts as a “circumcision of the Heart”, a personal sign that only God can see. Catholics *can* have their children circumcised if they so choose (so far, as the Church has no official teaching on the act itself beyond its being permissible), but they *cannot* do so under the idea that the act has any religious significance or is a means to salvation.
      - pagansister
        
        Yes, Cal-J, I knew that Catholic boys can be circumcised. I figured the Church would be sure to note if it was considered wrong. )
      - Cal-J
        
        Just making sure.
      - pagansister
        
        Thanks—I think. )
      - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
        
        Its exactly this kind of dualism that declares that what you do physically has no effect on you spiritually. The Church concerns itself with sexual matters because it recognizes the spiritual ramifications of disordered sexual actions and the spiritual fruits of ordered ones. Would you tell your doctor to “stay out of the bedroom?” So why would you say that to the doctor of your eternal soul?
      - pagansister
        
        Disordered sexual actions? What might that be? And actually, yes, I would tell my doctor to stay out of my bedroom if indeed the visit had nothing to do with sex and she decided to bring that subject up for some reason. (a cold, flu, rash, hangnail etc. ). As for the doctor of my eternal soul thing? I’m not living here on this planet worrying about what happens when I die. I know many religions so spend a lot of time on that subject.
      - Scott_In_OH
        
        Pagansister: The Church does indeed consider some sexual actions “disordered.” A search of the catechism finds lust, masturbation, and “homosexual acts” (although not homosexuality). A closer reading would, I think, find others. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2351
      - pagansister
        
        The things you listed as “disordered” I expected as an answer. I already knew the 3 things you listed. No surprises. Always found the masturbation one a bit weird, since I expect every male who discovers just what he can do with that organ of his, does it, no matter the faith. A penis does it on it’s own at times (as I’m sure you are well aware of). If a Catholic boy, he found that no hair grew on his palms! It is a shame that the Church saw fit to make a normal boy feel guilty about it. It is natural function, and not just for men. Easier for them, but not exclusively a male function. Most males won’t run out of ejaculate for the future marriage and fatherhood. As for “lust”? That is not easy to define. I expect we have all had that at one time or another. And then there is that awful “homosexual act”. Again, a matter of judgement on the part of the Church. Love is love and how it is expressed by 2 consenting adults, in private, not the business of the Church or anyone else for that matter. Condoms are useful and advised in that context.
      - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
        
        So if upon assessment your doctor decided that there was a medical issue related to sex that needed to be addressed you would not tell them to “stay out of your bedroom?” Likewise, if my faith tells me that my personal sex life and my spiritual life, which is also very personal, are interconnected and affect each other of course I would respect and consider the word of someone I viewed as a spiritual expert: a priest. This notion seems to offend you very much. You have every right to disagree and believe differently than me but no one is forcing those beliefs on you so you might want to just chill when you encounter those who treat their sexuality differently than you do and have heartfelt beliefs that you disagree with.
      - pagansister
        
        Right. Chilling! However, given that a priest is supposed to have no intimate contact with a female (though I’m sure many have and do and won’t get into the child abuse) how in the world is he going to give sexual advice? Really? Having many Catholic friends, I have no problem with what they believe. It is just not for me and they have no problem with that.
      - pagansister
        
        PS: I’m so not offended. Why should I be?
        Perhaps I assumed the priest would ask about and give sexual advise, but not where I’d go for that. Spiritual advise perhaps, given that he is a priest.
      - Scott_In_OH
        
        Thanks. I may try that Popcak’s book, although I was looking for something more authoritative. In looking at the Catechism, I see, for example, that masturbation is indeed forbidden (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2352), as is a man ejaculating outside his wife’s vagina (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2370). It’s not obvious to me where it is forbidden to put a barrier between the penis and the vaginal walls.
        
        (This may be a moot point, given the clear prohibition against contraception and against non-procreative male orgasm, but so many people on the previous thread said a barrier was a sin against the unitive purpose of sex that I wondered where the teaching came from.)
    - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
      
      This is how a Catholic theology professor explained it to me: when husband and wife perform the marital act with an openness to life they are saying with their bodies, “I love you so much that I want there to more people like you in this world.” Contraception says, “I like you, but not that much.”
      Many couples don’t want kids but can they say that they don’t want more people in the world like their beloved? If they can say that then their love is obviously lacking. If they do desire more people like their beloved in the world then by using contraception they contradict their desire/intentions by their actions. Naturally, spiritual and emotional discord results – even if the couple may not be conscious of the cause.
      - pagansister
        
        Christian O: many couples, even Catholic ones, do not want to be parents. Nothing wrong with that. I can’t see that it has anything to do with a lack of love just because they don’t “want more people in the world like their beloved”.
      - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
        
        There’s a fundamental difference between trying to have kids and desiring more like your beloved. Because of the infinite nature of love the absence of the latter can only be a poverty. My point is that condoms do more than simply prevent an exchange of fluids: there are spiritual and emotional impacts as well and it is because of these that the Church considers their use as immoral. Also, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned it is wrong for married couples to not want to be parents – although if they are unable to become parents that is another story.
      - Scott_In_OH
        
        Christian Ohnimus, you write that the “spiritual and emotional impacts [of condom use are why] the Church considers their use immoral”; the problem is not that they “simply prevent an exchange of fluids.”
        
        Yesterday, though, there we a number of commenters who said otherwise, arguing that the physical barrier undermined the unitive purpose of sex in the eyes of the Church. For example,
        
        Cheff • 2 days ago • parentSex has not just a procreative dimension, but a unitive one. How is a barrier NOT a breach of the unitive purpose?
        
        Maggie Bonar • 3 days agoA condom interrupts the natural act of sex– it is unnatural; it prevents the unity between the couple that is an integral part of sex. Using a condom during sex– for whatever reason, good or bad– is an evil because it is against the Natural Law.
        
        Dunadan • 3 days ago • parentAgreed. As far as my understanding of condoms goes, the the condom protects against STDs by avoiding exchange of bodily fluids, so the bad side effect is inseparable from the good trying to be accomplished.
        
        If I’ve simply misunderstood what was being said, I apologize. If I understand the claim correctly, I wonder if someone could point me toward the Catholic doctrine that teaches this.
      - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
        
        My point is that the physical and spiritual reality is interconnected. “the problem is not that they ‘simply prevent an exchange of fluids.’” The key word there is “simply”, as in: there’s more to it than that. not: the problem is something else entirely and the physical barrier has nothing to do with it. Its not an either/or; the church rejects dualism. We talk about theological and physical realities being separate in theory only for convenience’s sake: its one reality and what we do physically has spiritual consequences.
        
        From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
        
        “Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.”
        
        “Contraception” here is a universal term that refers to all techniques that have, as their action, contraception: sterilization, chemical contraceptives, IUDs, coitus interruptus, and, yes, condoms and so on.
      - Scott_In_OH
        
        @Christian Ohnimus:
        
        Right, the Church is against any form of contraception because it prevents (or tries to) conception. That is clear.
        
        The original post (Part I), however, asked if a condom could be used during sex if its purpose weren’t contraception (admittedly a strange hypothetical), and a number of people said the physical barrier created by a condom–in and of itself–made the sex non-unitive. I haven’t yet seen any Church teaching that says that. (I realize, by the way, that you were not among those making this argument.)
      - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
        
        The intent may not be contraception but the action of a condom is still that of a contraceptive. Disagree if you like but just realize that its the church that you’re disagreeing with not just a few rogue blog commentators.
      - pagansister
        
        Wow! It appears that if one is a married Catholic couple, it is considered “wrong” NOT to want children. IMO, another incidence of interfering with a couple’s privacy. If indeed 2 Catholics want to marry in the Church, they must have to lie when it comes to the line saying they are open to kids God “gives” them, I guess. Oh well. I have noticed that there are a lot of Catholic couples purposely not having more than 1 or 2 kids, and using ABC to make sure—pills are good, IUD’s too, as well as the trusty ( but not my favorite) condom. Must be a lot of rule breakers among the “good Catholics” around these days. IMO, they are living in the 21st century. Also IMO, the Church isn’t. It is nice the Church understands that if a couple can’t procreate, then they are still members in good standing, if you will. A young couple I know married in the Catholic church. She Catholic, he not.( he did whatever was required to have the ceremony done in the Church). She left the Church as she didn’t like the control, and it’s treatment of women. Their children are being raised Christian, just not Catholic. She only felt a bit guilty for a small amount of time with the kid vow, (they only wanted and had 2 and then he had the surgery to prevent more) because in her mind (and I agree) the children are being raised in a Christian faith and that was all that was important. . Her mother, still Catholic, had no problem with her leaving the Church. I feel at times the RCC pushes out some of it’s members because of it’s lack of reality in this the 21st century. Those that don’t leave, tend to do what they want. (ABC for instance).
      - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
        
        Yes, you are correct, to follow the church means being open to children. It’s unfortunate that you find that so offensive but its what we believe and if people don’t like it, well, no one’s forcing them to be Catholics.
      - pagansister
        
        Believe it or not, Christian, there are people in this world who are not cut out to be parents, and realize that. Some of those are Catholic couples. Those couples ( or any couple for that matter) should never become parents if they don’t want to. If one of the rules of marrying in a faith requires you as a couple to have children, then, yes, that could be considered offensive. True, no one forces them to be Catholic. If a Catholic couple want to marry in the Church, but know that they most certainly don’t want to be parents, then they shouldn’t have to make a choice of remaining in the Church or taking their chances of parenthood—for their entire married life. Being female is more than just producing babies, and the method “allowed” by the Church is way to open to kids to be totally reliable, as I have known of several “Catholic roulette” babies. Belonging to a religion that thinks that one should vow to have kids when you marry, in order to stay in good standing is, IMO, very outdated. Just my opinion. But as I mentioned several times, many Catholics use ABC without guilt and I’m sure it is no secret why there are no children or just 1 or 2 in many Catholic families.
      - Nicholas Escalona
        
        A couple can want to not become parents – they can even use NFP to that end. They just have to be open to it.
      - pagansister
        
        Good answer, Nicholas!
      - http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/ Christian Ohnimus
        
        If a couple uses NFP with the express purpose of never having children that is considered an irresponsible use of NFP and is not being open to children. If a couple has no desire whatsoever to be parents then this is contrary to the marital vows of a Catholic marriage which has at its end the forming of a family. That simple lack of desire is not a sin but such a couple should probably evaluate their relationship and talk to a Catholic marriage counselor.
      - GoodCatholicGirl
        
        Please see today’s “Dear Prudence” column on Slate.com. The first letter is from a woman who is engagad; she and her future husband would love to have children; however, both suffer from mental conditions (depression, obessive/compulsive, among others). They seriously doubt they are emotionally/mentally able to be good parents while at the same time wanting a family. Heartbreaking letter but thought-provoking. I don’t know that they are Catholic but if they were, they would have to use NFP with the exprss purpose of never having children. Would the Church see them as being responsible adults or as sinners? “Prudence” advised them to not have children although they might want to try fostering a child; however, they would most likely not be approved owing to the fragile mental health of both.
      - http://www.facebook.com/nicholas.escalona Nicholas Escalona
        
        I suppose you’re right. It’s a fine line – you can certainly try to avoid procreation, if your motives are right, but you still have to be open to it.
- Michael Strauss
  
  This might be a little technical, but the absorption of semen by the woman’s body does have physiological effects that stimulate bonding. There was a discussion of the science behind this over at 1flesh.org.
  
  This doesn’t really prove anything, it just illustrates the point for me, that the unitive and procreative aspects of sex are truly intertwined, even at that biological level.
- Rebecca in ID
  
  I actually think you’re on the right track here; the immediate problem with condoms etc. is that they disrupt the *procreative* aspect of sex. Now it is true that procreative and unitive affect one another very intimately, so when you mess with one you end up messing with the other, but the first problem with the condom is that it prevents the what sex is immediately intended to accomplish; that is, depositing the man’s seed into the woman. It is much like if you were to eat something and then gag yourself to throw up–the food is supposed to reach your stomach and be digested into your body, you know? So it’s perverse to do that. Yes, food also has a social and psychological aspect, and those things will end up being harmed too, but it is a little obscure and not so much to the point, to try to argue mainly from that side of things. I don’t disagree with silicasandra but those things aren’t the first thing to get. It is most important just to understand the simple fact that the procreative aspect is being deliberately disrupted.
Jen

Ick… Friendly Athiest commenters aren’t so friendly… I think I prefer athiests who just decide they need proof to the ones who apparently just have issues with authority…
- musiciangirl591
  
  ironic name
dgriffey

Much better. The first post seemed to open up more than one can
of worms. Of course there is also that ugly truth about condoms: no man in his
right mind would rather wear one anyway, hence another problem with the condom
culture. As one comedian many ages ago said, wearing a condom is like eating a
sirloin steak with a mouth full of Novocain: you get the basic sensation, but miss the flavor. In some ways, that also speaks to
what condoms do to the act of love making by their very nature.
Neena

So what does the husband and wife do in that situation (where one is infected?)
- Laura
  
  They don’t have sex.
- http://twitter.com/KiaraPirola Kiara Pirola
  
  Or odds are the spouse has already infected the other by then so it doesn’t matter anyway. The HIV viral load is highest (and therefore most contagious) with in the first 3 months of infection but is undetectable because the antibodies that the tests measure haven’t been made yet.
adauctus

That was a good couple of thought provoking articles. Thanks! One other quibble I had with the first post was this: “But perhaps I’m wrong, for I’m a blogger, not a moral theologian.” I would have said “a blogger, not a Bishop.” The moral theologians help frame the question and possible answers, but the final answer comes from the Bishops. I would also raise this point with some of the comments below that mention people saying the USCCB is flat out wrong about contracepting after a rape. I have no knowledge of that issue, but I would be leery contradicting a teaching of the Bishops in that way. They are, after all, the final authority (of course, so long as they are in harmony with the Pope).
pagansister

Am so happy to see your post above. Love means trying to NOT give your spouse an STD or other diseases that are spread thru intercourse.
Michael Strauss

The baseball analogy is quite apt.
Memory Lane

The item in question could be used in any situation where it does not involve a unitive and procreative act. In other words, consummation and the act of love which upon its’ intimate bounds occur are not lessened, reduced, nor exempted of the satisfaction of bringing in new life. Since – as Chesterton refused to be played by the nonsense of the term of BrthControl since there is no brth and no control – or like family planning – you do not get to squander what is designated and designed by God to do as you please contrary to the nature of what the act embodies – bringing in new life (read Chesterton’s the Shallow and the Wells on the subject.)
Thus, as the Holy Father attempted to show a sign of hope when people appear right at the horizon for moral responsibilty in love of one’s neighbor occuring under such impovershment – the lack of any satisfaction of loving another person because the item in question does not grant it – he is bringing an obvious indication why the Sacrament is very imporatant and the very life of Christ and the Holy Spirit rendered by the Eternal Father to all the Faithful through Baptism upon which was instituted through the Holy Apostles. Therefore, he is portraying the insufficiency of love being garnished by the item in question not merely being a contracept to act of marital relations but as well as an actual contracept to loving one’s neighbor (which can only be afforded by the graces bestowed in the Most Holy Church – a Sacramental Communion – which is real love – Caritas est Veritate.)
Better children with AIDS through an act of marriage than a contracept lifestyle which affords no hope of love. God created man in his image and likeness (not ours and our lifestyle of contracepts.)
Chris

I haven’t read all the comments, to be honest, so I’m not sure if this has been brought up already. Another time Catholics can wear condoms is when a couple is experiencing fertility problems and want to have some medical testing. Instead of having the man go into a private room to coldly provide a semen sample, the couple may have sex using a condom in order to collect the semen. The condom must have a couple holes in it, in order to render the contraceptive part of it useless. This provides a semen sample while still keeping sex within its natural bounds and does not induce an act of masturbation or contraception. Please correct me if I am wrong.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-warrior-catholic
Memory Lane

As long as the questions does not pre-suppose on particular function or act which only take place with the item in question (or any act which still is related to that function) then you say yes (i.e. if someone is out of gloves for some particular reason, one could use the item to clean the garbate disposal or brandish as some sort of glove to clean dishes.) Only upon the condition which the use has nothing (really meaning nothing) to do with marital relations or the actions which are still to be rendered in a marital relation but are being taken outside of that relation nevertheless – as people do so quite often today -, you may use the item in any unrelated way. Why is simple common sense morality being all-of-a-suddened question? For a better understanding? Or, for deconstructing it?
DuncanMichael

The real lesson Marc, is that you just shouldn’t think. At least that is what unintelligent people would like, cause it makes them feel stupid. People who get all bent out of shape because you are posing a theory or trying to have reasonable discussion get upset because they don’t know how to have a level headed academic discussion and are uncomfortable with ambiguity, so they yell their answer. Because in the land of the dumb, the loudest and most confident person always wins.
Reluctant Liberal

Love doesn’t mean deciding what’s best for your spouse. It means weighing your options openly and honestly as a couple. Deciding the “ultimate good” of your spouse without consulting your spouse treats them like a child. The idea of it makes me sad for people who have relationship dynamics like that.
- http://twitter.com/KiaraPirola Kiara Pirola
  
  That is not what the article is talking about… Love in its most powerful form, what the ancient Greeks called ‘agape’ is to will the good of another above and at the expense of your self. And no doubt, if a couple found themselves in a situation like that, A LOT of dialogue would ensue. But ultimately… all human goods are the same for everybody, valuing your spouse’s health and life for example, is generally assumed to be a given with out being discussed… just a thought.
  - Reluctant Liberal
    
    Ugh, I have a tendency to fixate on particular sentences out of a whole post, which makes me look more like a spammer. I hate when I do that.
    
    Anyway, the post (and several of the comments here) assume that exactly zero dialogue will take place *before a decision is made*. And I agree with you about valuing your spouse’s health, but I also think that valuing your spouse’s ability to determine what to do with their health is important. Becoming a missionary could endanger a spouse’s health, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Similarly, the good of the conjugal act should not just be dismissed, especially unilaterally.
    
    It’s that casual “even if she wants you to” from the article that really makes me sad. As if the desires of your spouse should be simply set aside. Such casual dismissal is certainly not agape or anything like it.
    - http://twitter.com/KiaraPirola Kiara Pirola
      
      There is casual dismissal and there is a reasoned saying ‘no I love you too much to risk it.’ Which I think would grow out of the huge amount of dialogue going on. There is more to married life than sex, any married couple, man or woman will tell you that. (I could be saying that because I’m a girl mind you…)
Laura

*resisting urge to troll Friendly Atheist*

Thanks for your thoughts here.
Catherine

Phew – The last post made me worry for this blog. But it is awesome Marc that you think these things through….Perhaps you should only publish completed thoughts though, so as not to misguide people? You do have a big following.
Greenpersephone

First of all, sometimes the best way to understand a given topic, and encourage deeper thought into said topic, is to think out loud for everyone to hear — even, and sometimes especially, if you’re wrong at one juncture of thought or another. Keep it up!

Not a real contribution to the discussion, but something that came to mind when I was reading (unless you already mentioned it: you’re not a boring writer, I’m just a bit ADD): Within the context of condoms being only 99% effective at preventing pregnancy, if that 1 percent chance makes it through the walls of the condom and the woman is able to conceive, she will also almost definitely be infected by the very fact that some of the man’s sperm got through (assuming of course I’ve got my science right here). So even if there were an openness to life with condom use, that life can only be brought about simultaneously with the infection of the women which the condom is being used to prevent in the first place. Hence, the couple cannot be open to life without being open to the woman becoming infected with the disease; this seems to put the whole intent behind the condom being used to prevent disease with an openness to life into a quandary of sorts.

That being said, thank you for both these posts. They seemed to have inspired a healthy discussion into a topic we as Catholics often take for granted, assuming that we understand all the ins, outs, and complexities on the basis that we believe what the Church teaches; it never hurts to exercise the brain muscles to remember the REASONS why the Church teaches what She does.
- Nicholas Escalona
  
  That point you raise does not in itself make the act immoral. According to the principle of double effect, an act may still be moral so long as the good effect comes from the act more or less directly, and does not come from the bad effect, as an end from a means. If the good and bad effects are logically simultaneous, then you’re not using the bad as a means to the good.
david clement

Here is my response to what you originally wrote. I feel that the bulk of the debate has been missed when it comes to scripture and why we are having this discussion. Here it is: http://define-liberty.com/2012/08/20/catholicism-and-condoms-my-response-to-when-catholics-can-use-condoms/
david clement

http://define-liberty.com/2012/08/20/catholicism-and-condoms-my-response-to-when-catholics-can-use-condoms/
jofro

My head hurts
Olivia

I have a question. If I understand correctly the woman using oral contraceptives to treat a disease has the side effect of infertility but she is still “playing by the rules” because why? Because the unitive nature of the act is not impeded? And this is because, literally, they are unified as bodily fluids mix together? Right? This seems to me to be a base reduction of the unitive act of intercourse. To make it merely something that can be proven took place by the mixture of bodily fluids. I know the Church does not require women who have had tubal ligation’s before they understood the moral ramifications and women who are on oral contraceptives for medical purposes to practice NFP (because in both cases it is almost impossible to do so accurately in a medically meaningful way and could be seen as unnecessary burden, or so I’ve been told), but it seems to me that at some point there should be some abstaining within the month to at least respect the natural order. I dont know. I’m thinking out loud here, too. Mainly because it seems to me that there is much more going on here than just exchange of bodily fluids. Oral contraceptives for medical reasons have the secondary effect of infertility but this is still an evil. Not a moral evil on the part of the woman but an evil non the less. Right? Or perhaps this evil, in and of itself, is the effect, and also carries with it great sadness in a sense and there is that aspect that the couple must discuss every month, infertility…

What could is a blog, especially a Catholic one, if you can’t think out loud? That’s what discussion is for.
- Olivia
  
  “what *good* is a blog…”
Caroline

Hi Marc, I have been told by a priest that it is not licit for a married woman to take the birth control pill for medical reasons. Unlike a hysterectomy, I cannot think of any case where the BCP would be necessary to save a life. For just about everything I can think of that doctors might prescribe the Pill for, there is a better alternative. So I don’t think the BCP is a legitimate therapeutic means for married people. Even from a health perspective, I think the risks could outweigh the benefits.
- sgolden
  
  “I have been told by a priest that it is not licit for a married woman to take the birth control pill for medical reasons.” It is a funny thing because I have been told the opposite. Also to say there are “better alternatives” is very judgemental on your part. I am not a BCP fan, I just happen to have direct experience that would refute your entire comment.
  - GoodCatholicGirl
    
    I was never a fan of BCP because of the way it plays with hormones; however, I did take for years after surgery for endometriososis. The “better” alternative was repeated surgeries. Unless you or your priest is an ob/gyn who specalizes in conditions such as endometriosis (mine was), I hardly think either of you is educated enough to make that determination.
    Saved my life? No but then again, maybe yes. Endometriosis can travel to the lungs, heart, kidneys – it doesn’t exactly confine itself to the reproductive organs and no matter where is settles, it causes havoc.
    How many surgeries should a woman subject her body to and how much time can she lose from work recovering from the surgeries? I took the PCP for medical reasons, not birth control.
  - guest
    
    I have been told that it is perfectly okay if there are no better options and the woman is NOT sexually active. There are alternatives, however. And as contraceptives mess with a woman’s reproductive system in an often harmful way, I (as a woman) side with the option of avoiding birth control at all costs.
- Morgan
  
  If all other alternatives to BCPs have been exhausted, and BCPs are the only available medication which will help the woman’s condition, then it is permissible. The problem with this is that there are other side effects/dangers associated with BCPs so those obviously need to be taken into account.
  
  One example that I personally know of is where a woman, after having her 4th child, was menstruating for a year straight. She had a couple days in between each “cycle” but was bleeding constantly for months. This is not healthy for a number of reasons, but the most apparent being that losing that much blood is bad for anyone. This woman, having four children under the age of 6, was exhausted not only because she was postpartum but because of the constant loss of blood and felt faint pretty constantly. In being a faithful Catholic, she resisted her doctor’s solution of BCPs but after a year of this, and no other option being available, she decided that the pros greatly outweighed the cons.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to this topic, each situation is different and therefore decisions must be subjective. However, I think more than anything we need to remember that we are not to judge the actions of others. Though we may present them with what the Church teaches, it is ultimately their own decision.
  - enness
    
    I agree, it depends. Endometriosis can be debilitating, and I could not tell somebody that surgery is less risky than pills without thinking “Who am I kidding?” Surgery can be prohibitively expensive too, and many, many people are not blessed to have a John Paul Center nearby.
    It’s a balance. My conditions were minor, they didn’t impair my ability to function, so getting off the Pill was more of a no-brainer for me.
- Catholicanuck
  
  I, am no fan of hormonal birth control, but I think the priest could legitimately be argued with. One of the issues is what is available. Many doctors do not know the alternatives and not everyone can travel to a larger centre. People may figure it out for themselves, and some doctors are aware of treatments which heal, but sometimes there might not be a practical alternative to hormonal treatments which render a woman infertile.
  
  A bit like a temporary hysterectomy.
Caroline

Also, I suggest removing the previous post. I think there is danger of scandal, unfortunately.
- Olivia
  
  I think there would be danger of scandal if Marc were writing as an authority of the Church but he isn’t. In fact, his post does not assert any clear conclusion and a person seeking the Truth only has to look at the comments to find clear teachings. It may in fact urge people to think more deeply about these “details” that we never really think about. Anyway, just my thoughts. Marc is but one man, a young one at that, still finding his way in this Catholic faith, as we all are.
  - Caroline
    
    Sure, I’m not denying that, and he conceded the possibility of being wrong in the original post. The fact is that Marc is a very intelligent young man and is a respected representative of the Faith on the Internet and most people don’t have time to read all the comments on a blog post to get the whole picture because they probably put more stock in the blogger than his commenters. My suggestion is to replace the post with one like this saying, “Here is why the exercise of asking if a Catholic can use a condom with the intention of preventing transmission of HIV shows that this is not permissible.” He retains the initial question, which was a good and interesting exercise, but prevents the danger of someone just reading this post and not seeing the other posts or the comments on the blog.
    - enness
      
      If you assume most people don’t have time to read the comments on a post, why assume they have the time to read old posts? Just curious.
- Nicholas Escalona
  
  I disagree – questioning details of teaching and thinking about them (in the right spirit, of course) is good, not bad. It was done in a speculative, obedient spirit, and never proceeded beyond that to an affirmation of anything false. Marc did update the previous post with a link to this page.
  And this kind of discussion should not be cloistered away. We, especially I, benefited a great amount from the discussion, from start to conclusion.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Ed-Mix/100000574306150 Ed Mix

Romney Meet the Press video from 2002: “How dare you suggest that I’m not 100% pro choice!”
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/romneys-nihilism.html
ds

A whole lotta condom use is by singles, or basically for fornication. If you’re in it for a screw, why does it matter if it’s contraception, or not unitive? A condom is a damage control sin on another sin. Still can’t be good, as you can’t do evil to have good come of it, but what does it matter at that point? Does the condom make it more elicit? If a dude ejaculates some place besides the vagina of the woman he is fornicating with does that make it somehow worse?
- Rebecca in ID
  
  well, yeah, it does make it worse in kind of the way you’d say same-sex fornication is worse than opposite-sex fornication. The latter at least has a natural element to it, whereas the former is really entirely unnatural, so it is worse and even more damaging. Condoms turn it into an unnatural act. Further, looking at it more psychologically, I really think it does more damage because people who use them in fornication end up being deliberately cold, distant, and calculating in their use of other human beings. On the other hand, a couple who really just lose themselves in the passion of the moment and have real sex albeit outside of marriage–yes that is damaging for many reasons but the fact that they had not calculatingly planned to simply use the other person for pleasure puts them in a better position, spiritually/mentally, for owning up to responsibility and taking the results of their actions more seriously. Needless to say, they are also less likely to fornicate in the first place if they know there is a good chance that pregnancy will result.
Rebecca in ID

Bad Catholic, maybe this has already been made clear, but here’s something that helped me understand the whole thing: the reason a lot of Bishops and priests were confused around the time of Humanae Vitae, and recommended to the Paul VI that he allow for hormonal contraception, or predicted that he would allow it, was that hormonal contraception really was a new thing, a new kind of act, not just another condom-type thing. The difference which makes it confusing is that unlike condoms et al, it *does not change the nature of the act*. What it does, instead, is to bring a woman’s body from a state of health to a state of unhealth. You are taking the natural cycles and messing them up for no good medical reason. It is not a perverse act, as condom use is; however, it is still a mortal sin because it is still seriously wrong to mess up your body on purpose. I think we moderns, even orthodox Catholics, have a hard time understanding that distinction; we lump it all together as though it is one thing, understandably, since the same mindset goes with both things–but because we fail to make proper distinctions, we also fail to understand things like NFP and why it is good, and we are unable to defend our positions on all these things. I actually came to understand this better when I was attempting to defend the Church’s teaching on NFP to a Protestant, realized I was doing a cruddy job, and then realized that I did not actually fully understand why ABC was wrong. Anyway.

The other point I would like to make is this–When we are talking about hormonal therapy, we need to use that term, “hormonal therapy”, not “birth control”. Otherwise, we confuse ourselves into thinking that the Church is condoning a bad end for the sake of a good end–especially if we don’t understand the distinction I made above. So while it may be true that the exact same combo of estrogen/progesterone, the same little pill, is sometimes used in order to avoid conception by messing up women’s cycles, as is used to bring a woman’s body *into* a state of health if her hormones are messed up for some other reason, the two acts are different acts morally; one is bad and one is good. I know there are some who argue that as a matter of fact, synthetic hormones just don’t work very well to bring women’s bodies back to normal hormone levels, but although that is an important factor, it is right now most important to see that the intended ends are entirely different. Therefore we should never be caught saying “it’s okay to use birth control for therapeutic purposes”; we should always say, “It’s okay to use artificial hormones for therapeutic purposes”.
- Rebecca in ID
  
  I should correct myself: I said use of hormonal ABC is “not a perverse act”, but what I should have said is that it does not pervert the act of sex. It is wrong for other reasons.
- Scott_In_OH
  
  @Rebecca in ID:
  So the Church teaches that condoms “pervert the act of sex” in and of themselves, not because of their contraceptive characteristics? Where do you find this teaching?
  - Rebecca in ID
    
    I’m probably not being as clear as I could–condoms do pervert the act, because of the contraceptive characteristics. To be very precise, you are intentionally and directly blocking the primary end of the act which is for the seed to enter the womb, putting it as delicately as possible…this is what the BC pill does *not* do; it does not block this primary end of the act. Instead it intentionally and directly attacks the health of a body. Does that make sense?
    - Scott_In_OH
      
      @Rebecca in ID:
      Not really, but I appreciate your efforts! Can you point me toward a Church document that addresses it? Is it in _Humanae Vitae_ or _ToB_ or something like that?
      - Rebecca in ID
        
        Scott, unfortunately I don’t have a lot of sources at my fingertips but one very helpful thing is looking at numbers 14 and 15 of Humanae Vitae: “14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and
        Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the
        direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all
        direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as
        lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned,
        as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct
        sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or
        temporary. (15)” You see here that two distinct types of birth control are mentioned, the first referring to things like onanism or condoms, the second referring to sterilization and temporary sterilization, i.e. hormonal birth control. Actually next, in 16, there is a third type referenced: “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or
        after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether
        as an end or as a means. (16)” I would think this would be referring to diaphragms, etc., but I hadn’t really noticed that sentence before. Anyway, with regard to 14 and 15, it is clear that while the first type, condoms etc. directly interrupt the generative process, which means it prevents the semen from entering the woman, the second “sterilization” type does not do the same thing. It does not interrupt the sexual act. The ABC pill is temporary sterilization and is wrong for the same reason permanent sterilization is wrong. Humanae Vitae doesn’t go into it here but it’s clear (and I think other sources state it more explicitly) that sterilization is mutilation of the body.
      - Scott_In_OH
        
        Thanks, Rebecca. I appreciate your taking the time.
catholicteacher

Good job on this blog; it is always thought provoking and not just provoking. I applaud the addendum and appreciate the corrections to the reasoning, there is one additional problem with the “almost”s of married condom use with HIV/AIDS…The danger of possibly conceiving when you have the disease is that if a man passes the disease to his wife during that same event, then he is also ensuring that his unborn child will be born with it as well. It cannot be morally acceptable to risk the life of wife and child for the sake of the marital act.
sara

My brain hurts. I’ve been trying to figure out the right thing to do for the past couple of years. I have a heart condition that will make childbirth difficult, but not impossible. I have a serious boyfriend, and we both plan to have kids once we’re married. With my heart complication, however, there is more risk at stake than just having to pay for another kid; I could have trouble with the pregnancy and neither I nor the child might make it. So, what’s the right thing to do? The Pill isn’t an option because it would only make my condition worse(!), so what do we do? Abstinence in marriage is obviously always an option, but is this practical when you’re married? We could even adopt, but what about the rest of the time? Condoms are not 100% effective, which scares me, and NFP is still not 100% guaranteed like abstinence is. We plan to use NFP for the rest of our lives, but what if that isn’t enough ‘insurance’? I know that the situation will be difficult no matter what I do, but I can’t figure out what would be best. I know what would be the Catholic thing to do, and I want to do that, but what if my situation gives cause for extra concern? I’m very troubled about this. Needless to say, so is my boyfriend. I’ve been praying, and we’ll ask about it in Pre-Cana, but right now I’m just worried about almost everything.
- Therese
  
  Sara,
  Sr. Renee Mirkes, OSF, PhD at Pope Paul VI Institute is the director of the Ethics Dept at PPVI, has great depth of experience and knowledge in clinical and bioethics, and is surrounded by NaPro OB/Gyns to consult on the details of your heart condition. She is available to help at ethics@popepaulvi.com, and you can set up a phone call with her as well. Please reach out to her, she is wonderful!
  - sara
    
    Thank you!
    - Rebecca in ID
      
      I just saw this, Sara…I know a young woman who has diabetes and she and her husband must practice strict periodic abstinence because of it. I can’t remember the details but with the state of her diabetes (very insulin-resistant, maybe?) a pregnancy would most likely be truly life-threatening. She and her husband have adopted a child with special needs, and are very informed about NFP and how to use it effectively. I think she would be very happy to correspond with you, if you would like me to put you in touch with her.
- biteofpunkinpie
  
  Hi Sara,
  I’m an NFP instructor (Billings method) and I have a client in a very similar situation (although in her case, she developed the heart condition 3 days after giving birth to her 3rd child) and they have been using NFP their entire marriage. Because she had had a method related pregnancy using CCL, and her ob/gyn is Billings trained, she opted to come to me to learn Billings. She and her husband have made the choice to use a stricter interpretation of the rules of Billings, which is that they do not use any days during the BIP for intercourse (BIP refers to the infertile time after menstruation and prior to the fertile phase) and limit intercourse to only the 4th day after peak is identified through the end of the cycle. She has only had one cycle since she started Billings that was anovulatory and caused ‘excessive’ abstinence (almost 4 weeks) and this was due to her developing a severe sinus infection which caused delayed ovulation. Other than this one instance in 5 years, she and her husband typically have a 2 week window of abstinence and a 2 week window of unlimited intercourse. This is a great sacrifice, but like you mentioned, going on the pill or even risking a hysterectomy could kill her. They as a couple did a lot of praying, a lot of defending their choices (they had friends offering to pay for a vasectomy for him), and ultimately feel that they’ve made the best choice. Just wanted to let you know that there are other people in similar circumstances who have been able to successfully use NFP.
- Lin
  
  Sara, I hope you contact Sr. Renee as a previous responder mentioned. If she doesn’t mention this, with the Creighton model there is the option to have a blood test done at the end of the fertile window (based on your Creighton chart) to confirm that you are post-ovulation for the cycle so you can be totally sure that you are in the infertile part of the cycle. It’s called a “family planning progesterone” level. It is reserved for cases where pregnancy would be high risk or contraindicated (due to the wife taking a medication that is known to cause birth defects, for example). Each cycle the wife has her blood drawn once locally and mailed to the Pope Paul VI institute’s lab. A nurse at the Institute would be able to explain it in more detail.
dboncan

Makes sense because the only way for one not to transmit the disease is to contracept with a condom. Both the disease preventing act and contraceptive act are essentially one because the disease is directly and inseparably transmitted through the fluid that also makes procreation possible.
guest

I have to say though.. if a woman is on oral contraceptive pills for other reasons, she should NOT be sexually active. Find other treatment. Sorry, but even if it is for other reasons, it is interrupting the procreative/unitive aspects of sex. The fact that contraception prevents procreation and can even cause unnoticeable abortions (even when it’s not the intended purpose) is an issue. No contraception should be used.
B. Pecker

And then Jesus came upon his disciples and said, “Love me, admire me, adore me. But please, for the love of Zeus, stop with the dying for sins bullshit. It’s fucking outrageous and makes us all look like a bunch of goddamn Cro-Magnon lunatics!!”–Jesus Christ, the Lost Gospel
Muenz

I haven’t read through all the comments, so maybe this is stated in a previous comment, but I’d like to point out that what you state in your post is that the use of the condom in the case of a husband with AIDS or HIV is unacceptable because the condom is not 100% effective. But, let’s take as a hypothetical that there was a condom that is 100% effective at preventing the transmission of STIs/STDs. Even in the case of the 100% effective condom, the use of the condom is still unacceptable.

Why? The reader whose quote you use and the analogy of the baseball game is pretty effective. The unique thing about the marital act is the inseparability of its two purposes, viz. procreative and unitive. If you take away either end, you’ve changed the act altogether.

Your use of St. Thomas’ Double Effect is also problematic. Here’s why, you not only have to intend a good end but you have to also choose good means. St. Thomas also holds that never is it acceptable to use evil means to achieve a good end. This is why the the use of the condom can never be used. The use of the condom in the case of the husband with HIV cannot use it because it changes the act. The act is no longer the marital act. The marital act during a period of infertility is not a different act because the means have not changed. The thin layer of latex changes the means altogether and therefore changes the act.

Pope Benedict’s comments do not intend to allow the prostitute to use a condom. It basically proposes that his thinking has changed. I think another analogy that the Holy Father could have used would be drinking and driving. Drunkenness is sinful always. Drunkenness can be harmful to other people in the case of drunk driving. The drunk driver who hands his keys to another person is showing “a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility.” That isn’t to say that it’s a good act or morally justifiable for the prostitute to wear a condom. It’s never appropriate for anyone to use a condom for its intended purpose because sexual intercourse with condom use is never the marital act.

When could you use a condom? When it’s not being used for its intended purpose, e.g. soldiers have been known to use condoms to prevent water, sand, mud, etc… from entering the barrel of their rifles. Is there a time, that a condom could be used during sexual intercourse? Sure, as a matter of foreplay, a condom could be used, but it would have to be removed prior to climax, and that climax must take place intra-vaginally.
Friend of Thomas

Hi, everyone
I’ve enjoyed this great discussion of Catholic Moral Theology. For what it is worth, I am a professor of Catholic Moral Theology, but I’m not writing to offer an imprimatur or bring down the hammer. Far from it. Here are my observations:
The original article started with a too definitive statement, something about contraception being against Natural Law. Personally, I don’t think it is fair to that awfully misunderstood system to make such sweeping claims. This, then, puts the rest of the conversation in a certain context…which points to my next observation, which is that the discussion seemed to me to slip out of subtle and nuanced moral reasoning to a rather different legalism (that is, from is the condom moral to is the condom acceptable to the Church…there is a difference). Which leads me to my third and (you’ll all be happy to note) my last:
appealing to the authority of priests on these kinds of questions is very unlikely to be helpful. Most are only superficially trained in Moral Theology (and not all toghether to be trusted on what the Magisterium says, for that matter). This is borne out in the observation from two posters that they got opposite answers from different priests. I very much liked the comment that ‘unless your priest is also an OBGYN they don’t really understand the medicine.’
Thomas Aquinas, one of my dearest friends, would, I think, NOT tell us THE ANSWER but would, rather, urge us all to thing rationally, pray deeply, listen attentively and then follow their own conscience…that is, to me, the definitionn of a “good” Catholic.
RobJ

You lost me here:

“Thus it’s not just that it’s never right to risk the health of your spouse, it’s that the reality of this ever-present risk makes it impossible for your disease-preventing condom-use to outweigh the unintended contraceptive effect…almost.”

I count about five negative words in that sentence, which ends with “almost,” and I’m too old to comprehend what it means.
Frank

Marc,

I might have to disagree with the reader you cite in this post.

It is certainly true that if the ultimate goal of marriage were to procreate, then condoms would probably be always illicit as the reader points out. However, the council of Florence taught that there is a single, but threefold purpose or good in Matrimony. They do not list these in order of ‘importance’ as I’m sure would be pretty simple to deduce after reading three. 1)Procreation and raising the children to worship God. 2)Develop and show the mutual faithfulness of the spouses toward each other. and 3)To be a visible representation of the indivisible union and infinite love Christ has for the Church.
The big question seems to be can sex, properly ordered, accomplish the second and third aspects of Matrimony? I argue that it might be able to. I want to assume a couple of things to make the argument a bit clearer. 1)Condoms are 100% effective at stopping the spread of AIDS and conception (obviously not true) 2)The male spouse has AIDS 3)They do want kids. Basically they are using a super condom.

The couple, who recently found out about the AIDS diagnosis ha a decision to make. 1)spend the rest of their lives together loving it other, but abstaining from sex, and not have kids. I do not believe, nor do I think Humanae Vitae teaches that sexual intercourse is solely a procreative act. The act of sex is the complete self giving of one spouse to the other (quite honestly I don’t remember where I’ve heard that but it was from a good source I promise–mostly). That is, the sexual act is a visible representation of the oneness of flesh between a married couple AND when properly ordered is an act that draws from love, rather than lust.

Any couple would want to display the concreteness of their love for one another and sex is the way to do that. The modern man has not lost all sense of reason and when he says that ‘sex is good because it shows I love the person I’m with regardless of marriage’ I do think he is on to something, if not exactly pointed in the right direction. The reason it ‘feels right’ is because there is an innate desire to display the love one has for his or her spouse, through the sexual act.

Assuming this is true, I think that Aquinas’ Double Effect can help us out. -The couple is having sex for the second grace of matrimony as defined by Florence. -The husband does not want to give his wife AIDS -The condom allows an act of mutual love, and ‘happens’ to inhibit conception. Undoubtedly, for this to work number 2 from Florence would have to ‘outweigh’ number 1; but I think this is exactly the kind of question that the Council Fathers wanted to avoid. The called it a ‘Single, threefold grace.’ That seems to say that each act, 1 2 and 3 are one-in-the-same. They all effect the same divine love. If one is not present does that mean that the other two are not at work, giving the same grace? I don’t think so or else it would be sinful for a couple to have sex ANYTIME there is infertility, like if because of a tragic birthing incident, the woman can no longer conceive. This is not the case, so maybe there is hope for the condom yet.

Of course, I assumed the fact that condoms always prevented disease. They don’t. But I definitely want to discuss what the matter might be given the real world situation.
Lucien Syme

I have a couple of strange (yet serious) questions to ask quasi related to this topic.

What if a man suffers from PE and would like to use a novelty condom which desensitizes him? If he cuts off the top of condom (because he does not desire to prevent conception) while leaving the remainder on the shaft bringing the pleasure scale down a notch or two, is that acceptable?

Thanks.

Sadly Yes a PE Sufferer
Aquinas’ Goose

Before delving into Greek, having read both blogs and having skimmed the comments I would like to propose a subtle problem with the condom argument in general: What Is The Purpose of Sex (Within a Marriage)? (Henceforth termed “sex” as sex outside of marriage is properly termed either “fornication” or “adultery”).
This is actually a very important question and one that I think becomes overwhelmed by the teaching that sex is geared toward the procreative — full stop. What about the woman (or man) who is infertile? What about the elderly couple who just got married in their 90s? The question that the couple must answer (in writing) before their Catholic marriage can take place is “are you open to having children” not “are you always only going to have procreative sex?”
Because, let’s face it: married couples do not have sex only to have babies. Sex is something more than a means of procreation, it is a form of bonding between the man and the woman (it is How the “two become one flesh” and it is How the marriage takes place–no vaginal intercourse, even after all the vows, no marriage has occurred). This includes not only vaginal intercourse but oral and manual sex as well–the last two of which are ipso facto not geared toward procreation.
Reading the blog, and reading the comments, seems to reveal a Puritanical tendency to assume sex is a ‘necessary evil’ instead of a created good by the Triune God (as C. S. Lewis said: “God likes sex, He created it”). Chances are that if you are married and never have sex with your spouse, even for his / her “own good,” chances are you are going to have a rather rocky marriage that will probably end in divorce / annulment. If a marriage couple has manual or oral sex in order to bond with one another but not to conceive, by the arguments herein they are in a state of sin–because, unfortunately, with the use of HIV / AIDS we’re looking at a (until recently) practically guaranteed occurrence of the disease if sex is held in a procreative way (and the fact that the child who may be conceived is also now carrying the disease).
However, what if the married couple having Non-Procreative Sex (via infertility, manual or oral) is Also in the middle of the Adoption Process? Their sexual act is directed toward contraception, however their attitude and openness to life is blatantly clear.
Which is a long, drawn out way of showing that by pursuing the question from the angle of “condom” we’re entering into the argument handicapped as well as making the distinction far more ‘black and white’ than the ‘gray’ actually is. Until we can properly pronounce the importance of the Sacrament of Marriage and the role that sex has within marriage (beyond that of procreative) we don’t need to talk about contraception. And until we have a good grasp of the Sacrament of Reconciliation we should be more prayerful in considering the outcomes of black-white judgment calls on the gray area of contraception. And until we blushingly accept the historical truth of a lot of babies coming 7 or 8 months after the marriage date (not to mention a vague teaching on contraception) prior to the Enlightenment (or whenever you want to begin counting the dawn of Modernity) in Catholic countries, we may want to review our Puritanical understanding of copulating. I’m asking for a more nuanced argument from the beginning, not the middle / end which is what happens when you begin looking at sex from the viewpoint of contraception instead of as a right and just act to aid in the revelation of God’s grace toward mankind via the Sacrament of Marriage.
Paul

“The contraceptive effect is in this case just a by-product of the prophylactic effect”; “The evil of the contraceptive effect will necessarily outweigh the good of the prophylactic effect” — I really can’t see that either answer is more than a probable opinion. My thinking tends to the second position, but I would not be hasty to condemn anyone who tended to the first as “giving scandal”. Personally, I’m more scandalized by the readiness to shut down discussion quickly than I am by either answer to the question, or by the readiness to give any answer thoughtful consideration. I would be more reluctant to close my mind on an open issue than to feel the warm glow of proclaiming my truth.

It’s a hard question. Sadly it’s a real question in too many lives. And internet comboxes are not going to produce an authoritative answer. There is certainly no need to build a “fence around the law” or be “more Catholic than the Pope”. If the Church ever were to teach that the genuinely prophylactic use of a condom (like the therapeutic use of the pill) was legitimate, it would not contradict, and in no way diminsh the main strand of doctrine on sexual relations uncomplicated by disease.
Chris

Huge fan of your blog. Could you help respond to this which has been floating on the facebook pages. I’m sure you’ve seen this analogy before. https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/399070_10151203042738373_973841286_n.jpg
Logalmier

Yes, because sex is exactly the same thing as baseball.

Your argument by analogy fails.
Brian

Marc, I have no idea if you will see this, but you should study ethics and moral theology before you make posts like these. You are right that an infected spouse should not use a condom, but you are right for the wrong reasons.

Contraception is an “intrinsic evil,” and that means it is always wrong no matter the circumstances. The “principle of double effect” does not apply to acts that are intrinsically evil, only to acts that are morally neutral or good.
Brian

I should also clarify that the infect spouse should abstain from sex lest they infect someone else.

As far as I know, that is the Catholic position. I have nothing but sympathy for those who find themselves in such a situation.
http://swt.encyclomundi.org/ shackra sislock

too late, but, just stick yourself to the Humanae Vitae

When Can Catholics Use Condoms? Part II

Recent Comments

Subscribe by Email

Because Having a College Degree is Cool!

Categories

Archives

Faith Channels

Resources

Connect

When Can Catholics Use Condoms? Part II

Follow Bad Catholic!

Recent Comments

Subscribe by Email

Because Having a College Degree is Cool!

Categories

Archives

Faith Channels

Resources

Connect