Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
The article says,
“The Church opposes condoms in all except the rarest of circumstances because they are a form of contraception.”
What are these circumstances?
There aren’t any.
“The Church opposes condoms in all except the rarest of circumstances because they are a form of contraception.”
What on earth is that?!!! Man…I think the writer of that piece must be deliberately trying to misinform readers about Catholicism.
Unfortunately it looks like some Mexican bishop has said something stupid now:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05012105.html
Although I’m not quite sure what to make of that story, since the press has already proven itself capable of distorting just about anything ’till the truth is unrecognizable.
Incidentally, what would the Church say about two men engaging in homosexual relations using a condom? Is there anything about using the condom in that situation that makes the act any more sinful than it already is?
Just curious what the moral theology is here.
Spain’s Catholic Church reverses statement in supp
Foot-in-the-mouth disease attacks Spanish Bishop
“The Church opposes condoms in all except the rarest of circumstances because they are a form of contraception.”
I believe this refers to when the condom is filled with water, tied off, and used to defend ones fort.
This of course assumes that its usage is in accord with Just War doctrine and is being used against an unjust aggressor and not some sort of ‘preemptive attack.’
When I was in Catholic HS in the 80’s, we were taught that it was permissible to use a perforated condom to collect sperm during the normal martial act so that it might be used in in-vitro fertilization. It was called the ‘modified GIFT technique’, I think. But we were taught all kinds of crazy things back then so maybe this is bogus too. Perhaps this is the kind of thing the reporter was referring to?
n
In-vitro fertilization is contrary to Church teaching. See:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009qq.asp
(Scroll down a few questions.)
I believe it is permissible to use a perforated condom is order to obtain a sperm sample for fertility testing.
Btw, GIFT is not ‘in-vitro’ fertilization. It is an insemination technique. GIFT stands for Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer.
>I believe it is permissible to use a perforated condom is order to obtain a sperm sample for fertility testing.
I reply: I remember reading about that as well somewhere.
BillyHW, I’m sure the Church wouldn’t consider the use of condoms to lessen the sinfullness of that act. So I think therein lies the answer to your question. To relate it to another sin, that of murder, the method one would choose to kill another human being wouldn’t matter, would it? It’s still murder, right? Same for the example you give. The act you mention is a grave sin, expressly forbidden in Scripture numerous times, & the use of a condom, presumably to prevent the spread of disease as conception is impossible, wouldn’t mitigate the culpability of the participants. It might, however, increase the moral culpability if one of the participants were infected with a sexually transmitable disease – especially if their partner were unaware, since concoms are not 100% effective against the spread of STD’s, but abstinance is. Wanton & purposeful exposure of another to diseases that can kill them could be called murder in such a circumstance, I’d think. So, in my mind, the use of a condom would only complicate & compound the moral culpability in this case as there is an alternative to that act in the first place, ie abstainig.
But I’m no expert in this sort of philosophy. Any other thoughts?
When for the sake of orthodoxy, measures are omitted that could save people’s life, religion becomes a void exercise of self-indulgence. Condoms are highly effective at protecting againsts STDs, even if not 100% perfect. Just like seat belts. But seat belts help, if people drive. And people make love. Who wants to abstain can do that. But on a society-scale most won’t be abstinent, thus the demonization of condoms is criminal and irresponsible. People should know the whole story, and be able to make decisions based on facts, not on ideologies or theologies.