A reader writes:
When pregnant, I have am prone to receiving a type of bacterial
infection that can cause pre-term labor, and my first child was born
several weeks early because of it.During my second pregnancy, I read
that many doctors recommend the use of condoms during pregnancy to try
and reduce the transition of the bacteria, because the male germ cells can aggravate
the condition (this is not related to a sexually transmitted disease.)
My midwife recommended this practice as well, although there have not
yet been studies to see if it is effective.I solicited opinions on a
Catholic e-mail list as to whether or not the use of condoms during
pregnancy under these conditions would be licit. I assumed that it
would be. If I’m already pregnant, I am obviously not trying to
contracept, right?I was surprised that the opinion fell the other way,
feeling that the "unitive end" of the marital act would be frustrated if
a barrier were between us.Could you give me your opinion on the subject?
I can, but let me do so in the below-the-fold section of this post so that people don’t have to look at the discussion who do not want to read it. (I’ll also keep as clinical as I can).
The Church has not directly addressed the matter that you have raised, so we must fall back on Catholic moral theology to try to answer the question. The answer below would be representative of what many orthodox Catholic moralists would say.
First, Catholic moral theology holds that the marital act includes both a unitive and a procreative aspect and that neither of these may be deliberately frustrated.
The procreative aspect is frustrated, obviously, in the case of contraception, while the unitive aspect is frustrated, for example, in the case of in vitro fertilization. In the former case the spouses are united in marital congress but procreation is thwarted. In the latter case procreation occurs but the spouses are not united in marital congress.
God designed human sexuality so that both aspects (actual union and openness to procreation) are to go together, and neither may be pursued apart from the other.
The unitive aspect involves more than just the spouses giving each other the experience of sexual release. That could be accomplished any number of ways that would not be open to procreation. For the spouses to truly be united in marital congress that is open to procreation, at least some insemination must occur. Without insemination, one does not have a completed marital act.
The use of an intact condom prevents insemination and thus prevents the spouses from being united in true marital congress.
For this reason, even when a condom is not being used to prevent procreation, it could not be used on the grounds that it prevents the spouses from being united in marital congress.
So I would say that your friends from the e-mail list are correct in the opinion you report.
I should point out, though, that there is another possible consideration here. While it is necessary for some insemination to occur in order for the marital act to be completed, it does not appear that there is any set amount of insemination that must occur.
Some orthodox Catholic moralists have suggested that this fact could be utilized as part of obtaining samples of the seminal fluid needed for male fertility testing. They have thus proposed the possibility of using a perforated condom that would allow some but not all of the seminal fluid to be transmitted. That which gets caught in the condom could then be used for fertility testing, while that which went through the condom would complete the marital act.
I should underscore that this is a proposal and not something that the Church has either endorsed or prohibited, but the same thing might be possible in your case. If allowing a smaller amount of seminal fluid through would pose less risk of aggravating your condition then the use of a perforated condom might be morally licit.
Not having marital congress also would be an option, but complete continence for nine months could cause marital strain as well as the occasion of sin, and so it would be for you and your husband, based on the best medical advice you could obtain and your knowledge of yourselves, to weigh the varying risks and benefits involved as part of determining whether the perforated condom technique would be justified in your case.
As I indicated at the beginning, all of the above deals with matters that the Church has not explicitly addressed. This does not mean that we can simply do what we want, though. It means that we must do the best we can to inform our consciences, seeking out and considering arguments both for and against a position, praying, making the best determination we can, and then acting on it, trusting the results to God.
Hope this helps!
20
I would go with the abstinence, if I was in your situation. Why? First, the marital act is something that ordered by God, but with a purpose, procreation. So good job on having children. But now, there is no need on basis of the order of God, to procreate. You are already on that path, so may God bless you with that.
To do this now, seems almost unnatural. Though I am not sure that to do is or is not a sin, I am inclined to say that in any other circumstance, even if you couldn’t have children, its a right you aquire to do the marital act. Jimmy pointed out marital strain. NEVER, NEVER let your HOLY matrimony fall into a situation of physical dependancy. I don’t know how old you are, but I imagine that you are not an 18 girl, and that your hormones are going at 100 mph, so occasion of sin, regardless, is some thing you make in this situation if you let become an issue.
And health-wise, they say its “safe”but that is could cause a premature birth. (I really can’t go into details.)
But the most important thing here is the baby’s formation. The baby is a sponge even in the womb.
Do you want your baby to start being affected by the moral actions you choose? See, its just I can’t find a way to explain it to you without saying something potentialy offensive. So I’ll stop at this. Children take after their parents, in both genes, qualities and defects. So here is the question: What would St. Joachim and St.Anne do?
Nice response Jimmy.
Anonymous, your comments may be in violation of Rule 20, and definitely seem more than a little misguided to me.
Remember, sex has two purposes, not just one, unitive and procreative, and even where the procreative purpose is moot (such as during infertile periods, after menopause, and during pregnancy), the unitive aspect is still a good reason for conjugal relations.
Besides — the questioner’s specific medical issues aside — sex during pregnancy, especially late pregnancy, actually does serve a procreative benefit. It helps prime the woman’s body to give birth. Women who engage in late pregnancy sex are less likely to need to be induced than abstinent women (source).
Sex as a trigger for full-term delivery is a good thing; if you mean to imply that sex during pregnancy correlates with premature delivery, I am not aware of any evidence to support that.
other anon
look it up.
Anonymous #1 — I suggest you get a copy of Christopher West’s book, The Good News About Sex and Marriage. Everything about your post suggests that you believe sex is…well, just…dirty. You are wrong, and appear to have some seriously misguided notions about “holiness.”
not at all. Just people are making it a dirty act.
So don’t go about assuming that I am some whacko that thinks sex is the devil. What is true is that people forgot what sex is for. Read closly on my first post. I even said if you’re infertile you have the right to intercourse with a spouse.
OK, let’s look at your first post:
“But now, there is no need on basis of the order of God, to procreate. You are already on that path, so may God bless you with that. To do this now, seems almost unnatural. Though I am not sure that to do is or is not a sin, I am inclined to say that in any other circumstance, even if you couldn’t have children, its a right you aquire to do the marital act.”
You have referred here to sex during pregnancy as “almost unnatural,” and you’re unsure whether or not it is a sin. Sounds like you’re calling it dirty to me.
“But the most important thing here is the baby’s formation. The baby is a sponge even in the womb.
Do you want your baby to start being affected by the moral actions you choose?”
What are we to gather from that comment, other than sex itself is dirty?
“Remember, sex has two purposes, not just one, unitive and procreative, and even where the procreative purpose is moot ”
This is precisely what Anonymous #1 was recognizing and you Other Anon is completely ignoring. Using a prophylactic device invalidates the unitive nature of the marital embrace and thus is immoral. The recommendation of looking to the saints for guidance is right on.
Perhaps there is some sort of treatment which could reduce the possibility of infection?
During pregancy, however, nature has provided a sort of de facto hinderance to the procreative possibility of that particular sexual act- the impossibility of a second pregnacy occuring after fertilization and implantation has already occured. In this setting, I don’t see how insemination contributes to the marital act: If there is no egg to be fertilized, then the sperm themselves have no real purpose.
Matt,
Perhaps I’m missing something, but you seem to be suggesting that “other anon” was advocating the use of prophylactics. I don’t see that he was.
“The recommendation of looking to the saints for guidance is right on.” Agreed, but I don’t think we have any writings from St. Anne and St. Joachim to go by, and anonymous #1 is simply assuming that they abstained from sex during pregnancy because it’s “almost unnatural” and “may be a sin.” Sounds like bootstrapping of the highest order to me.
Actually, I read the “The life of the Blessed Virgin Mary” as discribed by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. Thers is stuff to read about them. And I know many Saints like St. Lous IX of France only had intercourse a set number of times only to have the children he is obligated to procreate. His wife agreed with the pact. So there are examples. So, sex is not in itself a sin, but when and why and how is what can make it a sin. During pregnancy? Please.
Br.
I’m assuming that when Anon#1 says “Though I am not sure that to do is or is not a sin” he is referring to intercourse between a husband and wife, during pregnancy, and using a prophylactic device. I don’t think he is suggesting that intercourse during pregnancy is immoral.
Since the discussion is regarding sex with a condom during pregnancy, I assume when Anon #2 says “Remember, sex has two purposes, not just one, unitive and procreative, and even where the procreative purpose is moot (such as during infertile periods, after menopause, and during pregnancy), the unitive aspect is still a good reason for conjugal relations. ” he is speaking in that context. If I’ve misread him, I apologize. If that’s not the case, then what exactly of Anon #1’s statement is he criticizing?
“What would St. Joachim and St.Anne do?” We have no writings on this, but I assume he is suggesting to seek inspiration in how much they might sacrifice in order to avoid moral error.
“This is precisely what Anonymous #1 was recognizing…”
Your interpretation of Anonymous #1 is possible, but hardly certain, since s/he (a) doesn’t mention prophylatic devices at all and (b) doesn’t say WHAT s/he thinks is “almost unnatural.” You’re just guessing.
“Using a prophylactic device invalidates the unitive nature of the marital embrace and thus is immoral.”
That is certainly true of an intact condom; the question under discussion is a perforated condom.
“The recommendation of looking to the saints for guidance is right on.”
Unfortunately, the lives of St. Anne and St. Joachim offer little insight into what their views on perforated condoms would have been. Like “WWJD?” asking “What would SS. Anne and Joachim do?” is merely an invitation to imagine the most pious and rigorous possible stance, which is not always the same as the most morally sound one.
Other Anon
I’m a total bystander on this issue, but I’ll butt in anyway.
As long as the mother isn’t fragile, and the pregnancy isn’t at a fragile point, I’ve never heard any doctor say that women shouldn’t have sex during pregnancy.
(This was the advice during certain points of Victorian times, but that was part of the same package with “all pregnant women should have complete bedrest for nine months”. And it was a big strain on marriages.)
I don’t think it’s fair, either, to suggest that because two people married to each other want to have sex, they have a “physical dependency”.
Furthermore, one gathers that their husbands’ desire for them while pregnant is a big self-boost to pregnant ladies’ self-image. Also, one gathers that a lot of husbands think their pregnant wives are very sexy. The two factors put together are probably one of those gifts from God to help couples stay together during the stresses and strains of pregnancy and hormones.
Those who don’t find the idea appealing obviously don’t have to do it. But it seems silly to tell other people not to do something that is licit and healthy, and which they enjoy doing together.
I wish all blessings for the reader, and I hope this solution or something similar works out and is safe for her and her husband.
Matt,
Perhaps anon #1 can chime in, but I don’t read him the same way that you do. My guess is that he would regard any use of a prophylactic as unnatural (because it is). Thus, when he says that “it” is “almost unnatural” he almost certainly is referring to sex during pregnancy, not sex with a prophylactic. In other words, sex during pregnancy with a prophylactic would be unnatural (because of the prophylactic), so it would not make any sense for him to say that it is “almost unnatural.”
“And health-wise, they say its “safe”but that is could cause a premature birth. (I really can’t go into details.)
But the most important thing here is the baby’s formation. The baby is a sponge even in the womb.
Do you want your baby to start being affected by the moral actions you choose? ”
I found that the post by anonymous #1 was very confusing and hard to understand. Perhaps she can clarify her position.
My wife and I were never told by our doctor that sex during pregnancy could harm anything. In fact sex late in the pregnancy actually gets a woman’s body ready for delivery. I am sure that there are cases where complete abstinence is advisable but this is not the norm.
I advise that anybody who thinks that sex during pregnancy is somehow unnatural or can harm the morals of the baby in the womb learn more about what the Catholic Church teaches about sex.
One thing that bears consideration is whether becoming accustomed to using the perforated condoms during pregnancy (presuming it were morally neutral in itself) might still be an avenue of temptation. They don’t come out of the wrapper pre-perforated, and there is a likelihood of some being “left over” after the baby is born.
I thought arccording to moral theology from the earlier centuries, it was immoral to engage in marital congress. The woman has life growing inside her and her body should be respected. They should abstain for nine months. It does not destroy love or marriage. It is reasonable. Maybe lust plays a role in wanting marital relations during pregnancy.
It is unreasonable to expect a married couple to abstain from sex during pregnancy when there is no good medical reason. The couple may use abstinence as a time to grow closer together if they chose but it would not be immoral to have sex.
Suggesting that lust has something to do with marital relations only because your wife is pregnant is complelty absurd. This sounds like prudery and is very offensive.
Look into the writings of Dr. Robert Bradley, famed for coming up with the “Bradley Method” of natural childbirth. We used this method and my daughter was born completely drug free (which says a great deal about my wife!)
Anyway, as others have said, sex during the late part of pregnancy has been shown to be an ingredient in helping move labor along and ultimately helping a safe, healthy birth to happen. The only situation in which it would not be advisable, so far as I can tell, is in a case of incompetent cervix, where there is a danger of dilation and delivery coming too early. Part of this can be counteracted with proper diet – a diet that is well balanced, for one thing, and includes a great deal of water, as well as tons of protein, can help to strengthen membranes and maintain hydration through the entire body, thus lowering risks. Not nearly enough people know about this, but if you google the bradley method, you can find their website where they have a spreadsheet that can help you figure out whether you’re getting the appropriate diet to keep the little one developing wonderfully as well as keeping mom’s body functioning as God designed.
Here is a site with some information on treating bacterial infections while pregnant:
http://www.gentlebirth.org/Midwife/vagInfections.html#Vaginosis
I would not recommend use of a perforated condom. I’m not sure it would be an effective method of avoiding continual reinfection. In addition to some of the methods suggested at the site, I would make sure to use impeccable hygiene before and after marital relations (email me if you need more details, I’d rather not be too explicit on our hosts space here). Support both immune systems by using lots of fresh garlic in cooking, lots of vitamin C (which has been shown to strengthen the amniotic membranes anyway), and even using grape seed extract if signs/symptoms indicate an episode of infection.
Hope you can carry a healthy term pregnancy. Many prayers!
I would definitely double-/triple-check this doctor’s advice. What is the bacterial infection in question? Most can be easily treated with remedies ranging from the completely natural (increased probiotics (like natural yogurt) or garlic consumption) to the medical (prophylactic antibiotics – often used with Group B Strep, for example). It has also been found that semen has antibacterial properties.
Previous posters are correct that semen is extremely valuable in helping labor begin naturally at term. In fact, if a woman is to be induced, she is given a prostaglandin (from the PROSTAte GLAND) suppository – made from horse semen, if I recall correctly. Which is the more desirable method?
Lastly, I would definitely question the suggestion of condoms, as doctors like to throw BC pills and condoms at any malady they can. Rarely is it the best, or even a decent, option. Demand to know the alternatives!
Forgot to add that condoms themselves are a means of introducing all manner of bacteria.
If I were you I would go to the website of NaPro Technology and ask one of the doctors there for their advice.
http://www.fertilitycare.org/nptech.html
Out of respect for the new life growing in the womb, abstinence during pregnancy is very reasonable. It seems too many Catholics have fallen into modernism.
“For the spouses to truly be united in marital congress that is open to procreation, at least some insemination must occur. Without insemination, one does not have a completed marital act.”
This just makes no sense to me.
Insemination is proper to the procreative aspect of intercourse. In pregnancy, there is no possibility of a procreative aspect. Or, if you would, the procreative aspect is already in a state of continual satisfaction, given the wife’s pregnancy.
How much more procreative can you be, than pregnant?
The condom couldn’t possibly detract from the procreative function of the act, because the act has been denuded of its procreative aspect by pregancy.
It seems to me that if the procreative aspect must be present, then sex during pregnancy must be illicit. But, that’s not the case.
I’m curious, Mr. Akin, if your conclusion is a matter of deduction, or if there are any official Church teachings on sex while pregnant?
OK. I am bored already with these modern, hippy do whatever you want ideas. But since this blog is not reaching to conclusion, and most importantly its doing no good to anybody’s soul, then just cut it. I am the famous Anon#1. And I am not a girl as someone said. Any clarifications I am glad to explain if you ask. I didn’t want to put by blog name because I am not one who has first hand experience, and never will, as I intend to become a priest, God willing. So in essence, I cannot be one to know, well by personal experience. But on morals I can speak about. So any questions, no problem.
God Bless, and I mean no offense to anyone, I only seek the best for the souls.
Good analysis by Eric. You would have to conclude that Sex during pregnancy is illicit.
But Rafael, isn’t the procreative aspect satisfied by the pregnancy?
But not as a result of the act.
“Remember, sex has two purposes, not just one, unitive and procreative, and even where the procreative purpose is moot ”
Eric – Nice observation. I think I agree.
Would you be willing to apply this same position during periods of infertility? Is using a condom acceptable during those times?
Correction. Below is Eric’s quote that I wished to quote:
“The condom couldn’t possibly detract from the procreative function of the act, because the act has been denuded of its procreative aspect by pregancy.”
Jimmy, is someone out there making up this question?
Of course it’s not wrong to use a condom if au naturel poses a threat to that baby– and hopefully any priest worth his salt would say so. Put a pregnant woman on meds to alleviate a risk of infection?? Are you serious, people? Hopefully, any doctor worth his diplomas would refuse such an assinine request. Are we to think that fulfilling the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law is more important than a pre-born baby’s health??
I am presuming most of those who posted here were not ever enormous with child, else they’d know one isn’t overly concerned about psychic wounding or going blind from a wee abstinence OR a wee condom during pregnancy.
Marriage is a lifelong partnership entered into by two, witnessed by the community, blessed/sacramentalized by the Lord via His persona Christi, BUT.. it is between those two. They decide together, as best they can. It is their vocation, they are not slaves.
PS My son was born nearly 6 wks prematurely, at 5 lbs. 4 oz. We nearly lost him. Did I make that mistake of late-pregnancy intimacy again?
Not a chance. After a certain point in pregnancy, it was cold shower time.. we can all abstain (sacrifice) for the greater good of a new Creation of His.
Of course it’s not wrong to use a condom if au naturel poses a threat to that baby– and hopefully any priest worth his salt would say so.
Since absitnence is possible and morally acceptable, abstinence must be used if there are risks. You as much say so in your PS.
Put a pregnant woman on meds to alleviate a risk of infection?? Are you serious, people? Hopefully, any doctor worth his diplomas would refuse such an assinine request.
Any doctor worth his salt should be sympathetic to the needs of the patient, including moral concerns. Just saying it is asinine does not make it so.
Are we to think that fulfilling the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law is more important than a pre-born baby’s health??
Practicing abstinence makes this a non-starter.
I am presuming most of those who posted here were not ever enormous with child, else they’d know one isn’t overly concerned about psychic wounding or going blind from a wee abstinence OR a wee condom during pregnancy.
Lack of direct experience in pregnancy no more invalidates the ability to use correct moral reasoning than not having murdered anyone disqualifies me from sitting on a jury of a murder trial.
Marriage is a lifelong partnership entered into by two, witnessed by the community, blessed/sacramentalized by the Lord via His persona Christi, BUT.. it is between those two. They decide together, as best they can. It is their vocation, they are not slaves.
Correction, marriage has three–husband, spouse and God. Using condoms is objectively wrong and nothing in the arguments above overthrow that.
Arrrg. Forgot to close my italics tag. That’ll learn me to use the preview button. 🙂
italics off
Many are forgetting that the conjugal act is a renewal of the SACRAMENT of marriage – you are recipients of sanctifying grace when uniting yourselves to one another. The conjugal act is a “sign or symbol” of the ecstatic union of the soul with God… read some of Teresa of Avila’s advice to her brother who felt arousal during ecstasy…
Think of the SAFETY of the child vs the union of the spouses. Which is more grave? Forget the condom altogether as a perforated condom is the only acceptable option & this would risk infection anyway, as has been said, the condom itself is an infection risk.
God bless.
Thank God you are going to be celibate your whole life Anon#1.
+J.M.J+
>>>Any doctor worth his salt should be sympathetic to the needs of the patient, including moral concerns. Just saying it is asinine does not make it so.
I think Honora is referring to the fact that many meds are harmful to the developing baby, and so contraindicated by pregnancy. That’s why she says it is “asinine” to put a pregnant woman on meds to alleviate a risk of infection.
In Jesu et Maria,
Excellent analysis, Jimmy. Thank you as always.
To provide some real time input to this discussion, I am currently pregnant, and we are not abstaining, since we have no medical reason to do so. That being said, if we had to, we would, as we are more than our genitals.
And let’s not forget, there is a lot of “natural” abstaining that goes on during pregnancy. Especially when you are sitting around in 90 degree heat feeling like Two-Ton Tessie.
It is so frustrating to me to hear these types of things from the medical community, however. “Just use a condom” instead of finding a real, medical solution to help this couple.
I agree with the ladies here who advise against the condom use altogether. Unless he is going to be using sterile gloves to open the package and put it on, which would probably ruin the whole romantic atmophere, it will not be germ-free!
Is there an infection that you and your spouse are giving back and forth to each other? If so, he should get to the doctor and start on antibiotics, asap. And if you and your husband are careful to be as hygenic as you can, you would probably be as protected having relations naturally as you would be with a perforated condom.
I would suggest that perhaps you two abstain for a few months, until the baby is at a ‘safe’ point in his development, such that if your relations trigger early labor, he will have a greater chance of surviving premature birth.
Some Day,
Congratulations and thank you on your chosen vocation! (Or, I should say, on the vocation for which you have been chosen.) It is, of course, not necessary for you to have “personal experience” to speak with expertise on these matters. Sometimes, as in the case of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, one can see things more clearly from the outside looking in.
The only remaining question from this post that I would have for you is one related to your original post. Were you intending to say that sex during pregnancy is “almost unnatural” and possibly sinful, or did you have another meaning in mind?
And knowing your chosen vocation, I would recommend most highly not only Christopher West’s book (the Good News About Sex and Marriage), but also his CD series (Naked Without Shame). It is 10 CDs and is about $3.90 including delivery charges. West seems to have his finger on the pulse of John Paul II in this area, and his is the most effective work I’ve seen in making the Theology of the Body accessible to all. For one who will not be acquiring “personal experience” but who may will be on the front lines counseling those who are, I would regard these resources as invaluable.
“For the spouses to truly be united in marital congress that is open to procreation, at least some insemination must occur. Without insemination, one does not have a completed marital act.”
This is part of the unitive element of intercourse, so the lack of procreative possibility in pregnancy or infertility does not render condom use licit.
“Many are forgetting that the conjugal act IS a renewal OF the SACRAMENT OF marriage – you are recipients OF sanctifying grace WHEN uniting yourselves TO one another. The conjugal act IS a “sign or symbol” OF the ecstatic UNION OF the soul WITH God… READ SOME OF Teresa OF Avila’s advice to her brother who felt arousal during ecstasy…”
This is absolutely and utterly false. The marital act does NOT confer sanctifying grace, while it could build grace as “good” action. The marital act is not part of the sacrament, nor is it necessary for the sacrament. If you wish to assert such things then provide a magisterial citation to support it.
I agree with Eric. There is no procreative aspect here- the woman is already pregnant. Just as in the case of infertile couples, procreation is not possible, but sexual relations are. In addition, I don’t know where the Church has said that the unitive aspect of relations is synonymous with insemination- the unitive aspect is partly emotional/psychological and partly physical but where does it say that insemination is required for this aspect?
Eric,
The marital act itself has certain objective characteristics, and insemination is one of them.
Thus, a contracepted act may be a shadow or an image of the marital act, but it is essentially a different act. That, in my understanding, is why Jimmy is correct when he says:
“For the spouses to truly be united in marital congress that is open to procreation, at least some insemination must occur. Without insemination, one does not have a completed marital act.”
You said that “[i]nsemination is proper to the procreative aspect of intercourse.” Technically, insemination is proper to the act of intercourse, not simply to an aspect of it.
The right question at the outset is whether or not a contracepted act is, in fact, a marital act. The seemingly mundane answer is that no, it is not, because it is missing one of the objective criteria for the marital act.
During pregnancy (or any other infertile time), the act itself remains a procreative act, whether or not the couple has any procreative intentions.
“I don’t know where the Church has said that the unitive aspect of relations is synonymous with insemination- the unitive aspect is partly emotional/psychological and partly physical but where does it say that insemination is required for this aspect?”
No one, to my knowledge, has said that the unitive aspect is synonymous with insemination. I believe you need to be asking a different question. Before you can analyze the different aspects of an act, you have to figure out what the act itself is.
A marital act is substantially and essentially different from a contracepted act due to the fact that one of the objective criteria of the act is missing.
How is an act “open to procreation” if procreation is impossible?
BTW, there are certain conditions in which insemination is impossible ( retrograde ejacualtion, after orchiectomy, etc.) but the marital act is still licit and unitive even though it is not procreative.
Consider the act itself and not simply when it is used.
To use a poor analogy, a golf swing is only known as a golf swing because it is used to play golf. If the game of golf did not exist, grabbing a stick and swinging it would constitute a golf swing. Now a golf swing is still a golf swing whether or not their is a ball sitting in front of me. It still has all the objective characteristics of a golf swing, despite the fact that I know I will not be hitting a golf ball (which is probably a very good thing). The act itself is meant to be used to hit the golf ball, but it is still a golf swing when the golf ball is not present.
It appears I have made a poor analogy even worse with a glaring typo:
It should read “If the game of golf did not exist, grabbing a stick and swinging it would NOT constitute a golf swing.”
Perhaps I should have just hit the delete button!
In your analagy, what is the marital-sexual counterpart to hitting the golf ball, and why? Is it coitus, ejacualtion, insemination, acheiving pregnancy, or something else?
Good question. The analogy begins limping immediately because the golf swing has a single purpose — hitting the golf ball — and the marital act has a twofold purpose — the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. (See CCC 2363.)
Thus, I believe that in my analogy, the counterpart to hitting the golf ball would be the union of the spouses and/or the achievement of pregnancy.
Well, going back to the original question, since pregnancy has already been achieved and is not possible to achieve further, and union still takes place (unless you define union very narrowly as insemination) then it would seem to be licit for the couple in question to use a condom.
thomas tucker,
How can union take place when a barrier is between husband and wife?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
There is no marital act — therefore it would not be licit for the couple in question to use a condom.
Union is not defined as insemination. Insemination is one of the objective characteristics of the marital act. The marital act has union and procreation as its two ultimate ends.
Union can occur without the marital act, much like procreation can. The act is not defined by the presence (or lack thereof) of one or both of its ends.
Ah, sorry to be obtuse, but here’s where I lose you.
What defines the marital act then?
Yes, insemination may sometimes be a characteristic, but sometimes it is not ( as in the examples I mentioned above.)It apparently is not a sine qua non unless you want to say that there is no marital act when the male cannot ejaculate. Do you mean to say that?
Thomas Tucker,
I do not in the least regard you as obtuse, and on the contrary, I find your questions quite challenging. I am not familiar with the examples you cite, and am not at all certain how they would be regarded.
Regarding impotency, Canon 1084 does state that “[a]ntecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.” “Sterility,” on the other hand, “neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage . . . .”
These provisions do not directly answer your question, but do they at least suggest that no marital act takes place when either party is impotent?
In the meantime, I will try to locate a suitable definition of marital act for you. I do not have a complete one at hand.
Yes, they do, and I take that to mean that penetration is required for the marital act. But insemination??
See, I will research some more on natural marital acts during pregnancy, but I am inclined it is an unnatural act, as the end of marriage is not a non-sinful way to have sex. It is to procreate and sanctify themselves together and then their children. But since the procreative aspect is already fulfilled, there is no point of doing so. But then I know that it is a right of a marriage to have relations even when they are infertile. I also gather from unintelligent nature, animals, that even their instinct is to not mate during pregnancy. I don’t want to compare mothers and animals, but sex is an act of the flesh, ergo more in the animal instinct of humans, as in a way we are rational animals (yes I know its a low way to look at people, but for the purpose I will use it.) But as for condoms, preforated or otherwise, that is completely unnatural, as Adam didn’t have a pack when created, so that is obvious. No arguement for that. The rest, I’ll look it up more closely.
God Bless You All (and your babies)
“Without insemination, one does not have a completed marital act.”
Without the possibility of pregnancy, one does not have a completed marriage act. If the sperm cannot cause a pregnancy, then the marriage act is not open to the possibility of pregnancy as is the case when the woman is already pregnant, or in the infertile period of the monthly cycle, or past the age of menopause. AND LOVE IS NOT SEMEN AND SEMEN IS NOT LOVE!!!!!!!!!
This whole discussion shows just how incoherent and misguided the official teachings on birth control and natural family planning really are. It’s just another example of how unfortunate it is that Ratzinger became pope. Now they won’t officially allow birth control for years and years to come.
The “marriage act” is essential for the sacrament to be valid, I believe. The vows are the spoken part, and the marriage act is the physical part. (similar to the spoken words of baptism, and the water) A marriage is not complete until it has been consummated. That’s why those who are unable to complete the act are unable to marry.
And I don’t know if it confers “sanctifying” grace (a point that was disputed earlier) but certainly it confers some grace. It is the renewal of the sacrament.
We receive the sacrament of the Eucharist regularly. The renewal of this sacrament of marriage is just grace on a smaller scale.
In response to Thomas Tucker, I was also wondering: might there be there a distinction between “not having insemination” and “blocking insemination”?
Because we can certainly draw a moral distinction between an individual marriage act where the man somehow just never ejactulates and eventually gives up, and a marriage act that ends in “withdrawal” so as to prevent insemination. (or condom use, they are about the same)
The first is unintentional (and I don’t know if it counts as a completed marriage act or not, but it is not immoral because it was not intended) and the second is intentional and clearly prohibited.
Just reading through the comments on this post, one cannot miss the absolute mess we have in the Church in terms of clear teaching and clear catechesis on the sacrament of marriage, teaching on contraceptives, and the sacred nature and value of sex.
Consider too that the posts here are all from Catholics who are actually interested in knowing their faith. Imagine this same conversation among those uninterested and how much less they must have to offer in terms of their own understanding.
Oy
Stickey,
get out of here with “how unfortunate it is that Ratzinger became pope.”
Even if it was Alexander VI I would still have fidelity to the Pope. And you hate Benedict XVI for his good things. Get outta here with that.
Louise,
The marital act is not the sensible act that validates a marriage. You can get married and vow to not have relations. Mary and Joseph did, and it was a marriage. But I am not sure what makes the Sacrament of Marriage valid. I think presence is the physical aspect. Just like in Confession, it is only valid with proximity, as in not over a phone. But nice guess.
In response to Eric, the procreative aspect is not present because of the pregnancy, therefore the sex would be illicit. The act is unitive, and procrative. Since, the procreative aspect is not there because of the pregnancy, you would have to wait until after the pregnancy, when the procreative aspect is present again.
The condom debate is unbelieveable. Condoms are never morally accepted under any circumstances. There are only two options: Marital congress or total abstinence.
As I understand canon law (caveat: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing), a valid but non-consumated marriage can be invalidated by Rome for good cause. Thus, the consumation would not validate the marriage, per se, but would operate to make the marriage indissoluble.
And Stickey: “Now they won’t officially allow birth control for years and years to come.” Technically, you may be correct, since it will be “years and years” until the end of time. The Magisterium has admitted that it has no authority to allow birth control, officially or unofficially, and infallible teachings of the Church do not change.
It just seems to me that it is common sense that when your wife is pregnant, she is pregnant with child, so you should abstain. The argument that that is unreasonable is ridiculous. What abou the years of abstinence before marriage?
Rafael,
Your argument is reasonable if, and only if, procreation is the only end or purpose of marital relations. It is not.
Abstinence outside of marriage has little to do with the subject, because such abstinence has an entirely different purpose (ie, it is not directed to either the unity of the spouses or the procreation of children, the two purposes, or ends, of marital relations).
Stickey and Jason- this is all theological reflection and discussion. If you want to be anti-intellectual, go ahead. But somewhere else please.
Rafael- the question of condom usage is still debated by theologians so I don’t think it’s quite as black-and-white as you want to make it ( see articls about the debate over condom usage in AIDS patients.) Along those lines, I have read that the Vatican has allowed post-coital contraceptives in rape victims because it is not a marital act. FInally, the prohibition against contraceptives IN MARRIAGE is not because it is unnatural but because it severs the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage.
so you’re argueing that “oh I’m married so I can have sex all day if I please.”
Common, sanctify your marriage.
…have read that the Vatican has allowed post-coital contraceptives in rape victims because it is not a marital act…
NO, NO, NO, that Vatican has and will never allow that. That is an abortion. After conception.
Please
Hey Tucker, it isn’t intellectual conversation, it is the ramblings of the confused masses with some intellegent comments mixed in. If you wish to participate in the intelligent portion of the conversation, you can start by not calling folks ‘anti-intellectual’.
You know what, Jason? You are right. I apologize.
SOme Day- read this article. I have read this in other places too. There is a lot of theological speculation about these matters- they aren’t so simplistic. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/health/main608255.shtml
It is not as complex. What is, is that how there Princes of the Church that would say things contrary to the Church. Condoms are bad no matter how you put it. If they say it to a prostitute, its like saying to a terrorist, “oh if you are going to kill him, do it quick.”The evil is still achieved. As for AIDS in marriage, well abstinence is the only way to go.
thomas tucker,
FInally, the prohibition against contraceptives IN MARRIAGE is not because it is unnatural but because it severs the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage.
Humanae Vitae states:
The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches as absolutely required that in any use whatever of marriage there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to procreate human life.
At least that seems to say that part of the prohibition against contraception is the unnatural impairment of the marital act’s natural capacity.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“The Magisterium has admitted that it has no authority to allow birth control, officially or unofficially, and infallible teachings of the Church do not change.”
It is not infallible, they have changed other things in the past that were just as firmly held, and they will almost certainly change it some time in the forseeable future. It just takes time.
Thomas Tucker,
Thanks for the link. I particularly got a chuckle out of the following quote:
“The U.N. agency said that condoms are 90 percent effective when used correctly and that the other 10 percent fail because they are used incorrectly.”
When did Yogi Berra start working for the U.N.?
Two cautions on the article in general, though.
The first, obviously enough, is that the MSM comes at this with an agenda, and does not even pretend to acknowledge some of the subtleties of Catholic moral theology. They will go to great lengths to promote controversy in this regard where none genuinely exists, and they are positively giddy over the thought that the Vatican might (at least in their wildest dreams) approve of condoms in some circumstances at some time in the future.
The second is that the example you cite is from Charles Curran, who has been trying to spread his notion that dissent is good for the Church and permissible for years now.
Bottom line, I would not consider something coming from Curran through CBS on a matter of Catholic moral theology to be even the least bit reliable.
Like what Stick?
Please stop writing if you want to be the Pope and make the Church like a store-front Protestant.
Innocencio,
With all due respect, you have added the word “unnatural” to your summation of humane vitae.
Stickey:
“It is not infallible, they have changed other things in the past that were just as firmly held, and they will almost certainly change it some time in the forseeable future. It just takes time.”
You are simply and verifiably incorrect in this assertion. And while I can’t help but believe this is futile, I will challenge you to provide a single example.
I second that challange.
In fact Stickey, you shouldn’t even write here anymore.
“I will challenge you to provide a single example.”
Usury, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, slavery, and torture. And what about the Syllabus of Errors? Was that infallible?
There is a lot of confusion in this thread. I wish Jimmy would jump in and do some clarifying.
Here are the opinions which have been presented here
1. Married couples shouldn’t have intercourse during pregnancy at all. Why not….”out of respect for the child” “because there’s a baby there” “because she is already pregnant so there is no reason to have sex” etc. Pretty much this person is saying, while denying, that sex is something essentially unclean but the uncleanness can be excused or ameliorated under certain circumstances, such as when the married partners intend a pregnancy. This is not the teaching of the church, although one must admit that there were certainly strains of this attitude in the Christian tradition. Current Catholic teaching is that sex during pregnancy and for infertile couples and after menopause, where any natural infertility is not being artifically blocked but there is a natural lack of fertility, still fulfills the unitive purpose (and the relief of concupisence) purpose of marriage and is not only permitted, but a good thing.
2. Position two accepts the above. But it holds that the “unitive” purpose of marriage is not just about love, affection, emotions, feelings of togetherness and interdependence, but is about the physical union of the man and the woman, and for this union to be complete there has to be physical contact between the penis and the vagina, and sperm has to be deposited in the vagina. (There is a question about some medical conditions which cause sperm not to be deposited even though no barrier is used. This question does not appear to have been addressed satisfactorily by those who hold this view.) This is the point of view of traditional moral theology.
This is the point of view from which Jimmy answered the question.
3. Then there is the point of view taken here by Thomas Tucker. He sees semen as necessary for the procreative aspect of marriage but not for the unitive. This is because he is thinking of unitive more in a psychological sense. This way of thinking would, for instance, possibly allow the use of condoms when one partner has AIDS…especially if one partner was already infertile so that there was no question of a contraceptive use of the condom. I am not sure if this way of addressing the issue has been conclusively found to be unorthodox. However, I would want to ask if the emotional union doesn’t rest on the physical union, and if the presence of some latex between them doesn’t actually affect the psychological meaning of the act as well. That said, personally I would say that if it were really true that the use of a condom would help prevent the transmission of a bacterial infection which could cause premature labor (which apparently has not been conclusively or even very suggestively demonstrated) it would be reasonable to consider this licit. I think one could find moral theologians generally obedient to the magisterium who would agree with this. However, what Jimmy said is still the more traditional position.
4. Then there are a few commentors above who took advantage of the fact that there is confusion and disagreement about these issues here to reject totally the teaching of the church in these matters. I think we can safely ignore them.
By the way, I think I have heard it said that marital intercourse is a means of grace for married couples….but I don’t know where I heard it or what the status of that is. Christopher West certainly talks about it as the ratification or restatement of the marriage covenant, and as such, a holy act.
Susan Peterson
Brother cadfael in response, I disagree. I didn’t say procreation is the only aspect in marital relationss. It is BOTH procreative and unitive. Relations during pregnancy is illicit because only the unitive aspect is present. The procreative aspect is not available because of the pregnancy. Marital act has to have BOTH the procreative and unitive aspect at ALL times in every act. The marital embrace cannot have just a procreative aspect by itself or just the unitive aspect by itself. You are saying marital relations during pregnancy is ok even though it is only unitive.
Well- those issue have all been handled, and that is getting far afield from the question at hand.
Brother- I agree with you regarding Curran and regarding the mainstream media, but I have read other articles about the “nuns in Africa allowed to use contraceptives” situation unrelated to him. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that artificial contraception is prohibited in the marital union, not necessarily other sexual unions.
Stickey,
You cite 5 or 6 examples. We can certainly deal with them all, but one at a time will probably be best. Let’s start with torture, unless you would like to start with a different one.
What is the infallible teaching on torture that you think has changed?
Brother Cadfael,
Since Humanae Vitae is talking about artifical contraception is that somehow natural?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Rafael,
I didn’t say that you said procreation is the only aspect in marital relations. I said that your argument is only reasonable if procreation is the only end or purpose of marital relations. I agree with you that the premise that would make your argument reasonable is false.
To follow your logic, sexual intercourse within a marriage would be disallowed whenever there was no chance of procreation. (If you think there is another logical end to your argument, I’d love to hear it.) That is most certainly and definitely wrong (ie, it is not what the Church teaches).
The error you are making is in failing to distinguish between the act itself and the purposes for which the act is taken. Catholic moral theology does clearly distinguish between the two.
Inocencio,
Is artificial contraception somehow natural? I don’t see any way that it could be. Why do you ask?
Thomas tucker, It doesn’t matter how many theologians debate the condom issue. The Magisterium has spoken and said that all condom use is immoral. Even in a marriage when a spouse has AIDS. The soultion would have to be abstinence. The Church has not changed its position on condom use and AIDS. It doesn’t matter what theologians say or how many PHD’s they have. They cannot proclaim truth. Only the magisterium can.
And the magisterium has not yet spoken to clarify this issue.
SFP
Thomas Tucker, The pill is different from the condom. The pill can be taken only for medicine. If there is a medicinal value, the pill can taken only for that purpose. You say that the pill is given to rape victims in hospitals. It is used in rare circumstances. I’m not an expert, but i believe it only given if there has been no implantation. Beyond a certain point, the pill cannot be admisnisted to a rape victim I believe.
Susan Peterson- The Magisterium has spoken on Condom use in Humane Vitae. It has not changed its position and it will not no matter what a theologian or cardinal says.
“you shouldn’t even write here anymore”
Some Day, unless you are a moderator for this forum, I don’t think you should attempt to be the judge of that. I don’t know how it works – it may be the case that Jimmy regularly deletes comments that he finds to be innapropriate and in that case, he may delete mine. But I think you should leave decisions like that to the people who are in charge of this blog.
“Let’s start with torture, unless you would like to start with a different one.
What is the infallible teaching on torture that you think has changed?”
Actually, I think usury is better to start with. As far as I know, there was nothing that made the papal bulls condeming usury any different from the ones that condemned artificial birth control which I believe were Casti Connubi and Humanae Vitae as well as the ones issued by Pope John Paul. I believe these were all teaching documents of a doctrinal nature. And Humanae Vitae was declared to be not infallible if I remember correctly. In addition, the papal bulls against usury were backed up with more scriptural support than the papal encyclicals that banned artificial birth control. So I think it’s the same for both birth control and usury.
Sticky wicket, you are confused about infallibility. Infallibility comes from either directly from the Pope or through Church tradition, such as dogma and doctrine. The Popes have spoken infallible only twice, in the immaculate conception and assumption. Humanae Vitae is infallable because it restates doctrine and the 2,000 year teaching against contraception. Most things are infallible because of dogma and doctrine. Birth control falls under doctrine, just like abortion.
“Humanae Vitae is infallable because it restates doctrine and the 2,000 year teaching against contraception. Most things are infallible because of dogma and doctrine.”
But I think that the natural law arguments about not separating the unitive from the procreative functions are more recent than 2,000 years old. Before there may have been teachings that sex itself was sinful because if was a part of original sin. So if birth control teachings are infallible, there would have to be some way of deciding why they are matters of doctrine, but the others are not.
I’m still with Tucker.
The Church teaches that sex for infertile married couples is licit. In some cases men are infertile because they are unable to ejaculate (different from impotence). In such cases insemination is impossible. So, insemination is not necessary for licit married sex.
Basically, sex is not always procreative and unitive. And under certain conditions, like infertility, it is licit without the procreative aspect.
Being pregnant, in effect, renders a woman temporarily infertile. However, married sex is still licit in the same way that married sex for other infertile couples is licit.
Condom use is illicit because it frustrates the procreative aspect of the marital act. In the case of a pregnant woman there is no procreative potential, so there is no procreative component to the marital act. Therefore, what makes the condom illicit is no longer pertinent.
I think this line of reasoning is supported by the teaching of the Church that medical treatment that is deemed necessary for the well-being of the woman is licit, even if it has the undesired side-effect of contraception. From HV:
“15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”
If, in the case of the original question, a condom can be used as a therapeutic barrier from infection, and, due to infertility caused by pregnancy, does not cause infertility on its own, it seems clear to me that the use of the condom is licit.
As regards Rafael and his team, so to speak, I respect their commitment to abstinence, regard for the developing infant, and congnizance of the higher virtue of celibate chastity. I don’t think it promotes a ‘dirty’ view of sex to recognize that, as Paul tells us, abstinence is the better way. Our Tradition esteems virgins for a reason.
That being said, the most good doesn’t make the good, bad. And I don’t believe that it is out of step with the Church for the inquiring woman to protect herself with condoms, should that be the medically best way.
Very well, we can start with usury. But first, let me correct a couple misconceptions that both you and Rafael seem to be operating under.
Not all doctrines are equal, and not all doctrines are infallible. Canon 749.3 expressly states: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” Paragraph 23 of Donum Veritatis (issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1990), makes clear that the magisterium may also teach doctrines without intending to act “definitively” (“When the magisterium, not intending to act ‘definitively,’ teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of revelation and make explicit its contents….”).
Infallible doctrines are fully accurate insofar as they go and cannot be reversed, even though they may not necessarily be exhaustive and immune from further development.
Other doctrines — never having been proposed in a definitive manner — may, at least in theory, be changed or seemingly reversed in appropriate circumstances.
The short answer to your question is that the teaching on usury has never been proposed definitively, that in Humanae Vitae has.
And just to add another twist…
I was watch a special on TV a few years ago that showed a woman in France who became pregnant while she was already pregnant… I’d always thought that was impossible, but I guess I didn’t know everything!
At first they thought she was carrying twins but one was much smaller than the other, and they discovered that she had actually conceived while a couple of months into her pregnancy.
dogbert,
Sure that wasn’t fear factor you were watching?
Eric,
Since thomas tucker did not answer my question maybe you will, since you agree with him.
How can union take place when a barrier is between husband and wife?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
In response to stickey wicket, The idea that marital relations is unitive and procreative was recently developed is true, however it is an example of doctrine being developed or enhanced. It was still doctrine for the last 2,000 years, it was more fully developed in this century. teachings that sex was sinful came from theologians and not the magisterium. Many saints held that view, but of coarse they were wrong.
Jimmy, I think it might be time to invoke the rule 20 idea of disabling the combox on this one. This dear woman was looking for your opinion and got it. If she is reading all this she is getting lots of questionable moral theology and possibly more confused than ever.
Hi Some Day,
I think you raised something important: That sex during cyclical infertile periods and menopause isn’t closed to life just because nature has it that pregnancy is extremely unlikely outside of 1.) Miscalculating fertile and infertile periods or a false diagnosis of infertility/menopause, or 2.) A miracle where God really wants a child to be conceived, despite nature’s way of making conception much more unlikely.
Making conception unlikely, is what nature can do, and does do at times. (Cases of artificial contraception are another matter, because that’s not nature acting there.)
Since it’s to do with nature, then it seems that the same conditions apply to sex during pregnancy. It’s not closed to life at all just because the natural condition has a strong tendency to frustrate additional conceptions. We still have at least the #2 case where God can work with nature to cause a second conception to take place during a pregnancy in progress, if He really wanted to.
God usually doesn’t work this way, but fraternal twins show that multiple conceptions on different occasions are possible. Fraternal twins are often conceived weeks apart, and very rarely (so I read) even up to three months apart. (There was a case of this happening anywhere from maybe 2-5 years ago, and it was very big news, but I can’t find a source anymore.)
So, it seems to me that the fact that nature can frustrate conception under certain conditions does not have a bearing on the definition of how “open to procreation” a couple or an act is, as long as the frustrating of conception has a natural basis where God has the option to perform miracles, and we’re not placing artificial barriers in the way of God’s ability to act through nature.
We also should not parallel our sex drive to those of animals, who aren’t likely to have relations while pregnant. The whole basis of NFP rests upon the fact that we humans are different to animals in this very regard. Our sex drives are pretty random and for millennia, we couldn’t even know just when we were fertile. We were not created to only have a drive when we’re fertile, like animals are. God did not make us this way. And if he didn’t make us this way, there’s no reason to regulate our sex patterns after those of animals.
Cheers.
Inocnecio- if you are still reading this- it all depends on how you define union, doesn’t it?
Some Day: For goodness’ sake do you often try to throw people off blogs you do not own? Some attitude you have to the poor, misguided sinners of the world–I hope you get over it before you’re ordained.
Rafael: I think sexual behavior in different groups of animals is actually pretty variable, though I’d have to look it up. Other variations in lower animal sexual behavior include:
Polygyny (keeping a harem)
Serial polygyny (multiple females, not all at the same time)
Serial polyandry (multiple males, ditto)
Killing offspring of another male in order to inseminate their mother
Killing offspring of another female in order to enhance the survival of your own
If you’re a bonobo (pygmy chimp) a pretty wild hippy random polyamory.
Should we follow some of those as well because God ordained it for them?
Where do you draw the line between licit marital sex and lust? Can you think of no good to come out of sex during pregnancy? How does it differ morally from sex between a couple that is biologically infertile, where there is no risk to the baby?
Karen: Thank you (and some of the other ladies, too) for posting some sense.
Jimmy: PLEEEEEZE jump in here and restore order!!!!
Maybe Jimmy is collecting his thoughts and will, I hope, post again on this topic to answer some of the questions that have been raised.
“The short answer to your question is that the teaching on usury has never been proposed definitively, that in Humanae Vitae has.”
So the argument seems to be that a teaching can’t change if the teaching document or other declarations says that it can’t change, but otherwise it might be subject to change. But that does seem to be a bit of an artificial distinction given that in the case of usury it was clearly stated to be wrong even if they never said that it couldn’t change. That’s like the difference between saying that it’s wrong and saying that it’s wrong and it will always be wrong forever no matter what the circumstances are. It would be more straightforward to say that usury appeared to be wrong, but was not unambiguously wrong, but as far as I know that’s not what those papal bulls said – they just said it was plain wrong. And I believe Humanae Vitae was declared to be fallible although maybe everything John Paul said later on that particular topic was declared to be infallible.
Usury–lending money at an exorbitant rate–was, is, and always will be wrong. The Church’s teaching on that has never changed. What percentage consitutes “exorbitant” is subject to change, due, atleast in part, to changing economic conditions.
Want to take another shot at pointing out where the Church has ever contradicted herself in her teachings on faith or morals?
thomas tucker,
Inocnecio- if you are still reading this- it all depends on how you define union, doesn’t it?
Does your definition include an artifical barrier between husband and wife?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Stickey,
“That’s like the difference between saying that it’s wrong and saying that it’s wrong and it will always be wrong forever no matter what the circumstances are.”
You’re right. And Bill912 has succinctly described the development of the Church’s teaching on usury. But the simple fact is that at no point in time has a doctrine the Church regarded as infallible on usury been changed.
As to Humanae Vitae, it has been “declared” to be fallible only by those who wish to see it changed, not by the Magisterium.
There are three different ways that a teaching may come to be regarded as infallible: 1) the Pope acting ex cathedra and making a definitive proclamation; 2) the college of bishops making a definitive proclamation in an ecumenical council; and 3) the college of bishops in communion with the Pope maintain a constant teaching that a matter of faith or morals is definitively and always so. (See Canon 749 and Donum Veritatis). In Donum Veritatis, the Doctrine for the Congregation of the Faith specifically cites Humane Vitae in making the point that the competence of the Magisterium extends to that which concerns the natural law. It then goes on to say that it is a doctrine of faith that these moral norms (knowable by natural reason but difficult to access because of man’s sinfulness) can be infallibly taught by the Magisterium.
The question is whether the Magisterium intends to act in a definitive way.
Any fair reading of the text of Humanae Vitae reveals that it does. Pope Paul VI articulates on several occasions that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is the “constant teaching” of the Church and that contraception is “always unlawful.”
Inocencio- my answer is yes, because the two ends of marital congress between husband and wife are procreative and unitive. Unitive refers to the psychological effects produced between husband and wife. Condoms interfere with the procreative end of marriage, not the unitive, and so are prohibited except perhaps when the procreative end has already been abolished, in which case it seems to me that it doesn’t matter.
+J.M.J+
I don’t know whether it is a good idea to jump into this theological melee, but here goes:
I’d like to comment on the idea that condoms are immoral because they are an unnatural “barrier” between husband and wife and therefore prevent the unitive aspect of of the marital act. I’ve heard this argument before in various forms, and while there may be some truth to it, it leaves me with many questions.
First, doesn’t the Church teach that artificial birth control (ABC) frustrates the procreative end of conjugal relations? According to this argument, condoms would actually frustrate the unitive end – or perhaps both ends. The argument just seems to be drifting a bit here.
Second, do we ever find this argument in the Church’s official pronouncements against contraception? It’s been a while since I read Humanae Vitae, so my memory is spotty, but I don’t recall ever reading that.
A lot of arguments against contraception have come up in this thread, all claiming to be “Catholic” ones. Yet when we look at the Church’s official documents, we find statements like the following from Casti Connubii:
“Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (par. 56, emphasis mine).
The problem with ABC, according to Pope Pius XI, is that it deprives the marital act of its procreative power. This is buttressed by the quote from Humanae Vitae cited above:
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches as absolutely required that in any use whatever of marriage there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to procreate human life.” (emphasis mine)
Again, it is the impariment of the act’s procreative capacity that is immoral. Not per se that it creates a “barrier” between the spouses (an argument that only works with the barrier methods of contraception, anyway).
Now, I’m not saying that the “barrier” argument is untrue, or that it isn’t a good supporting argument of what’s wrong with certain types of contraception. It may well be that, but it’s not the primary problem with contraception in the eyes of God and Mother Church. The primary problem is the thwarting of the natural, God-given procreative power of the conjugal act. Other arguments against ABC may be true as well, but they are not the Church’s main point of contention with contraception.
The Church has also long taught that marital relations are permissible during infertile times because that procreative power is absent, and so cannot be thwarted. You cannot frustrate what is not there.
As for how this relates to the conjugal act during pregnancy, I don’t intend to draw a conclusion on that here. Since the procreative power is also absent during pregnancy, that seems like an argument in favor of it, yet there may be other considerations which would change that, so I’m not going to come to a definite conclusion here.
In Jesu et Maria,
Unitive is not just psychological.
ONE flesh.
Pope Pius VI makes the argument in HV that marital infidelity is one of the effects of contraception. I would agree in one sense that the effect of preventing the procreative aspect is the primary argument, but he definitely makes the case that it affects the unitive aspect as well.
Rosemarie,
Amen. I agree that the Church’s main reason is the rupture between the unitive and procreative.
Since the discussion is about a barrier method I was focusing on that.
I did post that I thought artifical impairment/barrier was part of the reason.
“At least that seems to say that part of the prohibition against contraception is the unnatural impairment of the marital act’s natural capacity.”
“I don’t know whether it is a good idea to jump into this theological melee, but here goes:
I always enjoy reading your posts especially how you sign them!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
+J.M.J+
Contraception does effect the unitive aspect, that’s true. It also effects the dignity of women, society’s attitude toward children, etc. Yet the thwarting of the procreative power is more than just an effect, it is the very essence of ABC.
The effects of contraception are bad, too, but that’s not the heart of the Church’s argument against it. I think that focusing on the heart of the Church’s opposition to ABC might help us to “focus” this discussion a bit more, rather than having it go in fifty different directions. I could be wrong, though.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Inocencio: Yes, I remembered that someone had pointed that out above, but wasn’t sure who (after reading almost 100 posts on this thread my eyes started to glaze over a bit.) Thanks and God bless.
In Jesu et Maria,
thomas tucker,
Thank you for your answer.
I think your understanding of the unitive aspect of marriage is wrong. Also, an artifical barrier is going to affect both the physical and psychological union of husband and wife.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Good post, Rosemarie- i agree with your thoughts, which were admirably expressed.
I’m late entering the discussion, here, but I agree with what Louise said, above.
A condom interferes with the unitive aspect of sex, regardless of the state of the procreative aspect. A condom is a foreign object that comes between the spouses. It’s like the old line about wearing a raincoat in the shower.
How can you properly be said to have sex with someone without the sex organs actually touching?
“And Bill912 has succinctly described the development of the Church’s teaching on usury.”
I have no idea what that is.
“The question is whether the Magisterium intends to act in a definitive way.
Any fair reading of the text of Humanae Vitae reveals that it does. Pope Paul VI articulates on several occasions that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is the “constant teaching” of the Church and that contraception is “always unlawful.””
But independent of what John Paul said, there would have to be something in the text of Humanae Vitae that was different from the texts of the teachings with which the Magesterium did not intend to act in a definitive way. As far as I know, all Humanae Vitae says is “we need to uphold the teachings of the previous popes so as not to undermine teaching authority” and then it just repeats the arguments that were in the previous papal documents. The papal documents on usury may just quote scripture, I’n not sure. I don’t think it’s the case that the teachings on usury were merely clarified – I think they really did change from saying zero interest can be charged to a “fair” amount of interest can be charged. I guess that is consistent – saying the magesterium must state whether or not it is acting definitively, but I’m not convinced it’s really air tight. The other thing is that the birth control teachings appears to contain logical errors, so presumably a new pope could state that in his opinion the teachings of the old popes were wrong.
OK lets recap.
1. I apolagize for telling Stickey to go away,
even if he doesn’t like the Pope, that’s Mr.Jimmy’s job.
2. Can we all agree condoms are a no-no?
3. The arguements that the Church has shifted positions on things and contraceptives will change to are stupid right?
4. Let us agree that the Church is in a big storm right now, because Her own children and Princes are saying wierd things and doing things contrary to Her morals.
5. The Pope is Infallible.
6.The Church is Invincible
7. We are (hopefully) part of the Church and accept her teachings.
8.With this cleared, anyone argueing things with psuedologic about the Church changing has to stop because we are argueing with in the Church, and not out.
9. Good day
10.God Bless
Inocencio- I think your understanding of the unitive end of the marriage act is overly literal.
I suppose what we we will need is the Magisterium to rule on this- can we submit a dubium to the CDF?
Some Day,
Agreed, although technically it is the Magisterium of the Church that is infallible, not the Pope. That infallibility may be exercised by the Pope acting ex cathedra or by the college of bishops acting in communion with each other and the Pope.
Regardless of the infallibility of teachings regarding the use of a condom when the woman is not fertile, the Church’s authority to regulate such things is clear. That they have forbidden it is clear. That we must obey under pain of sin is clear. That we must demur from undermining the teaching authority of the Church lest we cause scandal is clear. So why do people persist in this argument? are they simply dissenters?
No, Matt, it’s just that the Magisterium has NOT answered the question about licitness of condom use between a man and wife during pregnancy. If you think it has, I would love to see the citation.
I love these armchair theologians who think if someone disagrees with them that the person is desagreeing with the Magisterium and so are dissenters. The issue of condom use by AIDS patients is a case in point- there are othodox moral theologians on both sides of that issue, and it is not simplistic. Furthermore, the Magisterium has not definitvely spoken on that issue and saying that they have is an extrapolation, not moral theology. Same here- debating this is interesting, entertaining, and illuminating but Rome has not ruled on this and it remains an open question until the Magisterium comes to a decision. If anyone disagrees, let them be anathema. 🙂
Thomas,
I believe that you are technically correct when you say that the Magisterium has not definitively spoken directly on the issue of condom use during pregnancy. They have spoken pretty clearly on the issue of condom use generally, and it seems to me that the prudent practice would be to refrain from it totally until the Magisterium indicates otherwise. There are levels of assent owed to teachings of the Magisterium even if they are not regarded as infallible, so we do need to be careful about creating the impression that only infallible pronouncements need to be adhered to.
Let me be clear, however, that I have seen nothing in your posts that would suggest to me you are a dissenter.
On the AIDS issue, I’m not sure I’ve seen orthodox Catholic moral theologians on both sides of that issue. I’m not saying there aren’t any, I haven’t looked that closely. But I would be interested in seeing who the orthodox Catholic moral theologians are that are advocating condom use, and in what circumstances.
I love these armchair theologians who think if someone disagrees with them that the person is desagreeing with the Magisterium and so are dissenters. The issue of condom use by AIDS patients is a case in point- there are othodox moral theologians on both sides of that issue, and it is not simplistic. Furthermore, the Magisterium has not definitvely spoken on that issue and saying that they have is an extrapolation, not moral theology. Same here- debating this is interesting, entertaining, and illuminating but Rome has not ruled on this and it remains an open question until the Magisterium comes to a decision. If anyone disagrees, let them be anathema. 🙂
Yes, but until then condom use is out. Also, while there very well may be theologians out there on the exception side, every argument I’ve seen by them or on their behalf fizzles under scrutiny. Arguments from subjective intent don’t work. Appeals to double-effect don’t work. Armchair theologian I may be, but as Karl Malden said in Patton, “I can read a map.” I will be happy to listen to any coherent and consistent argument in favor of exceptions (and I am speaking specifically to the spouses-with-AIDS issue).
thomas tucker,
Inocencio- I think your understanding of the unitive end of the marriage act is overly literal.
I suggest my understaning respects both the natural and supernatural capacity of husband and wife.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
In response to Karen and cminor, I could care less what animals do. We are human beings with a soul. Marital relations betwwen couples who are infertile are the exception. It is their state in life and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with marital relations with old age and couples beyond menopause. Pregnancy is different. The condition is the same as the two situations above, but it seems that the life growing inside a woman should be respected and her body allowed to bring the baby to term. It is a time for abstinence and keeping the woma’s body healthy. A time when they prepare for the new life and a time for growing together in love without the marital embrace. After pregnancy is the time to renew their wedding vows. A greater good comes from this time of abstinence when love and care is given to the family.
Rafael,
“It is a time for abstinence and keeping the woma’s body healthy.”
I think everyone agrees if there is a pressing medical need abstinence is good during a problem pregnancy.
If it is your opinion for yourself and your wife agrees that is wonderful for both of you as Sacred Scripture states spouses can do this but it does not mention pregnancy or command it.
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 1 Cor 7:3-5
HV states that;
11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.” (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile.
But if you think it is illict for husband and wife to embrace during pregnancy please cite the source of this teaching.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
BTW, if you have read Salt of the Earth, you will notice that even the then Cardinal Ratzinger did not want to make sweeping statements about contraception, preferring to say that these were private and prudential matters best discussed between a person and their confessor. I’m glad he is the Pope and not someone who says “they can read a map” so their map interpretation is the only correct one.
Brother= sorry I don’t have time right now to add links but if you google ‘aids vatican condom” you will see articles that discuss the issue and the fact that the Vatican is convening a commisssion to study it. I guess if they have to study it, they aren’t such good map readers.
thomas tucker,
“today we find ourselves before a separation of sexuality from procreation such as was not known earlier, and this makes it all the more necessary not to lose sight of the inner connection between the two.
…
“I would say that in the question of contraception we ought to look more at these basic options in which the Church is leading a struggle for man. The point of the Church’s objections is to underscore this battle. The way these objections are formulated is perhaps not always completely felicitous, but what is at stake are such major cardinal points of human existence. then Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth
Very clear about the Church’s objection to contraception and what is at stake.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“you will notice that even the then Cardinal Ratzinger did not want to make sweeping statements about contraception, preferring to say that these were private and prudential matters best discussed between a person and their confessor.”
Here is his quote:
I would say that those are questions that ought to be discussed with one’s spiritual director, with one’s priest, because they can’t be projected into the abstract.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Face it, you guys are just a bunch of people who can’t hold it and will hide behind non-existant defences in Church doctrine to do things that any saint who was married would never do. Read the 1st commandment. Just offer it up and don’t make up sophisms to defend yourselves.
Face it, you guys are just a bunch of people who can’t hold it and will hide behind non-existant defences in Church doctrine to do things that any saint who was married would never do. Read the 1st commandment. Just offer it up and don’t make up sophisms to defend yourselves.
Face it, you guys are just a bunch of people who can’t hold it and will hide behind non-existant defences in Church doctrine to do things that any saint who was married would never do. Read the 1st commandment. Just offer it up and don’t make up sophisms to defend yourselves.
huh?
Sorry, Rafael, I had you confused with Some Day re the animal reference. The point, (which Karen made) was that it’s inappropriate to use other species as a model for behavior. After all, we could abstain during pregnancy because X number of species do or have sex once a year because Y number do, but we could also using the same logic find arguments for numerous behaviors that I’m sure God did not ordain for us.
I feel like this discussion has turned to apples and oranges. The original question was basically, “I have health problem A; because of it I must either abstain from sex during the pregnancy or use a protective measure I’m not sure is licit. Is it licit, or not?” From there, we seem to have gotten into the question of whether sex during pregnancy is licit at all. The licitness of sex during pregnancy where there is no health risk is not in question, and is not relevant to this discussion. Please sort out your personal feelings from what actually constitutes church teaching, those of you who wish to give advice!
This thread is another reason why we need a Vatican III. 🙁
Someone tell this Doctor how intercourse can damage a fetus during a NORMAL healthy pregnancy.
A similar question came up a few months ago over at Korrektiv.
Prostaglandins (hormones from the male prostate) prime the woman’s cervix for dilation – could that be considered “natural” evidence that sex during pregnancy is part of God’s design? I would think so. Of course, in the situation where there is a risk to the infant, then abstinence would be the more perfect choice, but certainly a perforated condom would be permissable… as in other circumstances for collecting sperm samples.
That is something that has not been mentioned in the previous posts -the difference between ‘PERMISSABLE’ and ‘PERFECT’. For example, it is permissable to regulate births with NFP (natural family planning) but it is more perfect to be completely open to life, accepting all children the Lord should choose to send.
The idea that abstinence during pregnancy somehow fits into the “more perfect” realm doesn’t sit well with me, as the fruits of the union of husband and wife seem to go far beyond the life-giving power of that union – but even deeper and perhaps more spiritual than we understand.
I find it extremely interesting to find all of these “sexual morality” questions remain un-answered by clear church teaching; as with so many things. Much food for thought & prayer!
Inocencio- thanks for providing the quote. I have no doubt that Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger is orthodox in his belief and teaching. Yet, when it comes to individual concrete situations, he recommends discussing it with one’s spritual director rather than issuing a blanket statement. That was my point- that sometimes these matters don’t lend themselves to blanket prohibitions, especially by those of us who are not actually trained in moral theology or gifted with the charism of infallibility.
“No, Matt, it’s just that the Magisterium has NOT answered the question about licitness of condom use between a man and wife during pregnancy. If you think it has, I would love to see the citation.”
The Magisterium has NOT answered the question about licitness of condom us between two men on the moon either. Do you think it’s licit?
The general principle is that condom use is illicit. No exceptions have been noted. The so-called moral theologians who are advocating for it, coincidentally advocate for all manner of illicit behaviours. The issue is not being studied by the Vatican, if you read statements from the pertinent curial authorities you will understand that.
You are wrong Matt- the issue is being studied by the Vatican, but there is no study pending release at this time, contrary to some earlier reports.
As for condom use by two men on the moon goes- interesting question, actually. We know that two men having sex is condemned by the Magisterium (now that is clearly on the map) but whether they sin additionally by using a condom is something that I doubt. And, of course, hasn’t been addressed by the Magisterium.
Some people, for unclear reasons, seem to think that a condom is an intrinsic moral evil- it is not, BTW.
thomas tucker,
He said you can’t project these “into the abstract” after noting the Church’s objection to contraception.
Of course it should be discussed in confession so the person can have the Church’s “blanket objection” explained and then receive absolution for sins committed and the grace of the sacrament to resolve to sin no more.
You do not have to be a moral theologian to know that the Church condems contraception.
We are expected to grow in the understanding of our faith continually. We do that by learning and living it daily. Many teachings are hard but with the grace of the sacraments and the understanding of why the Church teaches what it does we grow in holiness especially through difficult trials.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio- I understand very well that the Church prohbits artificial contraception between husband and wife, and my wife and I practice NFP when we have grave reasons to limit family size. So, you don’t need to explain that, or growing in faith to me.
What I am trying to get you to understand, unsuccessfully, is that there are other moral questions that are related to the Church’s teaching, but which have not been settled by the Magisterium. For example, do you realize that the Church’s prohibition on artifical contraception pertains only to a husband and wife, not necessarily to unmarried people? Have you ever thought about that? Does seeing that there are still gray areas in Church teaching upset what appears to be your need to see things as black-and-white? My point is this- let us accept what is taught by the Magisterium, but not necessarily extrapolate from that to areas on which the Magisterium has not spoken, and which we are not competetn to judge. In particular, let us not brand people as dissenters or unorthodox because they ponder the issues that have still not been settled by the Church. And, at this point, I doubt other discussion on this issue will be fruitful so I will refrain from further posting. God bless you.
Sex for unmarried people, with or without condom use is like a terrorist killing a captive slowly or quickly. Both are wrong.
Thomas Tucker,
“Do you realize that the Church’s prohibition on artifical contraception pertains only to a husband and wife, not necessarily to unmarried people?”
The Magisterium has recognized that contraceptive acts are in and of themselves inherently evil and gravely immoral. They remain so whether they are performed by married couples or unmarried couples.
(And by the way, contraception is not wrong because the Church prohibits it. As Humanae Vitae recognizes, contraception is wrong because it violates the natural law, and the Magisterium in declaring it to be inherently evil is simply confirming what we all could see for ourselves if we were not blinded by sin.)
Text of Humanae Vitae:
“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.”
Please show me the Magisterial text that says, oh yeah, forgot to mention, everyone but married people is free to ignore this.
thomas tucker,
“do you realize that the Church’s prohibition on artifical contraception pertains only to a husband and wife, not necessarily to unmarried people? Have you ever thought about that?”
If you think people committing the sin of fornication aren’t also sinning by using contraception you are wrong.
Food for thought, please read the reasons The Catholic Bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland gave against the use of condoms to fight HIV/AIDS:
* The use of condoms goes against human dignity. * Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure – while rejecting responsibility. * Condoms do not guarantee protection against HIV/AIDS. * Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Apart from the possibility of condoms being faulty or wrongly used they contribute to the breaking down of self-control and mutual respect.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
OK, I’ll respond. Brother lifts a passage from Humane vitae, which was directed to and discussed the use of contraception In MARRIAGE, not any and every act of sexual union. Has the Church said that even acts of non-married sexual union must be open to both the procreative and unitive aspects of sexual intercourse??? If so, where?
For this reason, as I have discused earlier in this thread, nuns in Africa at risk of rape were allowed the use of contraceptives- because it was not a marital act.
And, BTW, if you want to extrapolate from Humanae vitae, or discuss the ramifications of natural law, then please recognize that what you are doing is engaging in philosophy and theology, not presenting the teaching of the Magisterium.
thomas tucker,
“For this reason, as I have discused earlier in this thread, nuns in Africa at risk of rape were allowed the use of contraceptives- because it was not a marital act.”
Please quote the Magisterial document stating this so we can read it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
!Toma!
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum5&recnu=17&number=472695
Please read this link regarding the question of contraception outside of marriage. It is from EWTN, not exactly a hotbed of dissent.
Thomas Tucker,
Humanae Vitae refers repeatedly to marital acts, marital intercourse, and the luck. It is of course common sense that a teaching about a subject which can only licitly be performed by married people will be directed to those people.
But when it comes down to flat out saying abortion and then sterilization and then contraception are wrong, there is no such limiting language in the text of Humanae Vitae. There is no language in the introduction, in the conclusion, or elsewhere in the document to suggest that the above quote does not mean exactly what it says.
The justification (not accepted by all, but certainly by some) for diaphrams for nuns in Africa, as I understand it, is based on the fact that rape is not sexual intercourse.
Assuming for the sake of argument that such actions would have the blessing of the Magisterium, they provide no support whatsoever for the use of condoms in sexual intercourse outside of marriage.
(BTW, quoting a text =/= extrapolation.)
thomas tucker,
“While the Church has not specifically addressed this matter, it has been the consensus of a number of competent moral theologians that a nun or indeed any woman in such circumstances could so protect herself from pregnancy by previously positioning a contraceptive diaphragm.”
Please post the Magisterial document not what moral theologians think.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio- that’s the whole point!! The Magisterium has not specifically addressed this issue! SO, speculating about it is the realm of theology and philosophy. Perhaps, you are a moral theologian, I don’t know, but if you are not then I tend to give more credence to what they would say about this kind of issue than to what you would say.
Similarly, you are not the Magisterium and neither am I. Issuing blanket prohibitions and proclamations ( as opposed to discussion)on these thorny specific issues is pointless.
thomas tucker,
the EWTN answer also states:
Indeed, that would constitute coitus interruptus, one of the oldest forms of contraception and clearly not permissible in voluntary intercourse.
It is not speaking about married people but voluntary acts.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
thomas tucker,
You are really confusing!
Do you have a Magisterial document stating that the nuns were allowed to use contraception because the EWTN link states it dosen’t exist.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
thomas tucker,
The following is a common sense approach to the question you think is so difficult posted by gelsbern on this blog.
1. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden and is sinful.
2. Use of contraception before, during, or after the marital act between married couples is forbidden and is sinful.
3. In regards to use of contraception outside of marriage, see rule number 1.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Toma otra vez!
Inocencio- I agree with numer one and three of your propositions. Number two is problematic- for example, if a woman needs oral contraceptives, not for the purpose of contraception, but in order to treat a medical condition, then that is allowed. Once again, you want it to be too simplistic.
As for the nuns, why don’t you take up the argument with the priest on EWTN- he knows more about it than I do.
And I don’t think I said there was a Magisterial document- again, the point being that the Magisterium hasn’t ruled on this and many other matters. But why do we need a Magisterium when we have you?
But then if they take contraceptives, they can’t have sex.
Wrong.
Actually, that knee-jerk reaction was wrong of me- I don’t want to set myself up as a magisterium either. Let me retract it and just ask Some Day for a reference.
thomas tucker,
“Once again, you want it to be too simplistic.”
And you seem to want everything to be to complicated for us to know what is right and what is wrong.
Considering are salvation will be affected we better make every effort to be sure and not just say we can’t know so it must be ok.
I thank God I am not the Magisterium but I read and quote every document I can when discussing these issues. You seem to think their guidance isn’t clear so that allows whatever we decide in private. No sin is private.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Sorry if I gave that impression. I believe that we must strive to form our conscience with the mind of the Church. I don’t think that we can do decide to do whatever we want in private. But I also think that when the Magisterium hasn’t ruled on a particular topic that we must learn, pray, seek, read, discuss- isn’t that part of what we are doing here by discussing this? My objection is primarily to people who say that “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” when Rome hasn’t spoken on a particular matter.
Humanae Vitae:
“15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”
It does NOT say they can’t have sex if there is a foreseeable — but not intended — impediment to procreation resulting from medical treatment.
But Thomas Tucker, could you please provide Magisterial support for your argument that the Magisterial text I quoted from Humanae above does not apply equally to married and non-married couples? I have read the document again, and there is nothing in it that I can find on which to base that argument with respect to the text in question.
Brother- I have just gone back and started reading again- from the very beginning, and throughout, it is referring to marital love and saying that it seeks to answer the question of what norms apply to marital love in regard to contraception!
I mean by the intentions we know would be sinful.
But just a question, about “theraputic”contraceptives, what do they help in and is there alternatives. I once heard that the millitary uses it to control the women’s periods. But that is all I know pertaining to that.
In other words, the document knows how to refer to marriage when it wants to. When it refers to contraception being prohibited, it refers to “sexual intercourse” (without limitation) rather than the “marital act” or “marital intercourse” or “intercourse between spouses.”
But I have a question. Again.
If you get drunk and kill someone, they still charge you for both crimes. Now if people are going to sin, there is the possiblity to lessen the effects of the sin.
Outside of marriage, sex is a sin.
If that sin is done through natural means, it means pregnancy, ergo another messed up “family”
This might cause another sin, abortion.
Now weight the options.
Option 1: Don’t have sex outside of marriage
Option 2: Sin, get preg., you might abort him and get excommunicated.
Option 3: Sin, use a condom, and you still end up in Hell if you don’t repent in time.
Option 4: Get married, follow God’s command, and make the world overpopulated, the Israeli-Islamo-Gringo war is going to balance it out.
And the lucky number is :
7
LOL
Brother- you still have to tke the entire document in context ( it’s Protestants who take the text out of it’s context) and it is directed to the regulation of life among married couples. THe document refers over and over and over to married love and the principles of marriage. It is very clear that the encyclical is discussing the regulation of birth in marriage, not outside of it.
THOMAS, DOUBTFUL THOMAS!
ITS BECAUSE THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY BABIES, CONDOMS OR SEX AMONG NON-MARRIED “COUPLES”!
No, Some Day, it’s because Pope Paul VI was writing to answer the question about contraception and regulation of births by married couples.
You are extrapolating.
Not only that, but whether or not there should be those things Some Day, there certainly are those things and it would not be beyond the competency of the Magisterium of the Church to address them at some point.
As Inocencio knows, there was a discussion on the subject of whether “condomized sex” outside of marriage is a greater or lesser sin than “uncondomised sex” in the same situation. I would think that it is a greater sin in the case of fornication and adultery (because you are adding a new evil element to the same act, I don’t know about sodomy (are you adding a new evil element when the proper oriface was not involved in the first place?), and perhaps a lesser sin when the man knows he has HIV, since uncondomized sex with HIV is practically murder, whereas with a condom it becomes a remote possibility of infecting the woman (or man). I have no documentation to back that up but from the previous discussion and this one it seems clear that the Magestarium has not ruled on this.
The important point is that there is no situation in which contraception may licitly be used. Chemical contraception to for hormonal control (a non-contraceptive use), maybe. A weird, non-contraceptive use for a condom (like preventing mess from nocturnal emissions), that’s fine according to Michelle Arnold anwering a question on the Catholic Anwers web page.
Since part of this debate involves a statement from the EWTN Q&A website, I will mention that that is a fairly informal website where the priests and laypeople (“experts”) answer questions posed to them. It does not reflect EWTN’s position (often the “experts” are not even closely associated with EWTN. Jimmy is one of them by the way). They come from different backgrounds and philosophies and I have had different “experts” give opposite answers to the same question before. I don’t mean to put down the service they provide, but it is the same as asking any old priest or canon lawyer or philosophy professor or whatever the case may be a question.
Good point. I don’t, BTW, say that the “expert’s” answer on the EWTN website is correct. I simply use it as an illustration that there are gray areas under discussion that have not yet been ruled on by the Magisterium. As you say, different “experts” may disagree- that’s because the Magisterium has not answered or examined the question yet. (Another example is the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancy- I have my own opinion about it but the Magisterium has not answered the question yet as far as I know.)
Although, and I hate to say it, your statmeent about contraception being alway illicit still goes beyond what the Magisterium has said. If you limit it to “within marriage” and “for the purpose of contraception” then I will agree with you.
Thomas,
In Paragraph 17, HV discusses the consequences of artificial birth control. The second sentence reads as follows:
“Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.”
It seems pretty clear to me that the primary way that artificial birth control leads to marital infidelity is when it is used outside the marriage by one marriage partner and a non-spouse.
This section of HV may not be directly condemning extra-marital contraception, but it is at least one example where HV is discussing the effects of artificial birth control used outside of marriage.
Yes, I agree with that.
But why would it do that if — as you say — it is only concerned with artificial birth control used within a marriage?
thomas tucker,
Although, and I hate to say it, your statmeent about contraception being alway illicit still goes beyond what the Magisterium has said
But since you should not be having sex ouside of marriage, there is no way in which you could contracept without comiting a grave sin, with the possible exception of a woman being raped that somehow manages to contracept. If contraception is an intrinsically evil act, then it is a sin in all circumstances. If it is only evil durring marriage then the only possible use for it would be when you are being raped (not that you could usually manage that). Taking the Pill in case you get raped has the issue of the aborifacient property of it in any case, though that might be justified by the principle of double effect.
I suspect though that contraception is an intrinsic evil in all cases and thus has no place in any situation. Again, non-contraceptive uses for the same products are a different matter.
From what I’ve read (and I may possibly have missed something) I don’t believe anyone arguing in this combox (excepting possibly Sticky) has actually stated an endorsement of voluntary extramarital sex or tried to argue that it wasn’t sinful. Can we stop beating that horse, please?
cminor,
If your coment is directed to me, I am not aware of beating that horse. If anything in my post suggested I was saying someone here was supporting extramarital sex then I apologize.
There is one line of argument against contraception which states that it is wrong because it violates the marriage covenant; each act of sexual intercourse, as an act of total self giving, ratifies the marriage covenant, and contraception blocks the total self giving and acceptance of the other spouse. Using this line of reasoning, contraception would not be wrong for fornicators, because there is no marriage covenant to violate.
I read this argument in the Couple to Couple League book. It strikes me as a good personalistic argument against contraception; that is, one rooted in the meaning and value of a human person…the kind of reasoning JPII used in Love and Responsiblity and the Theology of the Body.
While the conclusion of Humanae Vitae, that the use of contraceptives in marriage is wrong, bears the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, every argument used in the text does not bear that infallibility.
Thus the argument made almost as an aside that contraception is bad because its general acceptance would promote promiscuity does not bear the same weight as the conclusion of the encyclical. It is true that the general availability of contraception almost certainly had this effect…and that the general availability of contraception is probably bad for society. But that in itself doesn’t necessarily make contraception wrong…for instance, the availability of simple cures for syphilis and gonorrhea also had the effect of making promiscuity less dangerous and therefore more common(in the period after penicillin but before Herpes,Genital Warts, and AIDs, anyway) Does that make the use of a cure for syphilis and gonorrhea wrong? No.
Personally I find it hard to see how contraception makes fornication more wrong.
It seems to me that you would only think that if you were basing your opposition to contraception on the physical integrity of the sexual act, rather than on the meaning of that act as a human act.
Even less do I see any reason to say that the use of a condom makes sodomy more wrong.
A woman taking a hormone preparation to regulate her cycles need not abstain because it might also have a contraceptive effect she did not intend. However….I think if it might have the effect of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, then I would think they would need to abstain
As Mr.Tucker says, many of these issues have not been pronounced on by the magisterium…and it is NOT clear what they pronouncement would be when it came.
I don’t get it why Doubtful Thomas keeps trying to protect fornicaters from having a worst Hell.
Because they will in fact end up there with or without a condom. Now that it is obvious that a condom will prevent ruining a life(the new life, not the sorry parents), the answer is not to use condoms , its not using it and NOT HAVING SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE! Its like I said before, kill a person slowly or kill him “mercifuly quick”, you still killed him. Should the “Magesthomaserium”waste time writing a document on murder and its many ways of doing it.
Please Mr.Thomas, use not only common sense, but a sense of the supernatural. Think of Heaven.
It does good to a person. St.Thomas Aquintas I believe used to stick his head in the tabernacle.
DON’T TRY IT. Go to the B.Sacrament. It helps.
ALOT
Mrs. Susan (or is it Ms., forgive me if wrong)
The cure for a veneral infection is not wrong in itself. A piece of rubber, for the most part isn’t evil. Now to kill life for stem cells or kill a person for their organs is a sin. So you can’t compare some things because they have a dual effect. A war against Islam-communist-whatevers might take a couple of lives, but it might be a neccesity. Condoms are not in that category. They can only produce evil effects. They have no health benefits (theraputic) AND they promote promiscuity. So how can that be good.
What isn’t good, MUST be evil. Nothing when applied is neutral. As for contraceptives with real medicinal use, someone said that the Church permits it as long as the use is for theraputics, and not for contracepting, even so if it is evidently going to have that effect.
If the Church says, than OK.
Susan Peterson,
Personally I find it hard to see how contraception makes fornication more wrong.
It seems to me that you would only think that if you were basing your opposition to contraception on the physical integrity of the sexual act, rather than on the meaning of that act as a human act.
The fact is that we are not pure spirits, but fully animals as well, so we have moral obligations not only on the spiritual level but on the physical level as well.
The arguement, from the debate on the earlier post, that condomized fornication is worse than uncondomized fornication is an extrapolation from St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas argued that fornication was less grave than sodomy because fornication involves the wrong person but the right oriface, while sodomy involves the wrong person and the wrong oriface.
An argument can be made that condoms, by placing such a barrier between the man and the woman, actually degrades the act to mutual mastrobation with a piece of plastic. It was further argued that mastrobation or at least mutual mastrobation is worse than fornication because it is not only the wrong person but the wrong physical reality. In this way using a condom while fornicating would turn the act into a more grave act of mutual mastrobation with latex.
It is hard to guess from this reasoning though whether sodomy or a similar act with a condom would be worse.
Of course the Magesterium has not ruled on this and in general seems hesitant to define, at least in the relm of sexuality, what mortal sins are more or less grave. Probably this is because they are afraid of inadvertently encouraging less grave behavior. Still, I believe the fact that the Magesterium has not ruled on a matter does not mean we can not discuss and debate it if we want to.
Interesting J.R..
I never knew St.Thomas had reasoned that.
But as for the Magesterium, I believe there is no defining document because others have already done so. Just that arguement you presented is a slam dunk. Our Pope has other errors to smash.
No point in going for a two-point conversion when you are 16-0 and the clock is out.
Is it possible that the tendency to be as pro-life as possible–to a fault–is getting in the way here?
It seems that conception itself is amoral. It’s a natural thing that happens when sperm meets egg. People tend to wax on like third-rate poets about it because it’s the start of new life, and thereby think that something is actually and necessarily inherently moral about conception, when it’s actually as amoral as a bowel movement (pardon the expression, I feel ornery!), and morality only enters the picture when we consider that there are licit and illicit ways to conceive.
Anything outside of God’s plan, is an illicit way of procreating. IVF is an illicit way. Rape is an illicit way. Fornicating for the purpose of making babies would be illicit, though it’s rarer to see people doing that. God’s plan is for people to conceive from marital relations.
If conception in itself is amoral, and the licit way to conceive is through marital relations, then how is preventing conception compounding the sin, when you’re a couple of fornicators, or in the case of rape?
Stoodley: Not at all; the comment was meant generally, and applied more to the 2 doz or so posts that preceded yours.
Some Day: Please cut out the hyperbole; it does you no credit. Nobody is getting killed here.
BTW, I think you are wrong about the nonexistence of neutral acts, though I don’t have the ref at hand right now.
Some Day wrote:
Condoms are not in that category. They can only produce evil effects. They have no health benefits (theraputic) AND they promote promiscuity. So how can that be good.
Actually, condoms are standardly used by medical professionals to cover the tranvaginal ultrasound wand when it is inserted for ultrasound to prevent cross infections. They don’t have disposable transvaginal ultrasound wands, nor can they be boiled, so condoms it is. Is this an evil effect.
I would also submit that you might find it difficult to be admitted into any seminary if you hold the view that marital relations during pregnancy is not desirable. While it is true that several of the early church fathers held that view, it is possible for any saint to err in individual opinions, that view is not currently held by the Church. Those seen as religious zealots are weeded out by bishops, though I’m sure you would disagree with that classification.
Now if you are applying to SSPX, you might have a different result . . .
Look at it this way:
If I use the Pill to treat a ‘female problem’ but not to contracept, is that good, evil, or neutral?
If I use a wheel of BC Pills as a paperweight on my desk, is that good, evil or neutral? (The issue, mind you, is not, why I have it in the first place. That’s a different question.)
If I use a condom as a contraceptive, that is evil. But…
What if I use condoms to waterproof my sound equipment while recording underwater noises?
What if I use one as a tie-down on my roof rack when I’ve run out of bungee cords?
I’m using them, aren’t I?
My point is, this question isn’t about contraception. The original questioner wasn’t contracepting; she was already pregnant. The question was about double effect. Namely:
(1)Condoms are used contraceptively;
(2)Condoms may have noncontraceptive uses;
If a condom is used (regardless of whether it is the best medical solution) to prevent the spread of an infection (as was the question in this case) it (a)may or (b)may not interfere with the unitive aspect of the marriage act.
So, does using a condom noncontraceptively in marriage interfere with the unitive nature of sex?
Jimmy, I thought, did a good job of wrangling with this sticky issue while keeping both large moral issues and the concerns of the couple directly affected in balance. A few commenters proposed alternatives to condom use which is also fine and doesn’t leave the couple out in the cold. If someone can add to that, great; but make sure you understand the question first and make some effort to distinguish your personal opinions from church teaching.
Oops, that second comment was a continuation of my prior one. But it seems Kelly reinforced my point, so I can’t complain.
Nice thoughtful posts from Susan, cminor, and others since I left the thread. Ciminor- the thing I question the msot in jimmy’s original discussion is the idea that insemination must occur for it to be a true act of marital union. I’m not sure I buy that. What do you think about it?
Thomas, I think insemination should at least be the goal for an attempt at intercourse to be licit. It’s just not sex as God intended, i.e. the ideal, without it. And at the same time, it’s not someone’s fault if, by way of a medical condition, they fail to achieve it and keep trying despite the medical condition.
I wonder what comments might be on my latest post (besides this one). I think a lot of unnecessary arguing was because of the assumption that “conception” in itself had a moral quality to it, when it’s a neutral function, and it’s really the means of conception that introduce morality into the equation.
St. Thomas’s writings only confuse the issue and he’s been wrong before. He’s not the only theologian who has written on the matter, and the fact that he lived closer to Christ’s time isn’t an automatic guarantee that when he meanders philosophically, that he’s on the right road, or a righter road than our own Magisterium or our own contemporary theologians.
St. Thomas’s writings only confuse the issue and he’s been wrong before. He’s not the only theologian who has written on the matter, and the fact that he lived closer to Christ’s time isn’t an automatic guarantee that when he meanders philosophically, that he’s on the right road, or a righter road than our own Magisterium or our own contemporary theologians.
That is, I think he framed it entirely wrong.
OK, I am beat on condoms and masking underwater sound equipment. But if that is the arguement to defend condoms as a contraceptive, or at least similar ways (other unatural sexual acts), then you are disappointing me because you can fight harder than that.
Karen,
Is conception a morally neutral act? You seem to ask the question in your first post, but your second post seems to assume that the answer is affirmative. I would guess that conception is a morally good act.
There are generally speaking three aspects of any moral act considered in Catholic moral theology: 1) the moral object (or the “act itself”, without any reference to the agent), which can either be good, neutral or evil; 2) the circumstances within which an agent performs the act; and 3) the intention with which the agent performs the act.
In that framework, I believe (but am really guessing) that conception would be a morally good act (#1 above). One would have to also know #2 and #3 to determine whether any particular act of conceiving were moral.
And why when you disagree with St.Thomas he all of the sudden becommes “human, not-infallible…”
Common, please, that is so protestant to attempt to discret a Saint like like him.
Karen- there may something to your point about conception being morally neutral, but I find it odd that that you would take that position, and yet not say the same thing about insemination which is simply a physiologic function that occurs with ejaculation. One could also argue that since procreation is one of the primary ends of marital union that conception is also the “ideal,” and so “not sex as God intended it”, as you put it with regard to insemination. It seems to me that if it’s sauce for the goose then it’s sauce for the gander.
Thomas,
That is a question to which I have not been able to find an answer. I had assumed (rather strenuously) that it was, but am no longer certain on that point.
I still believe that HV’s condemnation of contraception cannot be limited to marriage without doing violence to the text. (1) As you have agreed, HV does speak of the ill effects of artificial birth control outside the context of marriage; (2) the text specifically condemning artificial birth control does not contain any language indicating it should be limited (in fact it uses broader language — “sexual intercourse” — than it does at other points in the document); and (3) that text immediately follows two other types of prohibited acts that clearly are not limited to marriage — abortion and sterilization.
While it might seem pointless to argue whether an admittedly sinful act (fornication) is more sinful when compounded by another (contraception), I do not think that there is any question that contraception outside of marriage leads to more fornication, and thus more evil.
Kelly,
I would also submit that you might find it difficult to be admitted into any seminary if you hold the view that marital relations during pregnancy is not desirable. While it is true that several of the early church fathers held that view, it is possible for any saint to err in individual opinions, that view is not currently held by the Church. Those seen as religious zealots are weeded out by bishops, though I’m sure you would disagree with that classification.
Now if you are applying to SSPX, you might have a different result . . .
DON’T EVER (ok please) compare me to a schismatic, false right apostates. Because that is what they are. My fidelity is to the Pope and that is even higher than to the USA!
And I am not becoming dioscesan. And what you call a “religious zelot” translates to you’re a “cafeteria catholic”and that you are the very example of relative. An insult against my beliefs is not something I’ll smile at. Dis my mother, me, my country, family or whatever. But never the teachings of the Church. Just because YOU, your Bishop or parish Priest doesn’t believe in EVERYTHING the Church says, don’t accuse me of being a zelot. And any ways, I take after St.Elias. The one who killed 300 pagan priests.
ZELO ZELATUS SUM PRO DOMINE DEUS EXERCITUM!
Brother- I agree with you that contraception outside of marriage does foster more immoral behavior. But, that doesn’t mean that it is intrinsically immoral- it may be but as you know my argument is that the Magisterium has not said that it is. Also as someone pointed out above, medical treatment for venereal disease also can foster more immoral behavior but that doesn’t mean that the medical treatment is intrinsically immoral either.
The difference, of course, being that medical treatment is a morally good act, contraception is an inherently evil one.
I understand that you are arguing that the Magisterium has not directly spoken on contraception outside of marriage. I just think you have to ignore the plain language and context of HV to get to that point.
St. Thomas’s writings only confuse the issue and he’s been wrong before. He’s not the only theologian who has written on the matter, and the fact that he lived closer to Christ’s time isn’t an automatic guarantee that when he meanders philosophically, that he’s on the right road, or a righter road than our own Magisterium or our own contemporary theologians.
Some Day, do you think the writings of the Church Fathers are infallible, even when at times they are demonstrably wrong? What about when saints say things that conflict? Of course not. 🙂
I’m just saying that which is true–sometimes they did get things wrong and frame things improperly. That’s not being Protestant. Our very pope necessarily disagrees with some of what St. Thomas has said in the past. Tertullian also said some heretical things. It’s not “Protestant” to say so.
I know you already know that 😉 Insofar as your fear is, that I (or anybody) might too easily reject CF writings, sure, I understand. It’s not something to take lightly, that I might think St. Thomas might have framed things entirely wrong. It’s all open to debate and that’s what we’re here for.
Since his philosophical meanderings however, are meanderings based on principles he knew, just like any of our philosophical meanderings are based upon 2000 years of developing truth, then it’s not implausible or even necessarily arrogant and Protestant or out-of-line to question him, in that he might have went down the wrong road again. I’d need an actual Church teaching that says that the actual event of conception has a moral quality to it. There’s a difference between God being able to bring good out of an event and saying that the event itself has a moral quality to it even independent of God’s intervention in bringing about good from evil in the case of conceiving people through illicit means.
St. Thomas didn’t live long enough to figure *everything* out with certainty. And what he said isn’t infallible, though the writings of the Church Fathers are certainly invaluable for piecing together what the understanding was back in those days.
You know, I think you are correct that HV certainly implies that contraception is intrinsically immoral because Pope Paul discusses the invalidity of using the Principle of Double Effect to justify contraception. Interesting- thank you for pointing that out.
Now where does this leave us in deciding whether it is licit or not for a pregnant married woman to have intercourse if her husband uses a condom?
cminor,
I would suggest that all of the other uses you suggested for the contraceptives would be scandalous. I would not want you to use them as paperweights, bungee cords or for waterproofing in front of my wife or children. Would you???
As for the ultra-sound my wife specifically request the one used on her tummy.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Karen,
Conception specifically shares in the creative power of God. I do not see how that can be considered an amoral act or analogous to other body functions.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
thomas tucker,
Now where does this leave us in deciding whether it is licit or not for a pregnant married woman to have intercourse if her husband uses a condom?
If the act would be wrong when she wasn’t pregnant what in your mind makes it right when she is?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Some Day wrote:
DON’T EVER (ok please) compare me to a schismatic, false right apostates. Because that is what they are. My fidelity is to the Pope and that is even higher than to the USA!
And I am not becoming dioscesan. And what you call a “religious zelot” translates to you’re a “cafeteria catholic”and that you are the very example of relative.
Some Day, I’m sorry if you took my comment personally. If you re-read what I wrote, I said that I thought you would have a difficult time being admitted to seminiary because those seen as religious zealots are weeded out. I did not say what my opinion was, only that you would have a diffcult time because of how those who make the decisions feel. You are correct that I was speaking of the diocean priesthood.
Is there a private order of priests which teach that marital intercourse is to be avoided during intercourse?
Innocencio,
Then what makes it immoral to ever try to conceive outside of the marital embrace, if conception is inherently moral in itself, and therefore always a good thing?
Is it because God intervenes to give the person a soul?
Well, that’s what God does anyway, whether the means of conception are licit or illicit. That fact doesn’t support that conception in itself, as a happening, is moral. It’s insufficient as proof.
What if it were? What impact would that have on rape? Would it lessen the sin if the rapist “meant well” to impregnate someone, since conception would have a positive moral quality attached to it? I really, really do not think so.
cminor,
So, does using a condom noncontraceptively in marriage interfere with the unitive nature of sex?
Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
This seems to warn that contraceptive methods attack the unity of husband and wife.
As I pointed out early the Catholic Bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland gave these as two of the reasons against the use of condoms to fight HIV/AIDS:
* The use of condoms goes against human dignity. * Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure – while rejecting responsibility. *
I don’t understand how anyone thinks a husband and wife can be united with a barrier between them.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Karen,
Inasmuch as conception is not a voluntary act (at least under natural conditions) it is not a moral or immoral act. It is not a human act at all.
IVF is a human act, an extremely evil one. There is no doubt about this from Church teachings.
In engaging in marital relations while intentionally closing the act to conception is a moral act, and evil one. There is no doubt about this from Church teachings either.
Something does not have to be a moral act though to be good or evil. The human body is not a moral act, but it is good. The sun, the stars, the trees, the sea, these are not moral acts, but they are all good. Conception, the creation of a new human life, including the ensoulment of a body, is a great good.
In fact, that element of ensoulment is actually a moral act, a great good performed by God
karen,
Then what makes it immoral to ever try to conceive outside of the marital embrace
Going against God’s revelation and design. Our Lord still bring good forth from evil.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
There are two separate things happening:
1.) The conception
2.) At which point God gives the person a soul.
#2 is what is beautiful and this happens regardless of how the conception occurred, licitly or illicitly.
But #1 will happen regardless of whether #2 happens.
#2 is what God A.) Does because Truth works that way (it’s the way of things to get a soul when you’re conceived), B.) Desires to happen within marriage.
It’s God that makes a morally neutral thing have meaning. It’s God that makes the morally neutral thing licit or illicit. God’s intervention lends the event meaning, but the event itself is meaningless and amoral without God. God intervenes to give something morally neutral, meaning. That’s different to saying it’s inherently positively moral.
Going against God’s revelation and design. Our Lord still bring good forth from evil.
Exactly! Our Lord brings about good from illicit methods of conceiving. All the time. But the conception itself is amoral. God’s being able to make it into a good thing where it’s illicitly brought about, does not lend the event a moral quality in itself.
Karen,
That’s different to saying it’s inherently positively moral.
“And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.”
Husband and wife are obedient to that command by sharing in the creative process.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Should have said, “God’s ability to bring about good from a morally neutral thing, regardless of whether it was brought about licitly or illicitly, is a separate issue that has no bearing on the inherent ‘morality’ of the event”.
I’m getting tired 😉
About St. Thomas Aquinas, it is true that he was not infallible. He got the matter of the Immaculate Conception wrong (like just about all theologians before Bl. John Duns Scotus, though the people of the Brittish Isles kept believing it) and some medical realities.
His taxonomy was scientifically incorrect though I suspect philisophically correct.
Still, in general his writings are not on the same level as any other theologian. He has been declared a Doctor of the Church, and furthermore (uniquely) his writings have been extolled by the Magestarium and even forced upon all Seminaries, which were instructed to teach seminarians Thomist theology before any other schools. Many times have his writings, as a whole, been backed by the Magesterium.
I myself am more of an Augustinian/Scotist by nature, but St. Thomas deserves to be recognized as standing above all the rest due to his unique Magesterial backing.
That does not automatically mean that the particular teaching I mentioned is definitely correct, much less the extrapolation from it. Yet I fail to see where the logic is flawed much less how looking at the integrety of the the physical act is the wrong approach when discussing whether a specific physical act, or a physical obstruction of a physical/spiritual act, is moral. The individual culpability for the sin depends more on the mental and spiritual realities involved, but that does not change whether or not a specific physical reality is wrong or not.
Karen,
God’s being able to make it into a good thing where it’s illicitly brought about, does not lend the event a moral quality in itself.
CCC 2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end”
Human life from the beginning is a good thing and sacred.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I’m confused, Innocencio. I agree with you completely if we’re talking about husbands and wives and the way of God that he wants us to marry and be fruitful! I’m not sure how this means conception is inherently moral instead of moral.
CCC 2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end”
Human life from the beginning is a good thing and sacred.
Of course! Because of God’s intervention after conception takes place, regardless of whether parents intended it to happen and were married, or were careless fornicators.
I still do not see how this means that conception has a moral quality to it, just because God deigns to do these things when a sperm meets an egg even when we disobey him–and that’s a separate event from the actual conception.
Karen,
The whole physical world is not neutral, it is good.
I’m not sure it is wise to separate the physical act of conception from the divine act of ensoulment, since the one never occures without the other, but even the physical event is a great good, an integral part of the greatest reflection of the trinity in the physical order, and an event the God has greatly enobled as the beginging of a new human life.
The events that lead to it may be bad, but the conception itself is always good.
I’m not sure how this means conception is inherently moral instead of moral.
err, the last “moral” should have been “amoral”.I’m not sure how this means conception is inherently moral instead of moral.
err, the last “moral” should have been “amoral”.
Sorry ’bout that.
Karen,
I suggest that if conception results from outside of marriage or rape it is still a moral good being brought forth from evil (e.g. fornication, rape)
As the CCC states human life is sacred from the beginning/conception because it involves the creative act of God.
I would suggest that even if conception is brought about by sinful means it is still a moral good because God has designed, willed it and cooperated in the conception not the sinful means.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
So a rapist with an urge to impregnate is going to go to a lesser intense level of Hell because at least he aimed for conception, a morally good thing–all things equal? Uh uh.
God brings about good things from morally neutral acts all of the time. In the case of married people, he brings about a gift that they licitly conceived. In the case of illicitly conceived babies, he brings about good, but it’s from the morally negative act of choosing to conceive (morally neutral) against his prescribed way of doing things.
Actually, since all the essential aspects of natural marital relations are good a deliberate frustrating of any of those elements that are essential to the act and its reflection of the Trinity would be evil. Thus we are not only talking about being open to conception here, but insemination iself as well, which is why I agree with Jimmy that there needs to be some insemination in all circumstances even if in practicality you know there will be no conception.
However, at the risk of violating rule 20 (and he did say this was a matter for individual discernment) I would think that a perforated condomn would still interfere with the unitive aspect (in its physical reality which is certainly not the whole picture) and degrade the act to mutual mastrobation with subsequent insemination. It still seems to me a holding back of part of the self from the other. I am open to criticism on this last matter though.
Karen,
Granted in the case of rape (in your weird senario where the man wants to impregnate the woman) or IVF or fornication the method chosen for fertilization is immoral, but the actual physical conception remains good I would think, as well as certainly the ensoulment part of the conception. Naturally the arguement about the goodness or neutrality of the actual physical conception is fairly trivial since the whole conception (physical and spiritual realities combined) is always very good.
We’re closer to getting to the meat of this, Innocencio 🙂 Thanks for being my bounce-back partner (and thanks to others btw) 😉
I suggest that if conception results from outside of marriage or rape it is still a moral good being brought forth from evil (e.g. fornication, rape)
I suggest that if conception results from outside of marriage or rape, it is a morally neutral act wherein God is still capable of bringing forth good from evil.
As the CCC states human life is sacred from the beginning/conception because it involves the creative act of God.
Of course, that’s not in question. No matter how it happened, once God gives a person a soul, they have human dignity and a right to life.
I would suggest that even if conception is brought about by sinful means it is still a moral good because God has designed, willed it and cooperated in the conception not the sinful means.
I do not think it is Church teaching that because God can bring good from evil, and does so, that this is automatically the criteria by which we judge an action to be inherently good. Or that after God has done so, that in retrospect it means that the event was inherently good.
Thomas T.:
Lord knows I don’t have all the answers. I believe–as an ordinary lay Catholic–that the Church position would be yes, insemination is necessary, and cite the perforated condom requirement for medical procedures like sperm counts or GIFT. I believe–as someone with a natural science background–that insemination is the natural order of things and is necessary and beneficial even when it does not result in fertilization. I am glad, however, that cases like the one that started this thread can be discussed and analyzed reasonably in the light of Church teaching and Natural Law.
Some Day: Please reread my post. I said in so many words that contraceptive condom use was an evil. And please control your temper. Would you speak the way you spoke to Kelly to any lady you met at church?
Inocencio: By ‘scandal’ do you mean moral evil, or morally neutral but embarassing or troublesome? I think you give too much significance to a little bit of latex which, after all, is nothing more than a little bit of latex until it is used as a contraceptive. Are balloons and fingercots also scandalous? They can resemble condoms to an uncanny degree.
In my example, a condom is used for underwater sound recording because it suits the purpose and is cheap and readily available. Ditto in Kelly’s ultrasound example. Ditto in Catholic hospitals where perforated condoms may be used in resolving infertility. I suppose the manufacturer could package one with the label ‘condom’and the other with the label ‘ultrasound cover’ or ‘microphone protector,’ but isn’t that a bit silly? The object itself is amoral. What it is used for may be moral or immoral. So why get into a lather over the object?
We’re closer to getting to the meat of this, Innocencio 🙂 Thanks for being my bounce-back partner (and thanks to others btw) 😉
I suggest that if conception results from outside of marriage or rape it is still a moral good being brought forth from evil (e.g. fornication, rape)
I suggest that if conception results from outside of marriage or rape, it is a morally neutral act wherein God is still capable of bringing forth good from evil.
As the CCC states human life is sacred from the beginning/conception because it involves the creative act of God.
Of course, that’s not in question. No matter how it happened, once God gives a person a soul, they have human dignity and a right to life.
I would suggest that even if conception is brought about by sinful means it is still a moral good because God has designed, willed it and cooperated in the conception not the sinful means.
I do not think it is Church teaching that because God can bring good from evil, and does so, that this is automatically the criteria by which we judge an action to be inherently good. Or that after God has done so, that in retrospect it means that the event was inherently good.
Karen,
You are blending the three different aspects of a moral act together: (1) the act itself, (2) the circumstances, and (3) the intent.
For an act to be morally good, the act itself must be either morally good or morally neutral, but that is not sufficient. Circumstances and intent can make acts that are morally good in and of themselves morally evil.
Having said that, I think J.R. raises a very good question as to whether conception is a human act at all. On reflection, I tend to agree with him.
Karen and Inocencio, again I suggest you stop calling physical conception a moral or amoral act, since no human being ever “concepts,” and talk about whether or not the physical process in inherently good or not. I think it is, but it matters little. The important points are the goodness of conception as a whole, the value of all human life, and the goodness or evil of certain acts that can lead to conception. I think all three of us agree on those matters.
Thomas T:
The Lord knows I haven’t got all the answers on this one!
I believe–as an ordinary lay Catholic–that Church teaching would say that some insemination (if only token) is necessary to both the unitive and the procreative.
I believe–as one with a natural science background–that insemination is the natural order of things and is positive and beneficial (there is some medical support for this view, BTW) even when it does not result in fertilization.
I’m inclined to look to the more theologically knowledgable for the answer to whether this insemination must occur in every case. I’m grateful that these matters can be analyzed and discussed reasonably and in the light of Church teaching and natural law.
Oh, please disregard that repeat. My server’s giving me trouble and I thought it didn’t go through the first time.
The important points are the goodness of conception as a whole, the value of all human life, and the goodness or evil of certain acts that can lead to conception.
No, conception is morally neutral and amoral. I don’t agree, sorry! God acts separately to bring about good things as a result of conception.
He’s pleased when married couples are open to life and have children. That’s how things should be, and we all wish it always worked out this way.
Where there is rape and fornication, he intervenes at the point of conception and says, “Shucks, okay, here’s your soul, despite how you were conceived. I feel sorry for you, kid, for how you’ve been wronged. You’re just as human as the rest because of My Will, and don’t let anyone tell you any different”. But He still intervened separately from a morally neutral occurrence.
It doesn’t make the actual conception inherently good, just because God does what he does when sperm meets egg. If it were not amoral, and were inherently morally positive, then it would greatly lessen the sin when people use illicit means to conceive, and I just don’t believe this is the case.
I do not believe that rapists or chavs who aim to impregnate their victims go to a lesser level of hell because conception is inherently moral and good. God will give a kid a soul regardless. That’s the parents’ stain, not the kids’.
“If it were not amoral, and were inherently morally positive, then it would greatly lessen the sin when people use illicit means to conceive.”
Wrong.
If I intend to destroy life, the fact that I use a morally good (or morally neutral) object to do so would ABSOLUTELY NOT lessen my sin. If anything it would increase it because I have profaned what was good.
Karen,
No, conception is morally neutral and amoral. I don’t agree, sorry! God acts separately to bring about good things as a result of conception.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. We are just using different definitions now. When I said “conception as a whole” I meant the physical element of plasmogamy and karyogamy (sp?) and the metaphysically inseperable element of the ensoulment of the cell. We both agree that the ensoulment element is good, thus whether the physical element is good or neutral the entire event is good.
Karen,
I do not believe that rapists or chavs who aim to impregnate their victims go to a lesser level of hell because conception is inherently moral and good. God will give a kid a soul regardless. That’s the parents’ stain, not the kids’.
Agreed.
Karen,
The thing is, you connect the morality of the act of rape (or I keep going back to IVF) to the goodness (again, I say this is a matter of goodness not morality) of the actual processes of gamete fusion. I do not. I think the rape is terribly immoral, and the goodness of gamete fusion and the great goodness of ensoulment in no way lessens the gravity of the rape.
J.R. Stoodley, I think the amorality of gamete fusion is the only thing that can support your argument thus far.
There’s no inherent goodness in gamete fusion that I can see. A scientist can do as much with a petri dish full of eggs and syringe full of sperm. What Catholic would go up to a hesitant scientist and say, “Do it! Do it! Conception is inherently good!”?
It’s God’s intervention that brings about good from the totally amoral and separate event of gamete fusion.
gamete infusion is biological conception, ensoulment is spiritual conception. The two events are inseperable as we are both physical and spiritual beings, there is no soul before conception, there is only soul at conception, not after, a human, even at the gamete level, cannot exist even for the smallest fraction of a second without a human soul.
The act that results in this event may be morally good or morally bad. When it occurs it is good.
Karen,
Intentionaly trying to cause conception outside the natural marital union is grossly immoral. Conception itself is good. What is difficult about this concept?
You still do not seem to grasp that natural processes are inherantly good.
Matt, I still don’t see how the simultaneous infusion of a soul along with conception makes it inherently a “moral” event in itself, just because this good thing happens.
J.R. Stoodley,
No, I don’t grasp that natural processes are inherently good for the very reason that a sperm and egg can naturally join and form an embryo, even in a petri dish–just doing what they’re supposed to do outside of God’s plan. The sperm is naturally going to try to penetrate the egg even if the petri dish isn’t the natural place for it to happen.
I also want to say that there’s more to “natural” than simply what nature makes possible. Natural law isn’t exactly the same as nature. God’s ideals are taken into account. The teachings we derive from natural law are that marital relations are the true “Way” to conceive.
cminor,
So why get into a lather over the object?
So you would use them as paperweights, bungee cords and I guess even ballons in front of your children?
I still say that is scandalous because I don’t think you can seperate in a person’s mind what they were designed for even if find uses you think are wonderful.
Are they so amoral that you would give them to children as ballons? And if not why not?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Okay, Inocencio:
First off, you still haven’t clarified for me what you mean by scandal. The question is still whether the object is good, evil, or neutral. But I’ll take on your question anyway.
No, I would not use condoms gratuitiously, even for licit purposes, in the presence of children; if I had some compelling reason to do it, (say I had a group of kids recording sounds underwater) I certainly wouldn’t go into all the lurid details about what they were designed for! I’d just let ’em think they were microphone waterproofers.
You say that you can’t separate the object from the use in a person’s mind. Not so. I can’t separate the object from the use in my mind because I know what it’s commonly used for. If, however, I were to blow up a condom, tie up the end, and give it to a three-year-old, he wouldn’t see a condom; he’d see a balloon. He doesn’t have the same frame of reference you and I do. There’s no hygenic region not to do this, as long as it’s fresh from the package and untreated. There are social reasons not to, not the least of which is he’s likely to encounter somebody else who knows what his ‘balloon’ is who will be sacandalized. But until it is used to commit a sin, the object itself is, I would posit, neutral.
One more thing:
Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Correct. But the original question was neither about contraceptive use nor about long-term condom use; it was about whether a way could be found for a couple to enjoy the marital embrace during a period of several months when a health problem made it difficult.
cminor,
I said I don’t think you can seperate the object from the use it was designed for. You say you can I am doubtful but accept your word.
If only one child on your underwater trip knows what they are all of them will know by the end of the trip. Or worse when they get older and realize that they have many “uses” and if cminor uses them for stuff they must be ok. I would maintain there is no valid use of a condom and in my mind as an object no good will come from their use. I accept that everyone on this blog will disagree with me.
As Jimmy noted some orthodox moralists have suggested the use of the perferated ones for obtaining samples. I disagree with that use also.
If you want your three-old to play with them that is your call. My children would not play at your house.
But the original question was neither about contraceptive use nor about long-term condom use; it was about whether a way could be found for a couple to enjoy the marital embrace during a period of several months when a health problem made it difficult.
I would give the same answer the African bishops gave.
* The use of condoms goes against human dignity. * Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure – while rejecting responsibility. *
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Karen,
I still think you are focusing too much on the surrounding details of how the physical element of conception comes about in any given case. I am just saying that the fusion of gametes, the plasmogamy and karyogamy (and it would be an interesting discussion about which of those is realy the moment of conception) is in itself a good thing like any other cellular process, or indeed greater than any other cellular process since it is the formation of a new living (hence ensouled) human body. Besides, the physical process and the ensoulment are so metaphysically, insepterably linked that I would say for all practical purposes they constitute a single event. If this single event of conception (the formation of a new human person) is accepted as intrinsically good then I think the matter of the goodness or neutrality of the physical componant is fairly trivial. Thus I think I will drop the issue even if you want to keep argueing against it.
The important facts remain: the marital act must always be open to conception, conception may not be intentionally brought about outside of marriage, and conception by itself, separated from the events that have lead to it and considered as a whole (the physical and spiritual properties together) is always a great good.
About your
I also want to say that there’s more to “natural” than simply what nature makes possible. Natural law isn’t exactly the same as nature. God’s ideals are taken into account. The teachings we derive from natural law are that marital relations are the true “Way” to conceive.
I agree with that statement entirely, though I’m not sure what you are trying to imply with it. When I talk about natural processes being good, I do not mean they follow the natural law. Natural law, as we Catholics use the term, refers to the system of right and wrong built into us. It is a description of how God intends for us to act.
There is more to good and evil though than just the natural law though, because there is more to Creation than human actions. Moral good is not the only kind of good, and moral evil is not the only kind of evil. All that God created is good. Since we humans are fully a part of physical creation what we make is part of the whole, thus at least some of it enhances and completes that creation and thus is also good. I would hold that even if the act of creation was evil (a wicked Medieval king building a prison tower to torture people in) the actual beautiful tower may itself be good, enhancing God’s creation. The issue of physical evil is complicated and debatable, so I will just say that it is related to and in some way caused by moral evil. I doubt though that the act of conception, even when brought about by evil means, ever becomes evil itself. I also doubt that there is anything truely “neutral” in nature. There are acts that are moraly neutral, but not objects or bioligical processes that are neutral.
Oy vey,….
Let that teach me to try making a point with analogies!
[sigh]
cminor,
I think
cminor,
Oops…my comments got cut off.
It should have read:
I think that condoms are sinful and at the very least a near occasion of sin.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio:
I think using a condom to contracept or interfere with the marriage act is sinful. I think they can be an occasion of sin only if you allow them to be. I am concerned that you & some others in this combox are in danger of making idols–if negative ones–out of condoms. It is the use of the object that is evil or not. The object itself is amoral.
That’s all I have to say about that.
J.R.,
I think you were correct at the outset, when you pointed out that conception is not a voluntary, human act. It is a result of the marital act, or of sexual intercourse, or of scientists’ experiments in petri dishes, but it is not itself an act.
The realm of moral theology characterizes acts — not results. Acts themselves can be good (the marital act) or neutral or inherently evil (fornication, or mixing sperm and eggs in petri dishes).
But the fact that the result of any of these acts is good (conception, or life) does not alter the good or evil nature of the act itself. It may be, as Karen has noted, an example of God bringing good out of evil.
But in the moral realm, it makes little sense to speak of conception as morally good, morally neutral, or amoral.
I agree, Brother. Are you just agreeing with me or have I been unclear again?
BTW, Jimmy, if my touching on the subject of whether a perforated condom is acceptible above somewhere was in violation of rule 20 I apologize too. I figured since the question is open to debate in the Church I could give my opinion on the matter, but maybe not since you basically gave the ok for this couple to follow their conscience on the matter.
J.R.,
I was agreeing with you, just recasting the argument a bit to make sure.
Thanks
Three questions:
1) What is rule 20?
2) Do you think this thread has made a record for comments on this blog?
3) Can anyone find a theological citation that says or implies that insemination has to take place in the marital union to satisfy the unitive aspect of marriage?
thomas tucker,
#1 DA RULZ
20. When Jimmy is answering a pastoral question (i.e., for a person asking about an actual that they or someone they know is involved in, as opposed to a hypothetical situation) that can be phrased in the form “Is it morally licit to do X?”, do not contradict Jimmy in the comments box. People asking pastoral questions on moral subjects often feel very disoriented and confused if they get a debate rather than an answer on a sensitive question about a situation they, a friend, or a family member is involved in.
For the peace of mind of the person who asked the question, challenges to such answers need to be handled a different way. Instead of using the comments box to pose your challenge, e-mail Jimmy. If you win him over, he’ll make a correction and notify the person who asked the question. Comments violating this policy will be deleted. Widespread violation of this policy will result in the comments box being turned off for such questions.
Posts subject to Rule 20 will have a “20” at the bottom of the post.
#2 What Is Happening In The Middle East post is at 460 which I think is the record so far…
#3 Still looking…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Thanks, Inocencio.
With regard to the inherent goodness or moral neutrality, I’ve been reading something a good book on Thomastics, and I think I have an answer.
Considering that every natural cause is either completely random, or has an end. Since the end of conception is the creation of one more soul to love and serve the Lord, it is inherently good. Now, that does not permit one to do evil in order to create the cause, as we know that it is never permissible to do evil that good may come.
I finally came to a conclusion in absoulote in mind as to why contraceptives are wrong even outside marriage. Its because its an offense to God, regardless if the baby is going to grow up in a broken “family”. Condoms are bad, and just not to ruin the lives involve from permanent complications does it become licit.
If you rob a bank, you can’t kill the witness just because, “oh, I robbed the bank already, I might as well make sure I don’t get caught and kill the teller.”. So it is wrong, regardless of the situation because it offends God, and breaks with the Divine Order instituted by him. And that call for a restitution, or at a certain point, Vengeance.
I was actually inclined to believe contraception outside of marriage is somewhat ok, but I know it is either Good or Bad and there are no inbetweens and somewhats.
Some Day,
I think it really depends on the definition of the sin of contraception. If, as thomas tucker suggests, contraception outside of marriage is an entirely different reality than contraception within marriage, then you can not take teachings about contraception within marriage and automatically transport them to fornication. As noted above I personally believe contraception perverts the sexual act in fornication even more and thus makes the sin worse, possibly even raising it to the level of sodomy in the case of condoms.
On the other hand, I don’t know if classic sodomy is made any different morally speaking with a latex boundery.
It is not the physical condom or other contraceptive that is evil, but the contraceptive act which may be impossible to add to sodomy since the physical reality is all wrong to begin with and already closed to life.
In the end, you can atleast conclude that…
“one abyss leads to another.”
Keepcondom.com is the most convenient place to buy condom online. Our pride is to deliver the best varieties and the lowest rates at your door step. The best online shop for all your needs. We are here to help you out to make the selection and purchase of the best condom online that can give you the perfect fit.
What I don’t understand is why some seem to think there is a legitimate argument against nuns protecting themselves in cases of potential rape, with barrier methods?
If the marital act is the only licit means to procreate, then why is there any question that preventing an illicit way of conceiving is a licit thing to do–at any point before the conception? “But the penis has ejaculated inside a vagina at that point” is no argument. Rape is wrong for many reasons, but one of them is that the unitive aspect is not there in its true and complete sense, like it is within marriage.
There is no reason that post-coital period should be the definitive cut-off point at which conception may no longer be licitly prevented where rape is concerned. Victims of rape go through a cleaning process at hospitals–would you be against this, simply because Humanae Vitae says that contraception includes steps taken after a marital act, as well as contraceptive steps taken beforehand? I’d be tempted to bet almost anything that you couldn’t say that without your conscience flagging you hotly. Look at Humanae Vitae section 12 where “unitive” is mentioned. The context is, marital relations between husband and wife.
It seems understood that the teachings on contraception are to be taken in the context of sex–real sex, which is God’s definition, which would be licit sex, which is marital sex, and not mere shadows of sex. Or would you insist on strapping down rape victims so that they cannot interfere with “nature taking its course”, to give conception a chance? Red flags all over my conscience. Where this happens, God is bringing about good from an evil act because people didn’t, or weren’t able to, prevent an illicit means of conception from taking place at any stage before the actual conception. It doesn’t mean we can’t prevent an illicit potential means of conception at any of those stages.
Rubbing alcohol looks a lot like water. It’s not a “drink” for us, because God never intended it to be. That doesn’t mean that once I drink it, that I have ingested a “drink”, and that it’s then illicit to pump my stomach–even if God could somehow bring good out of the terrible health consequences, which we know He could do.
3) Can anyone find a theological citation that says or implies that insemination has to take place in the marital union to satisfy the unitive aspect of marriage?
Look at what was written above. Marriage is what makes it a marital act in the first place. Only within marriage can the unitive and procreative aspects exist in their fulness and in their entirety. And if sexual activity can’t fulfill both procreative and unitive requirements, then it’s just not “sex” by God’s intended definition. It is but a shadow of the real thing. What secular society calls “sex” using any other orifice or other part of the body or other animal or blow-up doll, is not really sex. Rape very strongly resembles sex, and so does fornication, but on the lesser-obvious spiritual level, they both fail to meet God’s criteria.
If this means that contraception being used while fornicating does not compound sin, I am willing to accept this. People seem to be saying that because God CAN allow conception to happen, that it is necessarily His Will that we make it possible in cases of rape and fornication. The second assumption being, that those qualify as legitimate, if not licit, sex, by God’s definition, when they don’t. But this is contrary to what we know. Not all things that God allows to happen, are necessarily HIS WILL. God allows murder, but that doesn’t mean murder is His Will. We know it’s not God’s will for people to conceive out of wedlock. I believe we compound sin when we are negligent or forceful in preventing conception outside of marriage, possibly even on two counts: 1. because we wrong a child who deserves two married parents, and 2.) where the woman is forced, she is obviously also wronged with the burden of impregnation (not that it’s licit after the fact, for her to abort).
Bold off. My post again, because the HTML helps:
What I don’t understand is why some seem to think there is a legitimate argument against nuns protecting themselves in cases of potential rape, with barrier methods?
If the marital act is the only licit means to procreate, then why is there any question that preventing an illicit way of conceiving is a licit thing to do–at any point before the conception? “But the penis has ejaculated inside a vagina at that point” is no argument. Rape is wrong for many reasons, but one of them is that the unitive aspect is not there in its true and complete sense, like it is within marriage.
There is no reason that post-coital period should be the definitive cut-off point at which conception may no longer be licitly prevented where rape is concerned. Victims of rape go through a cleaning process at hospitals–would you be against this, simply because Humanae Vitae says that contraception includes steps taken after a marital act, as well as contraceptive steps taken beforehand? Of course not. Look at Humanae Vitae section 12 where “unitive” is mentioned. It has to do with marital relations between husband and wife.
It seems understood that the teachings on contraception are to be taken in the context of sex–real sex, which is God’s definition, which would be licit sex, which is marital sex, and not mere shadows of sex. Or would you insist on strapping down rape victims so that they cannot interfere with “nature taking its course”, to give conception a chance? Red flags all over my conscience. Where this happens, God is bringing about good from an evil act because people didn’t, or weren’t able to, prevent an illicit means of conception from taking place at any stage before the actual conception. It doesn’t mean we can’t prevent an illicit potential means of conception at any of those stages.
Rubbing alcohol looks a lot like water. It’s not a “drink” for us, because God never intended it to be. That doesn’t mean that once I drink it, that I have ingested a “drink”, and that it’s then illicit to pump my stomach–even if God could somehow bring good out of the terrible health consequences, which we know He could do.
3) Can anyone find a theological citation that says or implies that insemination has to take place in the marital union to satisfy the unitive aspect of marriage?
Look at what was written above. Marriage is what makes it a marital act in the first place. Only within marriage can the unitive and procreative aspects exist in their fulness and in their entirety. And if sexual activity can’t fulfill both procreative and unitive requirements, then it’s just not “sex” by God’s intended definition. It is but a shadow of the real thing. What secular society calls “sex” using any other orifice or other part of the body or other animal or blow-up doll, is not really sex. Rape very strongly resembles sex, and so does fornication, but on the lesser-obvious spiritual level, they both fail to meet God’s criteria.
If this means that contraception being used while fornicating does not compound sin, I am willing to accept this. People seem to be saying that because God CAN allow conception to happen, that it is necessarily His Will that we make it possible in cases of rape and fornication. The second assumption being, that those qualify as legitimate, if not licit, sex, by God’s definition, when they don’t. But this is contrary to what we know. Not all things that God allows to happen, are necessarily HIS WILL. God allows murder, but that doesn’t mean murder is His Will. We know it’s not God’s will for people to conceive out of wedlock. I believe we compound sin when we are negligent or forceful in preventing conception outside of marriage, possibly even on two counts: 1. because we wrong a child who deserves two married parents, and 2.) where the woman is forced, she is obviously also wronged with the burden of impregnation (not that it’s licit after the fact, for her to abort).
What’s wrong with the bold?
I can’t turn off the bold. I put /strong into brackets and it doesn’t work, so … anyway…
To those who think it’s a matter of Natural Law that insemination take its course in matters of illicit ways of conceiving: It’s not Natural Law. “Nature” and “Natural Law” are not interchangeable. Natural Law takes God’s ideals into account. It is possible to misuse nature. You’re misusing nature when you fuse sperm and egg in a petri dish–they’ll naturally unite even in that circumstance, but that is misusing nature. That’s why it’s illicit in the first place.
Same thing applies to rape and fornication, masturbation, and these other shadows of sex. They are an abuse of nature. Where nature can result in a conception, there’s still nothing “Natural Law” about it. God’s ideals were ignored.
Any takers? I know it’s not the hot, current topic, but it’s been a few days.
Karen, I have not looked here for weeks I think. It is a lot to read and things are getting bussy, but I will try to read through it and give you a response.
Jimmy, please remove the condom advertisement above Karen’s posts.
Karen,
I’m not sure which question you’re talking about, but I’ll give it a shot.
I agree with you about nature and natural law — they are definitely not interchangeable. An appeal to natural law is not the same thing as an appeal to nature.
What I don’t understand is why some seem to think there is a legitimate argument against nuns protecting themselves in cases of potential rape, with barrier methods?
I am not at all certain that this would be disallowed; I am in fact inclined to agree with you that it probably would be allowed. The rape victim in such a case has no intention to voluntarily enter into a sexual act.
I do believe that the natural law prohibition of contraception, however, applies both to the marital act and to voluntary sexual acts outside of marriage. I believe that magisterial teaching on contraception is in clear agreement on this point. But even if they had not been, natural law still prohibits it.
Sodomy and bestiality, I believe, would be different than fornication, because they are already contraceptive acts in and of themselves. Fornication is not, and the inherent evil of contraception compounds the inherent evil of fornication.
Karen,
Given the length of your posts I think reather than responding to them line by line I will just give my position.
First, to reiterate my position on conception, all natural processes are good. That is not because they are part of the “Natural Law” as Christians use the term but because God created nature. Thus in the abstract the physical aspect of conception is good, and the spiritual aspect, ensoulment, is very good and a direct act of creation by God. The great goodness of conception is precisely what makes bringing it about outside of its intended context so evil and an offence against the dignity of conception and of the child. In such cases the conception (isolated from its context) and the child are goods brought out of the evil God has allowed.
Fornication is not just a mere shaddow of the marrital act, it is identical to that act in all things save the identity of the people involved. I think it is therefore safe to say that it is indeed sex, but sex with the wrong person.
Sodomy, beastiality, and mastrobation on the other hand are indeed mere shaddows of sex. I think “condomized sex” also would be qualified as this. As these things are further perversions of sexuality, they would seem to be more grave than plain fornication.
It is harder to compare them to adultury and rape because there you get other, very different factors coming into play. In adultury you have the violation of the marriage bond, the breaking of marital vows, and the personal offence against the innocent spouse. In the case of rape you have the violence and the trauma inflicted on the victim.
Considering first the physical realities of the act, a condom essentially turns fornication into sodomy and adultury into adulturous sodomy, increasing the gravity of each I think. Chemical contracption does not do this but carries the possiblility of abortion, which makes it inexcusable in any circumstances.
In the case of rape a condom (and I fail to see how a woman could get her attacker to wear one) would turn the act from forced sex to forced sodomy. If wearing the condom is the man’s initiative then the woman can have no culpability in any way, so the entire discussion of gravity concerns the man, but since what he does is so grave in any case I see no point in trying to decide if he does better or worse by using a condom. If the condom use is initiated by the woman somehow, then she is personally choosing to have an act of sodomy forced on her (though again of course she is not the one commiting it) rather than an act of fornication. It seems to me that this increased warping of the physical act may contain some kind of gravity. On the other hand she is protecting herself from possible disease and unwanted extramarital pregnancy which is certainly not ordained (there is no telling what is willed in general) by God. How these two factors interact I do not know.
What about diaphragms though? I had forgotton about these. They are fairly obscure no? In any case they do not protect a woman from disease as far as I can tell but makes conception less likely. This is just a speculation, but it would seem to me that the prevention of an extramarital pregnancy is a positive element, but that the physical aspect of it would not change the reality from sex to sodomy. Further, there is not abortifacient quality like that which prevents the licit use of chemical contraception in any case. There for its use by a victim of rape if she can manage it may be acceptible or even desirable.
I’m not sure though. Any thoughts, Brother Cadfael or Inocencio?
Brother Cadfael,
As usual you say about what I meant to but more clearly and concisely.
Karen,
If a woman can get something in there before being raped, better than a diaphragm would be the product developed recently and mentioned in the earlier discussion on this site of this same subject. It does not harm the woman, but when a man, um, enters, his, ehem, member gets a bunch of long needles stuck into it which must later be removed surgically. Apparently the pain is so intense that there is no chance of the man doing further violence to the woman in rage.
we compound sin when we are negligent or forceful in preventing conception outside of marriage, possibly even on two counts: 1. because we wrong a child who deserves two married parents, and 2.) where the woman is forced, she is obviously also wronged with the burden of impregnation (not that it’s licit after the fact, for her to abort).
Who’s rights are more important, God’s or the victim and child?
God’s, not that the two will usually be seperable.
But is prevention of conception outside of marriage always wrong? If a “doctor” was in the middle of performing in vitro fertilization, would you not be justified in knocking the micropipeter out of his hands to prevent the illicit fertilization? Does a similar concept come into play when a woman is trying to prevent illicit impregnation from rape or does her doing so just make the situation worse? That is the question.
Your appeal to pathos is pretty strong but lacks some logos.
One must prevent wrong as much as one can, key word is can. My vocation doesn’t seem to go and rid the world of heresy. Not directly anyways.
Nor is it to prevent crimes as a cop would.
So jumping into a clinic and knocking out a tool could even be a sin because I am risking my life unnecesarily, at least foolishly.
Lets see.
Rape is a crime…duh.
Also a sin.
Contracepting is a sin.
Duh.
Rapist sins, so does nun for contracepting.
Why?
Because regardless of the victim’s rights and state in life, God set laws which defend His right as God.
If God wants to not give life to that act, then He won’t.
Now it seems sad that the nun will now be pregnant, and the child is fatherless, but God will provide for both.
I have a friend who entered as novice into a relgious order.
He was a very good kid, I knew him pretty well.
But when he left for his place of formation, he develoed a nervous problem. He had vocation.
He was faithful to it. But his condition impeads him from the hard life that is being in a religious order. He was sent home o good terms.
It is not his fault he has that. So God will provide him with a “new”vocation.
Some people are called to suffer more than others.
….
On another note
Unless the nuns are missionaries in Africa or something like that, I don’t see why they would be raped if they are safe in their convent.
Some Day,
My questions in my last post are really meant as that: questions. I am no longer sure I know the answer to this particular issue.
To comment on some of your side comments in your last post,
To be confident that a vocation is authentic the person must really feel a call, the community must really be willing to accept him or her, and the person must be physically and mentally capable of living the life. If God did not provide your friend with the physical ability to live the life of the order he wanted to join, you can rest assured that it was not his true vocation. By the nervous condition I would even say God prevented him from entering a life he was not in fact called to. This was mercy, and I bet your friend will find his real vocation and live a holier life than he would have in that community.
Still, you are right that some people are called to suffer more than others, including those who long for religious life but can not join any order. I know of one canonized saint that was that way, and I myself may end up with the same fate. It is a mystery why God allows honest people to think they have a vocation they do not and then suffer in exile.
About the nuns in Africa, the convent is not always a sanctuary. Especially when there is a civil war going on like in Congo or where the culture is anti-Christian, ruffians may break into the convent and rape the nuns right there. I imagine African men might target nuns for the same reason they target very young girls: they want a virgin so they do not get HIV.
Are you a religious J.R.?
Your link is to the Trappists.
———————————
Anyways, the boy showed signs of vocation because there are somethings that unless you won’t understand about an order unless you got something to so with it. Not that this is the case, but apostates and those who aren’t preservering are many times sugested to get married. Was their vocation to get married? No, but because of obedience their vocation can shift.
Now salvation is another question for apostates.
Some saints say that it is dificult, others say that those that don’t follow their vocation can’t be saved. Ofcourse, if your superior tells you to, then that is another case. My friend was told to. He just showed symptoms that could complicate things later in life. If a the Pope has develops a nervous condition, and it isn’t his fault (like he didn’t have vices that would lead to that) are you going to say that he doesn’t have vocation?
Back to the topic, contraceptives are completely evil no matter how you use them.
Now hormonal therapy can be licit because the contraceptive properties are a side effect that is sometimes inseperatable from the desired primary effect.
And I just want to say this, because I remember it somewhat, that Saint Maria Goretti once was about to be raped she fought so much that her attacker had no other choice than to stab her.
She died a virgin and martyr. So I imagine that if you are a saint God will protect you from such things. If you are prostitute in a habit, like I have been is happening many time , like nuns at the beach dressed immorally and they weren’t swiming. Now if you are nuns like Mother Angelica’s, then God will protect.
Some Day, I am not a religious. Actually I think I am technically still a member of the SFOs since I was talked into joining their observership program, but I will soon ask to be removed.
I have a Benedictine spirituality and believe I may have a vocation to the OCSOs (Trappists). I have been in contact with a monastery but they do not accept postulants under 25 years old and I am 21 so I have the luxury of taking it slow and exploring other options. My participation here, being the closest thing to an external apostolate in my life, is a part of that exploration.
Seeing that some posters gave URL’s that were not their own I almost on a whim put the Trappist web page in my personal information, but maybe I should remove it if it will make people identify me too closely with them. I only hoped that people would follow the link and learn something about an underappreciated side of Catholicism as well expressing what sort of attitude towards life I am coming from. The St. Joseph’s Abbey site is more attractive but I thought if I used it, it would be more of an implication that I was from that monastery (though I hope to be in a few years).
Those three factors I listed are what I have encountered many times as the requirements for a vocation. After the person has joined the order they may well later loose their mental or physical capacity to live the life, but that does not change the fact that they indeed had a vocation and remain in the order or priesthood or whatever and is called to live out as much of that vocation as they can. That is different than if they when looking at entering (or at least before making final vows) and it is clear that they will never be able to live the ordinary life of the order, barring a miracle.
About contraception, the sin of contraception like any sin is always wrong can not be done for any reason. The question is what constitutes this sin.
About women being raped, it may not always be possible for a woman to fight enough to prevent the rape from happening or cause the rapist to kill her. The man may simply be too strong and/or the woman too weak for that. Even if that is not the case, I for one would not judge a rape victim to have done something wrong just because she did accomplish the same heroic feat of St. Maria Goretti.
Also, while God may indeed at times protect his beloved from harm, we know that some times he allows great evil to happen to them. If he allowed his own Son to be crucified, he very well may allow holy nuns to be raped. It is not our business to question this, but to have compassion on the victims.
Using condoms during pregnancy is not desirable.It can lead to bacterial vaginosis.