What's so bad about condoms?

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
posting this last comparison (I'm bad about logging out!)

condom use: wrong intention + disordered sexual act
NFP misuse: wrong intention + natural sexual act
Sorry, not seeing the distinction you need to make still.
 
Upvote 0

scraparcs

aka Mayor McCheese
Mar 4, 2002
52,793
4,844
Massachusetts
✟91,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Oh I don't see any real difference. Some would argue that it's using natural infertile periods.. but in my eyes it's very simple. Sex is for procreation. End off. Separating that truth from the act, even by using a calendar is still wrong.

Just don't have sex if you're not interested in procreation. If you time it to reduce the risks of a pregnancy you're still trying to avoid a pregnancy whilst enjoying the act of sex..

It's like in the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix novel when Fred and George came of age and started whipping their wands out for every little thing and apparating every couple of feet. Just because you can doesn't mean you must.

That's kind of my thought, except that I'd be more permissive.

That's pretty much it. One method is natural (nfp). The other isn't (condoms).

How natural is NFP? Is it something couples could have used without medical advances to learn about fertile and infertile periods?

posting this last comparison (I'm bad about logging out!)

condom use: wrong intention + disordered sexual act
NFP misuse: wrong intention + natural sexual act

Wrong intentions are wrong intentions. So what's the difference?

I don't know. There's still a whole lot I don't get about the Church.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well, suppose that I have a serious and morally good reason to lose weight, but that there is a gallon of double-super-fudge-chunk -brownie ice cream . . . with nuts . . . and marshmallows . . . in my freezer and I have already eaten a full dinner.

I may really want to eat that ice cream and I may know that the pleasure derived from the act of eating ice cream is a God-given good and something it is perfectly reasonable for me to desire, but the consequences of that act (40 gazillion calories) would not be a good thing for me at this particular time.

Recognizing that the consequences of eating a gallon of ice cream are not a part of God’s plan for me right now I have two choices. I could eat the ice cream and at the same time attempt to avoid the consequences of the act by interrupting the natural processes that lead from chewing to swallowing to digestion to the absorption of the calories that I ought to avoid and I could theoretically interrupt this process in a number of ways. I could chew the ice cream, but spit it into the sink instead of swallowing it. I could swallow the ice cream, but only after installing a physical barrier in my throat so that it would not reach my stomach to be digested. I could have myself hormonally or surgically altered so that I was no longer able to digest ice cream at all.

Or I could refrain from eating the ice cream until a time in the future when I no longer needed to avoid the consequences of doing so.

The result – the end - is the same in both cases, but clearly the means are not and the morality of any act is dependent on both the end and the means. And a difference in the means is the critical difference between contraception and NFP.

more info at Catholic Family Planning —— A Feature Envoy e-Article
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The idea is that by using natural family planning you are not doing anything in the process of the act itself to stop conception. In other words, even if you were trying to have a baby, you would be doing nothing different if you had sex on whatever days you have it while using the natural family planning method. The Church has never said you can't have sex on certain days or that you can't have sex if you happen to be infertile due to an illness or whatever, because you are open to life in the actual process of the sex act, and it is exactly the same as what you'd be doing other more fertile days or if you were fertile in general.

What the Church is saying with condom use is that it is specifically changing what happens during the act itself versus what you'd be doing if you were open to having a child. It changes the basic process and symbolism of what is going on in some respects.

Having said that, NFP is not intended as a permanent approach, but something to be used under select circumstances. There is a question of substance as well as form, and that's why you'll notice the wording of some of the documents on the subject are conditional and don't encourage the idea of NFP for everyone or for use on an indefinite basis.

For obvious reasons, this is not the most popular stance the Church has ever taken, and it doesn't help that it's often very poorly explained. The simple explanation and talking points that are passed around often give the wrong impression because they don't get to the heart of the issue or go off on kind of a tangent. What the teaching is really getting at is kind of subtle and complex, which unfortunately is tough to convey in a soundbite, and thus beyond a lot of people's attention spans.

I'm not trying to get involved in advocating for a point of view specifically, I just thought I could shed some light on what the Church is thinking.
 
Upvote 0

scraparcs

aka Mayor McCheese
Mar 4, 2002
52,793
4,844
Massachusetts
✟91,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, I know I need to slog through Theology of the Body someday, but perhaps my liberal side is coming out as I'm finding it hard to care much about issues of proper sexual conduct as long as it is mutual and not exploitative.

At this rate I'll surely be a serial RCIA dropout.
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,182
Woods
✟4,582,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, I know I need to slog through Theology of the Body someday, but perhaps my liberal side is coming out as I'm finding it hard to care much about issues of proper sexual conduct as long as it is mutual and not exploitative.

At this rate I'll surely be a serial RCIA dropout.
You should be asking this question in RCIA & follow up with a priest.

It will come up in RCIA anyway.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, not seeing the distinction you need to make still.
the gospel according to st.matthew
13:13-14
[13] Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [14] And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, I know I need to slog through Theology of the Body someday, but perhaps my liberal side is coming out as I'm finding it hard to care much about issues of proper sexual conduct as long as it is mutual and not exploitative.

At this rate I'll surely be a serial RCIA dropout.

well there is much more to sexuality than that... if sexual conduct is mutual and not exploitative, that means the couple doesn't harm each other. But they can still be harming their souls in other ways, for example if they are having sex before marriage, or if they are using contraception, etc. The reason is how God made sex to be. It's not just something physical, it involves our souls as well. What we do with our bodies affects our souls. It says in the Bible, we are temples of the Holy Spirit, so we should honour God with our bodies. If we sin sexually, we sin against our own bodies, and insult the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

Why do people keep suggesting talking with priests anyway? There's so few of them that surely their time would be wasted talking with people like me over silly little moralistic stuff.

that's not true... God placed them there to guide His people. It's not silly moralistic stuff... it's stuff that affects our eternal salvation.
 
Upvote 0

JourneyToPeace

His law is love and His gospel is peace
Sep 17, 2010
1,363
192
Canada
✟9,970.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Scraparcs, we suggest talking to priests because any GOOD priest who is dedicated to Jesus Christ acts as a counselor, a friend, and much more. The issues we bring up with our parish priest are important ones - it's not "silly little moralistic stuff". When it comes to discussing the act of sex, and how NOT to disorder it, and how to do it in a way that honours God and respects you, your partner, and any possible future children... that issue is VERY important no matter WHAT time, or culture, you live in.

God intends certain things for the way our bodies ought to be used -- we need to use them in holy, decent, respectful, life-affirming, God-honouring ways. If we ignore that, we're in trouble. And eventually, we are brought to our knees, when God has to show us His way the hard way, due to our own stubbornness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoNiCa4316
Upvote 0

JoabAnias

Steward of proportionality- I Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 3:15
Supporter
Nov 26, 2007
21,200
3,283
✟82,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The more I think about it, the more I just don't get it. I can understand artificial birth control that can possibly be abortifacent not being allowed, but what is the issue with condoms? With NFP it seems like couples deliberately have sex during infertile periods. It seems like using a calendar to keep sperm and egg apart. With a condom it's a piece of rubber. So what's the difference?

They are not open to life.
USCCB - (NFP) - Catholic Teaching
Search Results: condom
USCCB - Natural Family Planning Home Page

CCC:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Why do people keep suggesting talking with priests anyway? There's so few of them that surely their time would be wasted talking with people like me over silly little moralistic stuff.
waste their time?
this is their job, you are helping them live out their vocation
 
Upvote 0

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,101
1,229
✟34,375.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how people who use NFP to prevent conception are more open to life than people who use condoms, nor do I see how people who use condoms but want to have kids and do actually have kids are less open to life than NFP-ing couples.

The church's teaching would make more sense if no birth control were allowed, including NFP.

And if one's intentions are "wrong" regardless of the method, what does it matter which method one uses? (I'm not talking about abortifacient methods, they're a different subject.)
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't see how people who use NFP to prevent conception are more open to life than people who use condoms, nor do I see how people who use condoms but want to have kids and do actually have kids are less open to life than NFP-ing couples.

The church's teaching would make more sense if no birth control were allowed, including NFP.

And if one's intentions are "wrong" regardless of the method, what does it matter which method one uses? (I'm not talking about abortifacient methods, they're a different subject.)

i do not really understand either... but i try to trust the bishops
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EmbattledBunny

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2010
686
80
✟1,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
i do not really understand either... but i try to trust the bishops

That's pretty much the long and short of it. What isn't up for debate is that it is forbidden, but virtually every reason given for contraception being forbidden (in most cases, as artificial contraception isn't always forbidden) is contradicted elsewhere. While understanding is nice and it makes it easier to believe and practice, it isn't absolutely necesarry. That there seem to be holes in this teaching (and great inconsistancies in the way marital sexuality has been spoken of in general) is not license to do as we please.

Also, condoms, even the sceneted ones, smell terrible. So there's that.
 
Upvote 0