I know they don’t allow them for pregnancy prevention, but is there any room in their doctrine for preventing the spread of STI’s by the use of latex condoms? After all, even a good, practicing Catholic may be a widower with a new wife, or a woman with an annulment who marries in the Church. There are opportunities for good Catholics to have more than one sexual partner, is my point. And there are some infections (like Hep B) which you can get in a non-sex related way (say, by being a Good Samaritan and helping an injured person who is infected and bleeds on an open cut on your hand) and then bring home to your lawful wedded spouse.
I know they’ll allow procedures, like tubal excision, which are required to save the life of the mother, even if aborting the fetus is an unfortunate side effect of the procedure…although they will not allow abortion as a medical technique to save the life of the mother - a distinction with a very real difference, but which reeks of hair splitting.
So is there any room for the use of condoms for STI prevention, if not for pregnancy prevention?
The current Pope has kind of gone back and forth on this a couple times, saying use by infected prostitutes is a “lesser evil”, for example. I think the best that can be said is the Churches opinion is ambiguous.
In anycase, the Church seems to have at least accepted that condoms do actually prevent STD’s
The Pope has not gone back and forth on the issue.
In 2010 he made a single statement in an interview for a book that got a lot of publicity and made a lot of people hopeful that he might consider moderating his stance on the issue. It might appear from the publicity generated that there was some real wobbling on the issue. But it turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
After his statement was publicized, the Vatican issued an official statement saying that the Pope had been misinterpreted and that the Church was not modifying its stance against condom use. Although condom use by a male prostitute could be interpreted as a “lesser evil” it is nonetheless an evil and the Church does not condone evil.
“Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the ‘lesser evil’. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil.”
I’m not so sure the Pope or any other Church official has specifically addressed your hypothetical of a married couple wishing to use condoms for disease prevention with contraception as an unintended side effect. If any did, I expect they would consider it the same double effect that allows an Fallopian tube to be removed in the case of ectopic pregnancy ,or for a pregnant woman to receive medical treatment that may end the pregnancy or what is commonly called “the Pill” to be prescribed for medical conditions.I suspect that this specific situation will never be specifically addressed as there’s really no reason to - the doctrine of double effect covers many situations. Mostly people hear about the ectopic pregnancy one, and sometimes the pill prescribed for other reasons, but the same principle permits a soldier to throw himself on a bomb to save others without being seen as committing suicide. This is where the phrases " a well-formed conscience" and “internal forum” from my Catholic school education really come into play
The statements regarding a “lesser evil” were in reference to prostitutes, and according to Church teachings they, like all other unmarried-to-each-other couples , shouldn’t be having sex at all.
it is my understanding that every voluntary ejaculation HAS to have the potential to cause a pregnancy. I had a Catholic couple as friends and the husband would not come in his wife’s mouth during oral sex because he felt that violated this (in his mind) LAW.
The opinion of those Catholics who don’t wear purple or white is often quite different. Then again, many Catholics who don’t wear cassocks would opt for abstinence on grounds of “that FUCK went and had sex with someone else!”
Which is why I tried to phrase the question in a way that wouldn’t involve sins in the eyes of the church. No use muddying the question with Adultery or Fornication or Sodomy or any of the really fun sins.
I thought the church frowned on abstinence within marriage, no?
I remember a catholic seminary student explaining how the Catholic church had no objection to abortion if the actual life of the mother AND child was definitely threatened. He explained it was like having to defend yourself against an unreasoning person who was attacking with a knife, it’s morally justified self-defence. The fetus will die anyway eventually if nature takes its course, so it is not immoral to save at least one of the two.
But, there is no justification to having sex if it is a danger to your partner, so why would condom use be acceptable?
