required to refuse to sell condoms?

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Nihil Obstat]

There are a few (not many, but a few) non-illicit uses for condoms. Specifically I am told they are good for carrying and purifying water in an outdoor survival scenario.

http://willowhavenoutdoor.com/featured-wilderness-survival-blog-entries/1-ways-a-condom-can-save-your-life-multi-functional-survival-uses-for-a-condom/

So while it is a little far-fetched, it is clearly not inherently immoral to buy condoms.

There are a few (not many, but a few) non-illicit uses for condoms. Specifically I am told they are good for carrying and purifying water in an outdoor survival scenario.

http://willowhavenoutdoor.com/featured-wilderness-survival-blog-entries/1-ways-a-condom-can-save-your-life-multi-functional-survival-uses-for-a-condom/

So while it is a little far-fetched, it is clearly not inherently immoral to buy condoms.

[CrossCuT]

ummmm

ummmm

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

 

I believe you would not, since you cannot assume what someone is going to do with the condoms.  However, if the customer divulged that they were going to use them for sexual intercourse, then that I believe would be a different story. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Gabriela]

Ummm, hello, water balloons?

Ummm, hello, water balloons?

[Nihil Obstat]

 

I believe you would not, since you cannot assume what someone is going to do with the condoms.  However, if the customer divulged that they were going to use them for sexual intercourse, then that I believe would be a different story. 

I think that is quite fair.

 

I believe you would not, since you cannot assume what someone is going to do with the condoms.  However, if the customer divulged that they were going to use them for sexual intercourse, then that I believe would be a different story. 

I think that is quite fair.

[Peace]

There are a few (not many, but a few) non-illicit uses for condoms. Specifically I am told they are good for carrying and purifying water in an outdoor survival scenario.

http://willowhavenoutdoor.com/featured-wilderness-survival-blog-entries/1-ways-a-condom-can-save-your-life-multi-functional-survival-uses-for-a-condom/

So while it is a little far-fetched, it is clearly not inherently immoral to buy condoms.

There are a few (not many, but a few) non-illicit uses for condoms. Specifically I am told they are good for carrying and purifying water in an outdoor survival scenario.

http://willowhavenoutdoor.com/featured-wilderness-survival-blog-entries/1-ways-a-condom-can-save-your-life-multi-functional-survival-uses-for-a-condom/

So while it is a little far-fetched, it is clearly not inherently immoral to buy condoms.

Is it not moral for gay men to use condoms when having sex (in order to help prevent the spread of HIV, etc.)?

I think you can come up with some other situations where it would be "moral" for someone to use a condom while having sex. For example, a married man who cheats on his wife with a prostitute, but uses a condom so that he will not infect his wife with some nasty disease.

Or a rapist - it would be "moral" for him to use a condom.

If the express purpose of using it is contraception - I think the Church has made it clear enough that it is not moral.

[Nihil Obstat]

Is it not moral for gay men to use condoms when having sex (in order to help prevent the spread of HIV, etc.)?

I think you can come up with some other situations where it would be "moral" for someone to use a condom while having sex. For example, a married man who cheats on his wife with a prostitute, but uses a condom so that he will not infect his wife with some nasty disease.

Or a rapist - it would be "moral" for him to use a condom.

If the express purpose of using it is contraception - I think the Church has made it clear enough that it is not moral.

I would say that it is always immoral to use a condom during actual intercourse between a man and a woman, no matter the circumstances, as it then thwarts that procreative aspect, quite possibly in addition to various other moral issues such as infidelity or disease. Therefore I could not conclude that it would be moral for a man to use a condom even to prevent the spread of disease from a female prostitute. The infidelity is damning, certainly. I would think it is the more serious sin, objectively. But to add the use of a condom simply multiplies sin. I guess theoretically if there were a condom which prevented the transmission of diseases but had no effect on the prospects of procreation, its use would probably be licit. I cannot see any reason why it would not be.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the pope basically said "there's something to be said about it" that is using a condom for sex acts with prostitutes etc. he didn't say it was good, just that there's good in the intention and such. he was very ambiguous. 

i dont remember if it was B16 or francis. though yes it does sound like somehting francis would say. 

it was benedict. that's what i thought

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22pope.html

[Peace]

I would say that it is always immoral to use a condom during actual intercourse between a man and a woman, no matter the circumstances, as it then thwarts that procreative aspect, quite possibly in addition to various other moral issues such as infidelity or disease. Therefore I could not conclude that it would be moral for a man to use a condom even to prevent the spread of disease from a female prostitute. The infidelity is damning, certainly. I would think it is the more serious sin, objectively. But to add the use of a condom simply multiplies sin. I guess theoretically if there were a condom which prevented the transmission of diseases but had no effect on the prospects of procreation, its use would probably be licit. I cannot see any reason why it would not be.

Yeah. I don't know if the prostitution hypo is moral - but it just feels like the "right thing to do" to me. Like - I am pretty certain that if you took a poll of 100 wives, 100 of them would say that if their husband cheated on them with a hooker and then came home home and slept with her afterwards, they would have wanted him to use a condom. I suppose the "moral" aspect to it has to do with the desire to limit the harm to your wife, but whether that outweighs the fact that it thwarts the procreative aspect - I don't know.

I think the rape hypo plays out in favor of using a condom. I am not sure if there is anything official but it seems that recently Bishops have allowed contraceptive drugs to be used in that situation to prevent pregnancy.

I had the impression that the Church's teaching concerning contraception is geared towards the use of it by married couples:

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.¹⁵⁸ 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:¹⁵⁹

 

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.¹⁶⁰

 

 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).

Once you get outside of that I dunno if the Church's teaching is all that clear. Up for debate really.

In any case - I think the Church needs to explain better the reasons why She bans contraception. I know that it is probably explained in an encyclical somewhere, but I don't think most people have any clue as to what the reasons are or the theology behind it . . .

Here is a question - let's say you are married to a Protestant (or a Catholic) woman who refuses to stop taking birth control pills, despite your protests.

If you sleep with your wife in that situation - do you commit a grave sin?

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Here is a question - let's say you are married to a Protestant (or a Catholic) woman who refuses to stop taking birth control pills, despite your protests.

If you sleep with your wife in that situation - do you commit a grave sin?

Well first you couldn't get married to a person who refused to stop using birth control. If your spouse is not open to life then marriage would be forbidden.   Secondly you cannot control another persons actions, so if you were told by your spouse that they would be open to life but then changed their mind, then you would need to consult your priest to see if continuing to have sexual relations with your wife is sinful or not.  I personally believe you shouldn't have sex with your wife if she refuses to stop taking birth control since such actions are against the very purpose of the marital act and against your wedding vows.  Great question!

 

Edited September 11, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

the pope basically said "there's something to be said about it" that is using a condom for sex acts with prostitutes etc. he didn't say it was good, just that there's good in the intention and such. he was very ambiguous. 

i dont remember if it was B16 or francis. though yes it does sound like somehting francis would say. 

it was benedict. that's what i thought

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22pope.html

Good intention, that is all. Doesn't make the outcome of the good intention good. People usually have good intentions when they sin, like i will pick up a women and have sex or i'm really going to pull this trigger and blow my brains out. Good intention coz the guy doesn't want to commit suicide but bad application as to what to do to avoid committing suicide. The church understands though the person in there ignorance had little to no other options in there bag of tricks, though still illicit, a sin and wrong though the intention to not commit suicide was good.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[little2add]

Across the United States, schools and school districts have been establishing condom availability programs in response to fears about HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and pregnancy among teenagers. While some districts have considered such programs and decided against them, by early 1995, at least 431 schools in 50 school districts had established programs making condoms available to students

and then there is obamacare's free for the asking birth control that you personally get to pay for, without choice.

[MarysLittleFlower]

"I suppose the "moral" aspect to it has to do with the desire to limit the harm to your wife, but whether that outweighs the fact that it thwarts the procreative aspect - I don't know."

I think the difficulty with that is that the end doesn't justify the means. We don't choose an evil way (contraception is intrinsically evil) for a "good" purpose. This is why seeking to avoid pregnancy through contraception is wrong even for a health reason. The person in this case has a very sure way of avoiding harm to his wife if he truly cares - by not going to the prostitute. His intent is to lessen harm but he's doing that through another intrinsically evil action so the only real answer is to eliminate the chance of harm at all and stay home. 

The means to an end must be moral in order to be OK. 

[Peace]

"I suppose the "moral" aspect to it has to do with the desire to limit the harm to your wife, but whether that outweighs the fact that it thwarts the procreative aspect - I don't know."

I think the difficulty with that is that the end doesn't justify the means. We don't choose an evil way (contraception is intrinsically evil) for a "good" purpose. This is why seeking to avoid pregnancy through contraception is wrong even for a health reason. The person in this case has a very sure way of avoiding harm to his wife if he truly cares - by not going to the prostitute. His intent is to lessen harm but he's doing that through another intrinsically evil action so the only real answer is to eliminate the chance of harm at all and stay home. 

The means to an end must be moral in order to be OK. 

Yeah. Your conclusion does seem to be the result that would follow if you look at what appears to be the tradititonal way that the Church appears to address those types of things. To advocate the opposite does seem to be a bit contrarian - I will grant you that.

But yet I still wonder if that is the result that would really follow if the Pope were to issue an infalliable decree on the specific question. The conclusion does seem to be a bit out of line with ordinary common sense.

I don't exactly enjoy brining up the rape hypothetical again - but I think it can be illustrative of the idea that if you apply these rules too rigidly you get results that just don't really make sense. Let's say that a madman called you in the middle of the night. He tells you that he has a woman tied up in his bedroom, and that in the next five minutes he intends to rape her - and there is absolutely nothing that you can tell him to stop him. It is also too late for you to call the police. He also tells you that he has HIV. His only question for you is - should he or should he not use a condom? How do you answer?

If you rigidly apply the rule you end up saying something like "The Catholic Church teaches that any means that directly prevents pregnancy is an intrinsic evil. So even though you may not desire to infect the person you have kidnapped with HIV, you should in fact not use a condom when you decide to rape her."

But that would be a ridiculous thing to say would it not? I think everyone knows that the right thing to do in such a situation would be to say "Use a condom so that the poor woman you have kidnapped does not end up getting AIDS."

Now - getting back to the prostitute hypothetical. Obviously this would never happen, but let's suppose that one of my married friends is in a Las Vegas Hotel room with a prostitute and decides to call me.  Let's say he says "Peace. Yo homie. I am in a hotel room with a prostitute right now. I should wrap it up so that I don't end up giving my wife the clap shouldn't I?"  Of course - I am going to say "Bro. You need to forget about all of that. Leave the room right now. Go somewhere and pray the Rosary." But then he is like "Nah. I don't feel like praying the rosary Bro. This infidelity thing is definitely going down. Should I use a condom?"  What would you honestly expect me to say in that situation? "Well. If you are going to do it bro, don't use a condom. If your wife ends up getting AIDS so be it."

That just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Is that really the advice that I should give?

I think that you can make a case that the moral thing to do in these situations would be to use a condom. How? Like this. Let's say that two gay men decide to have sex and use a condom to prevent the spread of HIV. Is it a "moral" thing to use a condom in that situation? I think so. Obviously we don't want to encourage people to engage in homosexual activity, but to the extent that they can limit the harm that stems from that activity it seems to be a good thing. Why do we say that condom use here is OK? Well - because two men cannot have a child. By two men choosing to have sex with one another the purposes of the act have already been thwarted.

Perhaps you can make a similar argument with respect to sex acts that occur outside of marriage. If you have sex outside of marriage - the purposes for which God intends it have already been thwarted. I am not sure if there is really anything about sex outside of marraige that need be protected, or kept pure/natural, if you will, since you are already engaging in sin in the first place.

Another thing is this - I kind of alluded to it before, but it seems that when the Church calls contraception intrinsically evil, She is teaching within the context of a consensual act among a married couple. Where that is the case it seems pretty clear that She has said that it is a sin regardless of the intention. But I honestly don't think that She has had much to say about the use of contraceptive devices outside of that context. Outside of that context She basically says "Abstinence" but don't think that She has specifically addressed the question of "Well, if you are unmarried and you are going to have sex regardless of what we say, should you wrap it up?" I am not sure if She has defined the use of contraceptive devices outside of marriage to be intrinsically evil (beyond the extent to which sin has already been committed by way of having sex outside of marriage).

Anwyay. I would think that you are probably correct - but I don't think that the other side of the argument is totally without merit.