Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Will_Power

Christians and condoms

Recommended Posts


Not as far as I can tell. Condom's don't take a life, they simply prevent the formation of a life that is unwanted. God can do whatever he wants to do, including create a child, regardless of whether or not you use condoms. Now there are some people who argue that sex for any reason other than to reproduce children is sinful, therefore wearing condoms is sinful. If you don't believe in sex for recreation/pleasure in a marriage, then I suppose condoms are sinful; because they are an attempt to stop the production of children. But then having sex after your child bearing years would also be sinful, since producing children is near impossible. As long as it's done with your spouse, I don't believe recreational sex is a sin. And I don't believe condoms are a sin either, since you hurt no one & you don't create an unwanted child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as far as I can tell. Condom's don't take a life, they simply prevent the formation of a life that is unwanted. God can do whatever he wants to do, including create a child, regardless of whether or not you use condoms. Now there are some people who argue that sex for any reason other than to reproduce children is sinful, therefore wearing condoms is sinful. If you don't believe in sex for recreation/pleasure in a marriage, then I suppose condoms are sinful; because they are an attempt to stop the production of children. But then having sex after your child bearing years would also be sinful, since producing children is near impossible. As long as it's done with your spouse, I don't believe recreational sex is a sin. And I don't believe condoms are a sin either, since you hurt no one & you don't create an unwanted child.
This, and as long as you don't use condoms as an excuse to have premarital sex, or to think that you will be having "safe sex" with them. Even though they're fairly effective in preventing pregnancy, they can't protect you from any STDs except for maybe HIV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very ancient line of thought that is procreationist. Pythagorarianism and Ancient Hebrew conceptions of human biology were quite procreationist. The story of Onan is perhaps the greatest biblical story in its favor. That being said, I do not adhere to such a philosophy, even though many in my Church insist upon it. The act of sex holds to primary "functions" in my humble opinion: a procreative and a relational. The relational aspect is sufficient enough, for me. In other words, I think that if the sex act fulfills its relational aspect, it is fully justified.

However, I do think the procreationist argument of Vatican theology presents the most coherent, logically consistent critique of homosexual activity. It is the only system that is not totally hypocritical when it comes to LGBTQ issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a very ancient line of thought that is procreationist. Pythagorarianism and Ancient Hebrew conceptions of human biology were quite procreationist. The story of Onan is perhaps the greatest biblical story in its favor. That being said, I do not adhere to such a philosophy, even though many in my Church insist upon it. The act of sex holds to primary "functions" in my humble opinion: a procreative and a relational. The relational aspect is sufficient enough, for me. In other words, I think that if the sex act fulfills its relational aspect, it is fully justified.

However, I do think the procreationist argument of Vatican theology presents the most coherent, logically consistent critique of homosexual activity. It is the only system that is not totally hypocritical when it comes to LGBTQ issues.

The Catholic position is that sex is for procreative and unitive purposes between spouses, both of these are relational, the procreative aspect can't not be relational. Artificial birth control puts something artificial between the spouses that hinders the procreative aspect which should always be present in such relations. This is also one of the reasons why the Catholic Church does not believe a marriage can take place between two people of the same sex, because marriage is intimately connected with sex and having children, and same sex couples cannot procreate.

I feel that secular society has done its best to strip sex of it's moral worth and true purpose; it is marketed as a recreational activity and not something that carries with it big responsibility, and treatment that deserves respect through discretion. Sadly, I think many Christians have been influenced by this thought in the culture and have succumbed to seeing sex as a fun activity for the unity of the couple which children may or may not arise from. To me, this doesn't seem that much different from the secular notion of sex in that such Christians would merely qualify it by saying that sex is only permissible in marriage. Even in marriage, there isn't an "anything goes" principle that takes effect in regards to sex, there is still that element of sex that must be present and that is that it be open to the possibility of life, which along with the unitive purpose form a basis for how marital relations should be. I don't believe you will find much disagreement with what I've said here even among protestant denominations prior to the 20th century.

I do like how you pointed out John that the Vatican position (which is the position of the Catholic Church, there is no real distinction) is really the only logically consistent one when it comes to this issue as it pertains to homosexuality. If a certain Christian sees sex as not intimately linked with procreation, and think that the morality of sex only really hinges on whether it is unitive to the couple, then they have a harder time in my opinion to logically justify why same sex couples cannot be married other than simply appealing to scripture without trying to dig deeper for underlying reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholic position is that sex is for procreative and unitive purposes between spouses, both of these are relational, the procreative aspect can't not be relational. Artificial birth control puts something artificial between the spouses that hinders the procreative aspect which should always be present in such relations. This is also one of the reasons why the Catholic Church does not believe a marriage can take place between two people of the same sex, because marriage is intimately connected with sex and having children, and same sex couples cannot procreate.

What if you're not using a condom as birth control, but your spouse has an STD like Aids or HIV and you're trying to prevent getting it? After all, you can't expect a married couple not to have sex. What is the Catholic Churches position on using condoms to prevent the spread of STDs between spouses, instead of using them with the primary mindset of preventing children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholic position is that sex is for procreative and unitive purposes between spouses, both of these are relational, the procreative aspect can't not be relational. Artificial birth control puts something artificial between the spouses that hinders the procreative aspect which should always be present in such relations. This is also one of the reasons why the Catholic Church does not believe a marriage can take place between two people of the same sex, because marriage is intimately connected with sex and having children, and same sex couples cannot procreate.
For me, the procreative aspect naturally should include the relational aspect, but that the relational aspect does not have to include the procreative. And this is why I am a man without a country. My philosophy is essentially a mixture of the liberal/conservative aspects.
I feel that secular society has done its best to strip sex of it's moral worth and true purpose; it is marketed as a recreational activity and not something that carries with it big responsibility, and treatment that deserves respect through discretion. Sadly, I think many Christians have been influenced by this thought in the culture and have succumbed to seeing sex as a fun activity for the unity of the couple which children may or may not arise from. To me, this doesn't seem that much different from the secular notion of sex in that such Christians would merely qualify it by saying that sex is only permissible in marriage. Even in marriage, there isn't an "anything goes" principle that takes effect in regards to sex, there is still that element of sex that must be present and that is that it be open to the possibility of life, which along with the unitive purpose form a basis for how marital relations should be. I don't believe you will find much disagreement with what I've said here even among protestant denominations prior to the 20th century.
I completely agree with your presentation of how our liberal society has socialized sex as a recreational/hedonistic activity. However, I do not think a relational, non-procreative understanding of sex (which I advocate) is equatable with a recreational-hedonism.
I do like how you pointed out John that the Vatican position (which is the position of the Catholic Church, there is no real distinction) is really the only logically consistent one when it comes to this issue as it pertains to homosexuality. If a certain Christian sees sex as not intimately linked with procreation, and think that the morality of sex only really hinges on whether it is unitive to the couple, then they have a harder time in my opinion to logically justify why same sex couples cannot be married other than simply appealing to scripture without trying to dig deeper for underlying reasons.
Well, the Vatican actually has serious theological discussion within its own ranks to create a coherent theological position, as opposed to just speaking off the cuff, or inventing nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with your presentation of how our liberal society has socialized sex as a recreational/hedonistic activity. However, I do not think a relational, non-procreative understanding of sex (which I advocate) is equatable with a recreational-hedonism.

I must agree with this.

Well, the Vatican actually has serious theological discussion within its own ranks to create a coherent theological position, as opposed to just speaking off the cuff, or inventing nonsense.

This is somewhat OT, but do forgive.

I must say, while I disagree with a number of Vatican decisions and beliefs, I cannot fault them for their consistency; it's something I have great respect for that the views of the Vatican are, in my opinion, deeply rooted in a meta-narrative that makes, at least, logical sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if you're not using a condom as birth control, but your spouse has an STD like Aids or HIV and you're trying to prevent getting it? After all, you can't expect a married couple not to have sex. What is the Catholic Churches position on using condoms to prevent the spread of STDs between spouses, instead of using them with the primary mindset of preventing children?

The Catholic Church doesn't allow for exceptions in these circumstances because in the end it is still removing the open to life element from the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EO is against condom use for the most part, as well as any kind of artificial birth control. I know, in some instances, if one talks to their spiritual father, the couple can use condoms, but I don't think those instances are very common. Sex is both unitive and for procreation, in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholic Church doesn't allow for exceptions in these circumstances because in the end it is still removing the open to life element from the equation.
The EO is against condom use for the most part, as well as any kind of artificial birth control. I know, in some instances, if one talks to their spiritual father, the couple can use condoms, but I don't think those instances are very common. Sex is both unitive and for procreation, in my view.
I wonder how many priests, bishops and cardinals agree with this position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how many priests, bishops and cardinals agree with this position.

You'll find that no two Orthodox agree xD at least, when it comes to things that are not dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not feel that it is a sin. Anything that is agreeable sexually between two people married before God is not spoken of in the Bible except of course something like porn is obviously damaging and an ungodly addition to the relationship. As far as for birth control, I really am not sure to tell you the truth. My own opinion is that there is nothing directly spoken of against it in the Bible so I do not see a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No of course it isn't a sin! Well, i don't see that it is anyway. As long as you are within the bonds of marriage, I think it is a responsible thing to do, because if you are both not ready for children, you are not ready. At least you can both have time to discuss, and prepare for when a baby is going to come along. However condoms are not 100% effective, so there is still quite a high risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×