Why Catholic Church should allow condom use in marriage

As the 200-plus Catholic bishops from 53 countries meet in Rome for the Second African Synod, I hope they take a sober look at their blanket ban on condom use.

In the face of revelations that some condoms on the market are leaky and offer virtually no protection, there is no faulting the church’s position that abstinence outside marriage and fidelity within marriage, as well as the avoidance of intravenous drug abuse, are the morally correct and medically sure ways to prevent Aids — until you encounter the reality of the pandemic in marriage through horrifying statistics released by governments, NGOs, and private researchers.

Aids is ravaging married couples, yet under normal marital circumstances, abstinence is out of the question and fidelity won’t work. This calls for new thinking about the condom in marriage.

MY CONCERN HERE IS WHETHER the opposition to condoms in the management of Aids within heterosexual marriage is because condom use is morally wrong, or condoms are not a medically sure way of battling the pandemic.

This debate seems to be going nowhere because Humanae Vitae (Latin “Of Human Life”), the July 25, 1968 encyclical of Pope Paul VI, and subsequent church teachings, treat condoms as contraceptives and not prophylactics against a deadly disease.

In ruling out all artificial contraception, Humanae Vitae reaffirms the church’s age-old teachings that, since God created sexual intercourse to be both unitive and procreative, the two dimensions of the conjugal act should never be separated.

Every conjugal act must be open to the possibility of conception.

But by encouraging “periodic continence” — Natural Family Planning (NFP) — doesn’t the Catholic Church pierce its own teaching that it is sinful for spouses to manipulate, pervert or interfere with the conjugal act in such a way as to impede the possibility of procreation?

Since the earliest times, the church has denounced the use of onanism or “withdrawal” (practised by Onan in Gen. 38:6-10), of which condoms are latter versions.

To date, the church forbids artificial birth control and orgasmic acts outside of full marital intercourse, while accepting not having sex at all (abstinence).

The church allows sex at an infertile time in a wife’s life when it is technically not possible to conceive. The church also acknowledges a potential benefit in spacing children through NFP. Couples are warned, however, against using NFP for selfish, immoral, or insincere reasons.

Doesn’t NFP constitute an intentional artificial intervention to prevent the conjugal act from being open to conception? Doesn’t it amount to intentionally separating the unitive and procreative dimensions of sexual intercourse?

Does it matter if artificial pregnancy barriers are physical (here, strictly condoms, not abortifacient) or non-physical (such as manipulating a wife’s menstrual cycle)?

Technically, it is like wearing a condom on your mind, on your intentions. Remember Christ’s warning that if you lust after a woman you commit adultery in your heart.

Intentionality is a critical element of moral decision-making. In order to arrive at a morally acceptable decision, it is important to discern the moral intention of the act.