From Martin Rhonheimer, The Truth about Condoms, 10 July 2004:
…the Church is thought to teach that sexually active homosexuals and prostitutes should refrain from condoms because condoms are “intrinsically evil” (The Tablet, 26 June). Many Catholics also believe this….But this is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. There is no official magisterial teaching either about condoms or about anti-ovulatory pills or diaphragms…
From the Holy Office, 6 April 1853:
Question: Whether the imperfect use of matrimony, whether onanistacally or condomistically (that is, applying a wicked instrument commonly called a “condom”) may, as in the present case, be licit?
Response: No, for it is intrinsically evil.
Just sayin’…
Kevin. Perhaps I misunderstand the post, but if the implication is that Rhonheimer is directly contradicting the Holy Office, the quotations provided do not seem to immediately substantiate it. The dubium is explicitly addressing the “use of matrimony”, particularly the “imperfect use”. Rhonheimer is addressing homosexual acts and prostitution. An homosexual act is never a “use of matrimony” perfect or otherwise. And at least within the scope of typical–dare I say “functional”?–marriages, neither is the second.
If the implication was that Rhonheimer’s last line was incorrect, wouldn’t he simply reply that he was saying that there is no general teaching on condoms (including cases such as that he just mentioned) and that the reply of the Holy Office was specifically about condoms within marriage.
Perhaps you were assuming some other background to the debate (other assertions of Rhonheimer, pertaining to married couples?) , but at least in the given context, the quotations seem to be clearly speaking of different things.
Did I misunderstand?
All the best.
Will
Dear Will,
Thanks for the comment. I kind of figured someone would notice this. The intention of the placing of the two quotes in proximity to each other is just to deny Rhonheimer’s second quote, i.e., that there is no official Magisterial teaching about condoms.
I do realize that more thinking is needed, i.e., that the statement of the then Holy Office is not enough in itself to disprove other applications of the question. As a matter of fact, I do hold that the use of a condom by homosexual couples is not an aggravation of the sin per se, since they are both species of the sin against nature.
Also, as you rightly point out, the quote comes in a context of further study and familiarity with Rhonheimer’s position, in that many people are aware that he is the principal published defender of the legitimate use of a condom in the matrimonial act itself in some cases. Thus, the quote does pose problems for him specifically. In a way, the quote is also a response to the entire Tablet article.
Consult the paper by Grisez: “Moral Questions on Condoms and Disease Prevention,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 8:3 (Autumn 2008): 471–76.
Rhonheimer claims that the use of a condom in marriage for the purpose of preventing infection is not contraceptive. I don’t think he is right, but in any case, it is immoral to engage in non marital sexual activity (adultery, masturbation etc) and the condom, by making a mechanical barrier, makes the sexual act non-marital, even if not intentionally contraceptive.
But I think it is contraceptive as well, because the prevention of infection includes the prevention of infection of a potential conceptus, and only preventing it from coming into actual existence by using a condom can effect this. It is not about the conceptus already in existence, and of the use of condom to prevent it from being infected, but the other way round: it is about the use of condom to prevent it from coming into existence so that it might not be infected subsequently.