Comdom usage with prostitute

Does one have to confess using a condom with a hooker, or would it suffice to simply confess the sexual act? As a practical matter, using a condom with a hooker would be advisable-- of course I do not sanction having sex with hookers!— one may reasonably say that it could be more potentially dangerous not to use 1.

It would seem that there are three sinful actions to confess:

sex…[list]
*]sex outside of marriage
*]with a prostitute
*]that was not open to procreation[/list]

whereas the condom use might have prevented the spread of disease, it still rendered the act sterile … “the end doesn’t justify the means”, right?

Wow. Three sins with one act. I say it’s better just to avoid this kind of behavior in the first place! :wink:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Excellent breakdown.

Sex with a prostitute is mortally sinful with out without the condom. Using the condom doesn’t add to the sin nor could it be called “advisable” as if it was a good thing. :rolleyes: And it certainly doesn’t lessen the sin.

Beyond that, it’s just splitting hairs.

To worry about the sinfulness of using a condom while having sex with a prostitute is to miss the woods for the trees.

I agree with you, but I have heard otherwise, that [whatever sins were being talked about] was just “piling mortal sin on top of mortal sin.” I don’t think that’s how it works. I think a person can pile on venial sins but once a mortal sin is committed one is still headed to the same place.

In the confessional it all needs to be confessed but having sex outside of marriage is the main sin that separates us from God (in this case). I think sex with a prostitute (because of exploitation), along with rape, is worse than sex outside of marriage, but improper use of sex is the first sin.

Yup. Condoms are really specific in their purpose so it’s difficult to see them as morally neutral but a condom is just a piece of latex. Contraception, of any kind, in marriage is wrong. Sex, of any kind, outside of marriage is morally wrong.

It depends on the sin. Killing 10 people on a spree is certainly in a different category than killing one person in a fit of anger.

But in the case of the prostitute, there is not really a difference between sex with or without a condom. With all due respect to Georgias, making sure that the marital act is open to procreation is a matter that applies to sex within marriage. That doesn’t mean that contraception is acceptable outside of marriage but, rather that it’s barely relevant.

Yes, a distinction needed to be made there and that is a good example.

But in the case of the prostitute, there is not really a difference between sex with or without a condom. With all due respect to Georgias, making sure that the marital act is open to procreation is a matter that applies to sex within marriage. That doesn’t mean that contraception is acceptable outside of marriage but, rather that it’s barely relevant.

Ever since I heard the “more mortal sin on top of mortal sin” I’ve struggled with this idea. Even though it came from a knowledgeable person and was said with such earnestness it didn’t sit right with me and for awhile I didn’t know if I disagreed with the Church or this speaker. The example of condoms and extramarital sex is closer to what they were talking about than murder.

Corki,

I have a hard time wrapping my head around this notion. Let’s look at the Catechism:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

So… separating sexual pleasure aside from the unitive and procreative purposes to which sex is ordered, is morally disordered. Full stop – no discussion of marriage.

Do sexual acts within marriage fall within this discussion? Naturally, they do! However, the catechism doesn’t seem to discuss this as an “either/or” thing, but as a “both/and” thing: sex outside of its procreative end is wrong both per se and considered in the context of marriage.

I can see how it sounds weird… it makes us consider the degree of sinfulness of an act that is a priori sinful. Nevertheless, the Church doesn’t flinch: all sexual acts must be open to procreation.

Objectively, you’re compounding one mortal sin with another.

In the case of a person having sex with a prostitute and using a condom, let’s assume that this person is not a Catholic and currently holds some very false views of the world. Even though they are objectively violating both the marital bond and its procreative nature, the person may be using the condom as an act responsibility and out of a crude sense of respect and dignity for the prostitute, and therefore, because of their ignorance, they may be less culpable of their sin than if they had not used a condom at all, even though they are still objectively compounding one sin with another sin.

Does this make sense?

And in the Confessional, I would confess that I used a condom in addition to fornicating. Really, the fornication/prostitute part is what will be humiliating for the penitent, so fessing up the use of a condom ought to be easy.

All sexual acts? Rape? Sexual exploitation (prostitution)?

Someone asked on the forum recently if it was a sin for a woman, who is about to be raped, to ask the rapist to wear a condom. The thread was deleted but my answer was no then, and remains the same. Rape (or any sexual assault) is an act of violence but it’s still sexual, the violation is sexual in nature. Prostitution is more complex; it’s called the world’s oldest profession as though it’s something that the prostitute always chooses. Some do, and I would debate (with them) why they chose it and if prior trauma might be a factor. I mention this because I used the word "exploitation.’ It’s a nice word compared to rape and that is what prostitution is in many cases. The women are not choosing it, but are coerced into doing it.

My question to you and others who make that case is the same.

Grrr, I can’t find the article, but I believe the answer to this question is: yes, she is allowed to use a contraceptive.

This is a rather extraordinary scenario, but I believe since there is no unitive union in the case of a rape, there therefore ought to be no procreative union. Conjugal relations are unitive and procreative for the purposes of both the respect and sharing of the spouses, and for the practical vocation of having children in stable, nurturing homes. Of course, I doubt a rapist really cares about that.

Prostitution is murky. There are indeed classier prostitutes that have absolutely volunteered for their profession and make a very good living. Then there are prostitutes raised in destitution that just sort of “end up” in the profession (think, 1980s South Africa) Even though they probably didn’t pro-actively pursue the life they’re in, I feel like it’s a stretch to say that they’re being raped. Any doubt; try talking to a person that just got raped versus a prostitute that just made a quick buck. I think you’ll find a rather gargantuan difference in posture.

Short-term, worldly wisdom says it’s best for prostitution to have contraception. Church wisdom disagrees, and we see a clear pretext for an explosion of prostitution (and other sexual immorality) precisely because contraception makes it all the more streamlined and on-demand. Safety tip of the day: If you want a fire to go out, refrain from launching a canister of rocket fuel at it. Rather, you target prostitution at its source instead of providing a false balm in the form of contraceptives.

Bruised Reed, it’s not the topic of this thread, but I didn’t catch exactly what you meant. So it is not permissible for a lady about to be raped to ask the rapist to put on a condom? She commits a mortal sin if the rapist agrees with her request?

I get that this situation has 3 mortal sins under 1 act–engaging in sex with a prostitute, using a condom, and having pre-marital or adulterous sex. However, the common denominator of this act is the sin of lust. Priests do not ask many questions in the confessional. If the penitent simply said he/she committed the act the lust in this case, God would know the intention of the penitent’s heart. And without any follow up questions from the priest, the penitent would be granted absolution. So such a scenario would be an invalid confession?

I would assume that a prostitute would REQUIRE that the “john” wear a condom. So condom use would be part of the overall act. So, no condom, then the deal would be off. If the condom is necessary for the the transaction to come to completion, then the " john" really is not culpable for using contraception but only is required to confess that he had sex with a prostitiute.

Using the species as given by St. Thomas Aquinas, the use of a condom is the species of unnatural vice. St. Thomas defines fornication as *normal *rather than unnatural. The unnatural vice includes uncleanness (effeminacy), sodomy, bestiality, artificial birth control, etc. (I suspect that most people are not so logical in assignment.)

His species of lust, are given in the Summa Theologica Part 2, 2.“These species are differentiated on the part of the woman rather than of the man, because in the venereal act the woman is passive and is by way of matter, whereas the man is by way of agent; and it has been stated above (Objection 1) that the aforesaid species are assigned with regard to a difference of matter.”

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article1

Rephrased summary:
153. Lust

Lust is the vice of indulging in unlawful sexual pleasures, which is not always lustful or sinful. There is a good and virtuous use of sex in marriage, when husband and wife perform their normal and natural function of sex without any inordinateness (that is, without anything that is in conflict with reason) and, therefore, without employing any unnatural or artificial means of thwarting the natural effect of their action. The only lawful and chaste use of sex is its lawful use in marriage.
154. The Parts of Lust

The parts of lust are the species or types of lustful sins which are six: simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and unnatural vice.

Fornication is the normal, but unlawful, use of sex by an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. …

Adultery is the normal, but unlawful, use of sex by a married and a single person, or by two married persons, who, however, are not married to each other.

Incest is the use of sex by man and woman who are related by ties of blood, or by affinity, that is, by relationship arising out of a marriage

Seduction is the violation of a virgin.

Rape is a species of lust - and gravely sinful - in which force is employed in committing a lustful action.

Unnatural vice is any lustful perversion of normal and natural processes for procuring sex pleasures.

“Lust, by being directed to another vice as its end, becomes a species of that vice: and so a species of lust may be also a species of irreligion, as of a higher genus.”

I think TK hits the nail on the head, in his two posts, but perhaps there’s the need to make a distinction.

When we talk about sins, we can talk about them objectively in terms of whether they are grave matter or not.

On the other hand, when we talk about the level of guilt we incur through sin, we talk about ‘venial’ and ‘mortal’ sin.

So, I would respond that there are three grave sins being committed by the ‘john’ in the OP’s post: adultery/fornication, participation in prostitution, and non-procreative sex. Whether these rise to the level of mortal sin depends on the normal conditions: full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Reed, you raise a different question, which shouldn’t be conflated with the OP’s question. A woman who is raped does not commit a sin. TK’s analysis that it would be permissible for a woman to seek non-abortive means of contraception is a case I’ve heard moral theologians make, and it makes sense. In this situation, it is a matter of self-defense against an aggressor who is attempting to inseminate her. She has the right to defend the integrity of her body in this case.

Again, though, it’s important to note that this is not the question that the OP asked, so the answers are necessarily different…! :wink:

Blessings,
G.

I bolded the parts that are crucial to the OP’s question and pretty much anytime we need to sort these things out.

Reed, you raise a different question, which shouldn’t be conflated with the OP’s question. A woman who is raped does not commit a sin. TK’s analysis that it would be permissible for a woman to seek non-abortive means of contraception is a case I’ve heard moral theologians make, and it makes sense. In this situation, it is a matter of self-defense against an aggressor who is attempting to inseminate her. She has the right to defend the integrity of her body in this case.

I know this.

Again, though, it’s important to note that this is not the question that the OP asked, so the answers are necessarily different…! :wink:

Blessings,
G.

It isn’t what he specifically asked but a couple of sexual sins that might apply here were excluded. Going to a prostitute may also mean one is also committing rape and while not listed by the OP it is a real possibility. I’m not sure if the OP left it off for simplicity sake, he didn’t think of adding it or he didn’t know that prostitution does not always involve someone who is consenting. I just need to make sure that that fact isn’t ignored when the subject comes up.

If a prostitute doesn’t consent at all, then she is not a prostitute but a slave, which is rape.

I’m happy to clarify

So it is not permissible for a lady about to be raped to ask the rapist to put on a condom?

Yes. It’s permissible.

She commits a mortal sin if the rapist agrees with her request?

No.

I get that this situation has 3 mortal sins under 1 act–engaging in sex with a prostitute, using a condom, and having pre-marital or adulterous sex. However, the common denominator of this act is the sin of lust. Priests do not ask many questions in the confessional. If the penitent simply said he/she committed the act the lust in this case, God would know the intention of the penitent’s heart. And without any follow up questions from the priest, the penitent would be granted absolution. So such a scenario would be an invalid confession?

It’s quite possible for it to be an invalid confession. Let’s say a man went to a prostitute that was a victim of human trafficking. That turns the visit to a prostitute into rape. Now, that may not be what the guy thought he was getting into but as soon as his picks up on a hint that she doesn’t want to be there, no matter what he’s told or what she says or does, then the situation changes. If he tries to convince himself before, during and after that it’s mutually consensual he will still be culpable. We can lie to ourselves or at least try but the cognitive dissonance will become difficult to ignore. And God will know what we know.

I would assume that a prostitute would REQUIRE that the “john” wear a condom. So condom use would be part of the overall act. So, no condom, then the deal would be off. If the condom is necessary for the the transaction to come to completion, then the " john" really is not culpable for using contraception but only is required to confess that he had sex with a prostitiute.

In that case he may be less culpable for the condom use but this his culpability remains because he initiated the act.

Also, some prostitutes do require condom use but many do not get to call the shots. Many believe they have no other choice 9but to engage in prostitution and others are tricked into or sold into prostitution. This fact should not be ignored. Your question was a hypothetical, and did not include this possibility but it is a possibility.

It might become clearer why I think condom isn’t even on my radar as the primary sin in this scenario. I think there are far bigger issues.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.