Thanks for the replies BB and Seatuck. Both of you speak to intent being the difference, and I agree that the intent of using condoms as a method of BC is much different than the intent of using a perforated condom so as to collect a semen sample. However, I don’t thinks this meshes very well with the whole condemnation of abc and justification for NFP. The intent in contracepted sex and the intent of NFP are basically the same…it is to enjoy the benefits of the marital embrace (BB you say “pleaure” in your post, but it is more than that…bonding, intimacy, closeness,etc) while avoiding pregnancy. Now the manner going about achieving that end is indeed quite different, but the intent is still the same.
We know that abc is condemned b/c, unlike NFP, abc seeks to artificially change the act, either by barrier or chemically altering the body process to supress fertility. How is wearing a perforated condom not artificially changing the act and suppressing fertility? The same barrier to physical oneness is there with the perforated condom as it is with the standard condom, and while some “seed” is allowed to slip through the perforated condom, is seems obvious that fertility is significantly suppressed when only small fraction of the ejaculate is allowed to enter the woman.
Furthermore, Seatuck referenced a very beautiful comparision of the marital embrace to the trinity and the eucharist. It seems a bit off that the chuch would allow this reflection of the trinity itself to be tarnished by the used of a condom with holes in it for the purpose of collecting a body fluid for medical testing.
Anyway, sorry for the derailing of the thread…Seatuck’s mention of “condomistic sex” reminded me of this topic.