A Two-Limb Test in Humanae vitae

Can an act of condomitic intercourse ever be considered a marital act? I suggest that a direct implication of the reasoning in Humanae vitae (HV) is that condomitic intercourse fails to satisfy two relevant tests.

HV n. 12 states,

Etenim propter intimam suam rationem, coniugii actus, dum maritum et uxorem artissimo sociat vinculo, eos idoneos etiam facit ad novam vitam gignendam.

The fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life.

According to the first test in HV n. 12, a marital act, of its fundamental nature, unites a couple in the �closest intimacy� (artissimo . . . vinculo). It is immediately apparent that among acts excluded as a legitimate variation of the marital act is that union which occurs during condomitic intercourse.

Whether the purpose of condom usage in intercourse be contraceptive, protective against infection, or some other end, the fact is that a condom, successfully deployed, prevents a couple from reaching the highest (artissimo) level of intimacy which the marital act achieves according to its fundamental nature (intimam� rationem), a level whereby the genitally related fluid of the male is transmitted directly to the female in the natural way.

Some might argue that condomitic intercourse achieves a greater level of union between couples than some other types of sexual activity. Nevertheless, however close a couple might feel themselves to be to each other during successful condomitic intercourse, no one can reasonably deny that there is an even closer level of intimacy they are unable to reach�that bond achieved as a result of natural intercourse. Their act is thus not an act of the closest intimacy.

Because it does not unite the couple in a bond of the closest intimacy, condomitic intercourse cannot be said to partake of what HV n. 12 has declared to be of the fundamental nature of the marital act. Condomitic intercourse, then, is not a marital act but an act of some other nature.

HV n. 12 then stipulates a second characteristic of the marital act. Of its fundamental nature, the marital act renders a couple capable of generating new life (eos idoneos etiam facit ad novam vitam gignendam).

To say that the marital act �renders a couple capable of generating new life� is not to say that the marital act cures any defects in either partner that might otherwise prevent the generation of new life. Rather, it is to say that this act, as opposed to acts that do not share its nature�such as washing the dishes or playing bridge, for example�is an act which, if performed under a certain set of conditions, will enable a couple to realize their natural capability to generate new life.

The use of a condom during intercourse deprives the couple�s sexual act of its generative power. This is so irrespective of the couple�s intention. Couples wishing to prevent conception use the condom precisely because it impedes the complete activation of their generative capacities. Other couples might use the condom to prevent the transmission of infection during sexual activity, or for some other end such as heightened sexual pleasure, or even simple curiosity, and may not have the goal of contraception at the forefront of their mind. Regardless of the purpose of their condom usage, however, so long as the condom is functioning normally, the condomitic act that the couple is performing is not the type of act that renders them capable of generating new life.

I conclude that condomitic intercourse on this additional ground differs in its fundamental nature from the marital act.

A central premise in the argument of HV is the indissolubility of the link between the unitive and procreative goods in the marriage act. The articulation of this relationship in HV n. 12 implies that an act must satisfy both limbs of a test before it can be characterized as a marital act. The act must unite the couple in the closest intimacy, and it must render them capable of generating new life.

Condomitic intercourse, in a very straightforward way, fails in both respects. It cannot be considered as some variation�albeit a less-than-ideal variation�of the marital act. The two acts differ in their fundamental natures. Like all other completed sexual acts which are not the marital act, condomitic intercourse can never be justified for reasons of family planning, the prevention of infection transmission, or indeed for any reason whatsoever.

First published in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Volume 9, Number 4, Winter 2009. Used with permission.

webmaster www.evangelizationstation.com