AIDS and Condoms

[BlaineTog]

That doesn’t matter. The action of using a condom during sex is immoral. The dual effect flow chart stops right there.

I feel as if we are going in circles.

The action of shooting someone with a gun is immoral. However, if it is done in self defense or in the defense of others, it becomes permissible because of the principle of double effect.

But PDF also requires that if a means is available to obtain the ‘good’ ( of not spreading AIDS) that does not have the evil effect, that other method must be used.

If you define the good as “not spreading AIDS”, then an even more effective solution is available that does NOT have have evil of interupting the unity of marriage.

It is called abstinence.

But doesn’t this imply a certain “ends justify the means” sort of thing? If the ends are important enough, and you can’t accomplish them except by doing something bad, you can do the bad thing. I guess I don’t see how changing it from “one way” to the only way" actually changes the dilemma, except in a pragmatic sense.

 

[LJN21]

The action of shooting someone with a gun is immoral. However, if it is done in self defense or in the defense of others, it becomes permissible because of the principle of double effect.

Double effect doesn’t not apply. Self defense against an unjust aggressor is moral.

 

[LJN21]

But doesn’t this imply a certain “ends justify the means” sort of thing? If the ends are important enough, and you can’t accomplish them except by doing something bad, you can do the bad thing. I guess I don’t see how changing it from “one way” to the only way" actually changes the dilemma, except in a pragmatic sense.

No, you can never do something bad (immoral) to achieve a good cause.

 

[JRKH]

I feel as if we are going in circles.

The action of shooting someone with a gun is immoral. However, if it is done in self defense or in the defense of others, it becomes permissible because of the principle of double effect.

But doesn’t this imply a certain “ends justify the means” sort of thing? If the ends are important enough, and you can’t accomplish them except by doing something bad, you can do the bad thing. I guess I don’t see how changing it from “one way” to the only way" actually changes the dilemma, except in a pragmatic sense.

The Bottom line is this:
You and/or your spouse wish to engage in sexual activity, but one of you has a potentially lethal disease that can be transmitted through the sex act.
You are looking for a way to justify using a condom for the purpose of permitting the act while also protecting your partner from the disease.

Some measure of protection can be had by using a barrier (condom) during the act, but condoms are prohibited because the interfere with the normal function of the act which is being open to procreation.

A greater measure of protection can be had by abstaining from the act. This has neither the risk of disease or the problem of interfering with the normal function of the act.

Abstinance is the correct answer. It protects AND does not require the use of a banned item.

If you feel you need further help on this I think you need to discuss it with your confessor.

Peace
James

 

[BlaineTog]

Double effect doesn’t not apply. Self defense against an unjust aggressor is moral.

Again with the circles.

Look, I’m not asking what the Church’s position is. I know what the position is. I’m asking for explanations, since I am curious. You have not been giving me explanations. You’re only telling me what I already know, which isn’t helpful.

I understand that self defense against an unjust aggressor is permissible even if it ends in the death of said aggressor and even if you willed the death assuming no other method was available. My question is related to two instances in which contraceptive materials are used, one of which is licit and the other of which is not. So, why? And please, please, please don’t simply restate the catechism to me. I’m looking for understanding, not rote memorization.

 

[BlaineTog]

The Bottom line is this:
You and/or your spouse wish to engage in sexual activity, but one of you has a potentially lethal disease that can be transmitted through the sex act.
You are looking for a way to justify using a condom for the purpose of permitting the act while also protecting your partner from the disease.

Well, I’m not. I’m not even married. I’m just interested. I want to understand my faith better. And my question isn’t “Is there some way to justify this?” but “Why doesn’t this specific principle apply?”

Some measure of protection can be had by using a barrier (condom) during the act, but condoms are prohibited because the interfere with the normal function of the act which is being open to procreation.

But the birth control pill (or other medicines which cause temporary/permanent sterility) is prohibited for the same reason, yet it is licit to use it if it is for the treatment of a disease. This is what’s confusing me.

A greater measure of protection can be had by abstaining from the act. This has neither the risk of disease or the problem of interfering with the normal function of the act.

But hypothetically, if such a third option didn’t exist, the act would still be illicit, right? So, why?

 

[Brendan]

.

The action of shooting someone with a gun is immoral.

Actually, it is not. The Church has never said that shooting someone (or even Homocide in general) is intrinsally immoral.

In fact, the Church has said the opposite on several occasion, that it may be a moral REQUIREMENT.

The act may or may not become immoral depending on several factors.

But doesn’t this imply a certain “ends justify the means” sort of thing? If the ends are important enough, and you can’t accomplish them except by doing something bad, you can do the bad thing. I guess I don’t see how changing it from “one way” to the only way" actually changes the dilemma, except in a pragmatic sense.

No, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying. The end here “Not spreading AIDS” can be obtained through several means.

1 mean, using condoms, is immoral, so the end " Not spreading AIDS" is not justified by the means ( condoms)

the other mean, absinence, accomplished the same end “Not spreading AIDS”, but the means are moral.

 

[LJN21]

Again with the circles.

Look, I’m not asking what the Church’s position is. I know what the position is. I’m asking for explanations, since I am curious. You have not been giving me explanations. You’re only telling me what I already know, which isn’t helpful…

I’m not sure you want…

The reason it is immoral is because you are actively braking the unity and procreative purpose of martial sex for a chance at maybe not getting AIDS.

 

[BlaineTog]

Actually, it is not. The act may or may not become immoral depending on several factors.

Right. But contraception isn’t any different (as in the case of a medicine which causes sterility). So given that, what’s the difference between using a condom and taking a pill, besides the existence of a third option (because the third option in the case of the pill is to let the disease kill you, which is harmful but not sinful if the only option to cure yourself is sinful).

*No, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying. The end here “Not spreading AIDS” can be obtained through several means.

1 mean, using condoms, is immoral, so the end " Not spreading AIDS" is not justified by the means ( condoms)

the other mean, absinence, accomplished the same end “Not spreading AIDS”, but the means are moral.*

No no, the AIDS example is consistent with “the ends do not justify the means” but then, self defense and using The Pill as a cure don’t seem to be consistent with it.

 

[BlaineTog]

I’m not sure you want…

The reason it is immoral is because you are actively braking the unity and procreative purpose of martial sex for a chance at maybe not getting AIDS.

Because it is not immoral to break the proceative purpose of marital sex to cure yourself of a disease. There seems to be a discrepancy here.

 

[davidv]

Because it is not immoral to break the proceative purpose of marital sex to cure yourself of a disease. There seems to be a discrepancy here.

I don’t understand this. How does wearing a condom treat the AIDS of the one wearing it? If it doesn’t treat the AIDS then the principle of double effect cannot apply.

 

[LJN21]

But the birth control pill (or other medicines which cause temporary/permanent sterility) is prohibited for the same reason, yet it is licit to use it if it is for the treatment of a disease. This is what’s confusing me.

Ah! Okay… Using medicine that cause temporary/permanent sterility.

1. The purpose is to correct a serious health issue - Good
2. Taken Medicine to fix serious health issue - at the least moral neutral. However there is the untented side effect of making the person infertile. Double Effect applies because this effect is not the intent of the taking of said medicines.

 

[Brendan]

Right. But contraception isn’t any different (as in the case of a medicine which causes sterility). So given that, what’s the difference between using a condom and taking a pill,

A celibate woman may take a use hormonal therepy, therefore it itself is not intrinsically immoral.

The use of a condom in the marital act. A celibate person, by definiton, does not use one. It’s singular purpose is to block the reception of the marital gift. No matter what the intent, the means violates the integrity of the marital act, the husband’s unital gift is not given to the woman, but rather to the condom.

This is never acceptable.

 

[Brendan]

Blaine,

Have you read Humane Vitae yet?

If not, please do so. It clears up a lot of what we are talking about here.

Here is the link.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

 

[BlaineTog]

I don’t understand this. How does wearing a condom treat the AIDS of the one wearing it? If it doesn’t treat the AIDS then the principle of double effect cannot apply.

It prevents the spread of AIDS, which is a good thing.

Ah! Okay… Using medicine that cause temporary/permanent sterility.

1. The purpose is to correct a serious health issue - Good
2. Taken Medicine to fix serious health issue - at the least moral neutral. However there is the untented side effect of making the person infertile. Double Effect applies because this effect is not the intent of the taking of said medicines.

But the purpose of the condom, in this case, is to prevent the spread of AIDS, which has the unintended side effect of preventing possible fertilization of the egg.

A celibate woman may take a use hormonal therepy, therefore it itself is not intrinsically immoral.

See, this is what’s confusing me:

On the one hand, you say that nothing must be done to prevent the marital act from occuring in its fullest expression under any circumstances.

But on the other hand, the Church says that a married person may licitly take and use medicine that prevents the marital act from occuring in its fullest expression, and said person is still allowed to have sex during this time.

What they are doing is, as near as I can tell, no different than using a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS. In both cases, there is a very similar the intended consequence which is a good thing (disease cure/prevention) and the exact same bad consequence (harming the procreative aspect of the marital act). The only difference is that the condom use only comes into play if the couple wishes to have sex, but the couple using the Pill is allowed to have sex as well despite the fact that at the time when both have sex, the sex ends up working out exactly the same, as far as procreative impediment goes.

It’s singular purpose is to block the reception of the marital gift.

Not here. If the couple could use something which blocked the AIDS but nothing else, they would.

• No matter what the intent, the means violates the integrity of the marital act, the husband’s unital gift is not given to the woman, but rather to the condom.*

But the Pill does the same thing.

Have you read Humane Vitae yet?

Read it, recommended it to a semi-Catholic friend (her church believes basically everything we do except the Pope), and argued it with her when we had better things to do. I understand Catholic sexual morality fairly well, and I’m not trying to undermine it. I just don’t see how this one exception to the rule is ok but this other very similar exception isn’t. And an additional wrinkle is that near as I can tell, if you say “there must be no other way of accomplishing the goal,” then this implies an “ends justify the means” system.

 

[LJN21]

It prevents the spread of AIDS, which is a good thing.

But the purpose of the condom, in this case, is to prevent the spread of AIDS, which has the unintended side effect of preventing possible fertilization of the egg.

See, this is what’s confusing me:

On the one hand, you say that nothing must be done to prevent the marital act from occuring in its fullest expression under any circumstances.

But on the other hand, the Church says that a married person may licitly take and use medicine that prevents the marital act from occuring in its fullest expression, and said person is still allowed to have sex during this time.

What they are doing is, as near as I can tell, no different than using a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS. In both cases, there is a very similar the intended consequence which is a good thing (disease cure/prevention) and the exact same bad consequence (harming the procreative aspect of the marital act). The only difference is that the condom use only comes into play if the couple wishes to have sex, but the couple using the Pill is allowed to have sex as well despite the fact that at the time when both have sex, the sex ends up working out exactly the same, as far as procreative impediment goes.

Not here. If the couple could use something which blocked the AIDS but nothing else, they would.

But the Pill does the same thing.

Read it, recommended it to a semi-Catholic friend (her church believes basically everything we do except the Pope), and argued it with her when we had better things to do. I understand Catholic sexual morality fairly well, and I’m not trying to undermine it. I just don’t see how this one exception to the rule is ok but this other very similar exception isn’t. And an additional wrinkle is that near as I can tell, if you say “there must be no other way of accomplishing the goal,” then this implies an “ends justify the means” system.

I think thats the underly issue is that its not a cure, it is a possible prevention and not a very good one at that. I can’t think of a single example where something iffy is allowed to try and prevent something. In the case of the pill for medical reasons it does actually correct a problem.

 

[GraceDK]

A celibate woman may take a use hormonal therepy, therefore it itself is not intrinsically immoral.

The use of a condom in the marital act. A celibate person, by definiton, does not use one. It’s singular purpose is to block the reception of the marital gift. No matter what the intent, the means violates the integrity of the marital act, the husband’s unital gift is not given to the woman, but rather to the condom.

This is never acceptable.

hehe…
if I had sex with my husband and he wore a condom and his unitive gift for me was aids then I’d certainly rather that he would give it to the condom instead of to me…
and we gotta remember that this dilemma is what many African ladies face on a daily basis. Is the African woman, who prefers that her HIV-positive-hooker-visiting husband gives his “unital gift” to a condom wrong and an evil person? I think not…
as I see it there is no “unitive gift” if one has Aids and actually being open to life when you are dying of an STD does not seem pious to me either…

But you see, brothers and sisters, this is why I think the Church should be clear and say:
we dont approve of adultery, premarital sex, prostitution, polygamy etc. Beyond that we dont legislate… we dont deal in the realm of total lawlessness and decide if typhus is better than the plague…

And when poeple step outside of the clear guidelines and end up in very touch situations then the Church should not go on and on making rules about totally strange situations…
Lot’s of innocent people… women and children die in the third world as a consequence of husbands who go to prostitutes and catches all sorts of stuff…(How would you’all like syphilis as a “gift”… poisened semen is not really a gift to anyone… or do you think so?)
… to simply say to such a wife and mother: “Sleep with your husband and DONT ask him to wear a condom” that seems even cynical to me as a woman and as a human being… I will never be so legalist and correct in canon-law that I change my mind on that.
See, then its not only about one sinner that sins more… but about the life and wellbeing of an innocent person who is to be protected whether or not that involves the sinner wearing a piece of rubber…

thats why I am tired of many of you seeming to see things so black and white…
Honestly I think you would change your mind if you were in the touch spot your self as the wife of a horny HIV-infected man who demands his marital relations. Or if your daughter was …

 

[Brendan]

It prevents the spread of AIDS, which is a good thing.

But the purpose of the condom, in this case, is to prevent the spread of AIDS, which has the unintended side effect of preventing possible fertilization of the egg.

But the means is still wrong, the husband’s marital gift must be deposited in the wife.

On the one hand, you say that nothing must be done to prevent the marital act from occuring in its fullest expression under any circumstances.

But on the other hand, the Church says that a married person may licitly take and use medicine that prevents the marital act from occuring in its fullest expression, and said person is still allowed to have sex during this time.

You seem hung up on the ENDS of the pill and the condom. The Means differ.

[quoite]
But the Pill does the same thing.

Huh? How exactly does the Pill prevent the husband’s marital gift from being deposited inside the wife?

It simply doesn’t, so why are you comparing the two as if they operated in the same way.

. I just don’t see how this one exception to the rule is ok but this other very similar exception isn’t. And an additional wrinkle is that near as I can tell, if you say “there must be no other way of accomplishing the goal,” then this implies an “ends justify the means” system.

No, the ends and the means but both be good, or at least morally neutral. That is not the case for condoms.

The means is intrincally evil, and the ends can never justify it. If you believe I said otherwise, please quote me.

The PDF requires several things

1. The act must be either good or morally neutral.
2. The desired end of the act must be good
3. The undesired effect of the act must be porportionally smaller that the desired good.
4. If a means is available that does not have the undesired effect, the alternate means must be chosen.

Condom use fails the first part. The deliberate deposit of the husband’s gift anywhere other than the wife’s vagina is intrinically evil, it is a type of onanism. Therefore PDF stops there. The act is evil.

This is where it differs from the pill. Acts that render the gift to be infertile are not necessarily immoral. Acts that deposit the gift anywhere outside the vagina, ARE.

 

[JRKH]

hehe…
if I had sex with my husband and he wore a condom and his unitive gift for me was aids then I’d certainly rather that he would give it to the condom instead of to me…
and we gotta remember that this dilemma is what many African ladies face on a daily basis. Is the African woman, who prefers that her HIV-positive-hooker-visiting husband gives his “unital gift” to a condom wrong and an evil person? I think not…
as I see it there is no “unitive gift” if one has Aids and actually being open to life when you are dying of an STD does not seem pious to me either…

But you see, brothers and sisters, this is why I think the Church should be clear and say:
we dont approve of adultery, premarital sex, prostitution, polygamy etc. Beyond that we dont legislate… we dont deal in the realm of total lawlessness and decide if typhus is better than the plague…

And when poeple step outside of the clear guidelines and end up in very touch situations then the Church should not go on and on making rules about totally strange situations…
Lot’s of innocent people… women and children die in the third world as a consequence of husbands who go to prostitutes and catches all sorts of stuff…(How would you’all like syphilis as a “gift”… poisened semen is not really a gift to anyone… or do you think so?)
… to simply say to such a wife and mother: “Sleep with your husband and DONT ask him to wear a condom” that seems even cynical to me as a woman and as a human being… I will never be so legalist and correct in canon-law that I change my mind on that.
See, then its not only about one sinner that sins more… but about the life and wellbeing of an innocent person who is to be protected whether or not that involves the sinner wearing a piece of rubber…

thats why I am tired of many of you seeming to see things so black and white…
Honestly I think you would change your mind if you were in the touch spot your self as the wife of a horny HIV-infected man who demands his marital relations. Or if your daughter was …

Grace,
Much of what you say is, unfortunately true. However the OP is trying to understand the Church’s teaching on the subject and so those responding must remain within that framework. It should be clear that there are so many variables in these kinds of issues that a person who is in a given situation really needs to speak to their priest for guidance.

As to the specific - world wide - issues you raise, that is something for another thread. I’m sure if you started one it would be a lively discussion.

Peace
James

 

[LJN21]

hehe…
if I had sex with my husband and he wore a condom and his unitive gift for me was aids then I’d certainly rather that he would give it to the condom instead of to me…
and we gotta remember that this dilemma is what many African ladies face on a daily basis. Is the African woman, who prefers that her HIV-positive-hooker-visiting husband gives his “unital gift” to a condom wrong and an evil person? I think not…
as I see it there is no “unitive gift” if one has Aids and actually being open to life when you are dying of an STD does not seem pious to me either…

The Church in light of these things as still held up that the use of Condoms is Intrinsically Evil. The ONLY Moral way to stop (and the only one that actually works) is the education on the necessity of abstinences until marriage and monogamy. In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.

Teaching the use of Condoms has never worked. The proof is in our own socicty. Thanks to free sex with protection 1-4 people in New York City have Herpies. (nypost.com/seven/06092008/news/regionalnews/one_in_four_new_yorkers_has_herpes__stud_114751.htm)
25% of all High School Students graduate with a STD!

But you see, brothers and sisters, this is why I think the Church should be clear and say:
we dont approve of adultery, premarital sex, prostitution, polygamy etc. Beyond that we dont legislate… we dont deal in the realm of total lawlessness and decide if typhus is better than the plague…

The Church is perfectly clear (and arguably infallible on this stance) and she doesn’t legislate but has up held the teaching this teaching on Condoms and other means of Sexual interference for all time.

And when poeple step outside of the clear guidelines and end up in very touch situations then the Church should not go on and on making rules about totally strange situations…
Lot’s of innocent people… women and children die in the third world as a consequence of husbands who go to prostitutes and catches all sorts of stuff… How would you’all like syphilis as a “gift”… that not much of a gift do you think?.. to simply say to such a wife and mother: “Sleep with your husband and DONT ask him to wear a condom” Then that seems actually cynical to me as a woman…
See, then its not only about one sinner that sins more… but about the life and wellbeing of an innocent person who is to be protected whether or not that involves the sinner wearing a piece of rubber…

thats why I am tired of many of you seeming to see things so black and white…

I’m sorry this is a black and white issue and one that has been beaten to death on this very forum.

The answer to the situation in Africa is education. Not the Condom.
members.shaw.ca/jrlmcrae/church/preventingAIDS.html