AIDS and Condoms

[Brendan]

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…

You are under no obligation to recieve the gift, you may abstain. But if you choose to do engage in the marital act, it must be a free gift and free reception of the gift.

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…

The Church must teach the truth on Moral issues, it can do no less. So why would you ask the Church to be silent when it possesses the moral truth on the issue?

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?)

It isn’t. That is why the wife is under no obligation to accept it. And to do otherwise is rape.

Now could you explain why a man would listen to the Church on condoms, but not listen on adultery and rape?

… 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…

No the Church says “Your life is too valuable to risk, if your husband is infected, do not sleep with him”.

Wearing a condom simply lessens the risk, it does not remove it.

Would you expect the Church to take similar stances on other issues, spousal abuse for example.

Should the Church say " You really should not beat your wife, but if you do wear boxing gloves, as it will reduce the chance of injury"

How about taking a clear stand “Don’t beat your wife!”

That is what the Church is saying with condoms. They do not remove the risk of infection, only lessen it. But it is still a threat to the life of the spouse. Therefore, it should not be done. THe Church rightly says to infected spouses " Don’t put your wife’s life at risk, be abstinate!" Plain and simple.

 

[GraceDK]

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 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

Well… I am against condoms too and pro-education. But until ideal and reality matches each other I still ask people what the African woman should do…? A Catholic western woman cannot even fathom how Africans live with oppression and fear of disease. A woman there is supressed and she cant leave her husband just like any of us could. The woman who has been told by her husband he will be expecting her in bed tonight and who she knows has HIV… what should we tell her? What would YOU tell her? Lets deal with reality… if the Church cant deal with reality while working for ideals then that is a problem.
It happens every day that women are infected with HIV… women waiting at home for their hooker-visiting husband… women who are faithful and who have severel children. look at Africa… go there and say: " No sweet sister in Jesus… persevere, Dont go to the pharmacy today and get a condom for your husband but wait 20 years until the Catholic school bus drops by… by that time you wont be here anymore but maybe one of your children will survive so long"…

A very good pastor once said: " My faith must never be bigger than my heart for people"… he was talking about the laws… I agree with him.

 

[TobyLue]

Here is my 2 cnts.
It all has to do as to what is the DIRECT INTENT. In the case of the pill used for medicinal purposes that MAY cause sterility, the DIRECT INTENT is the cure of the disease. It is not DIRECTLY INTENTED TO CAUSE STERILITY. That may be the side effect.

In the case of the use of a condom, the DIRECT INTENT OF THE CONDOM, is to prevent the sperm from fertilization. The use of the condom to POSSIBILY prevent the spread of HIV is NOT the DIRECT INTENT. The DIRECT INTENT of the use of the condom is to have sex AND possibly avoid HIV.

One may think and be deceived that they only intend to stop the spread of HIV by using a condom, however, in a sterile couple, the end of the sex terminates with the deposit of the sperm in the vagina which is a good thing. That the woman was infertile because of the treatment is a side effect of a good thing that was done to cure an illness.
In the case of using a condom, the end of the sex act terminated with the deposit of the sperm in a condom which is NOT a good thing. That it POSSIBILY prevented the spread of HIV is good but it of course was not guaranteed as condoms can break and thus the spreading of HIV was possibly NOT prevented which is not good. The direct intent of the use of a condom was not to cure HIV but to have sex.
If a cure for HIV was found, but the side effect would be sterility, the DIRECT INTENT is still good. Condoms definitely are not DIRECTLY INTENDED to cure HIV. Even if somehow a medical discovery was found that the use of a special condom would CURE HIV, but during the sex act it still prevents the deposit of the sperm into the vagina, I doubt that the Church would still consider it a good thing. I don’t know, maybe, maybe not…… But until that happens we still need to say “no” to the use of condoms during the sex act.

 

[GraceDK]

You are under no obligation to recieve the gift, you may abstain. But if you choose to do engage in the marital act, it must be a free gift and free reception of the gift.

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 must teach the truth on Moral issues, it can do no less. So why would you ask the Church to be silent when it possesses the moral truth on the issue?

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…

It isn’t. That is why the wife is under no obligation to accept it. And to do otherwise is rape.

Now could you explain why a man would listen to the Church on condoms, but not listen on adultery and rape?

No the Church says “Your life is too valuable to risk, if your husband is infected, do not sleep with him”.

Wearing a condom simply lessens the risk, it does not remove it.

Would you expect the Church to take similar stances on other issues, spousal abuse for example.

Should the Church say " You really should not beat your wife, but if you do wear boxing gloves, as it will reduce the chance of injury"

How about taking a clear stand “Don’t beat your wife!”

That is what the Church is saying with condoms. They do not remove the risk of infection, only lessen it. But it is still a threat to the life of the spouse. Therefore, it should not be done. THe Church rightly says to infected spouses " Don’t put your wife’s life at risk, be abstinate!" Plain and simple.

You speak from an American perspective and put your own reality down over the African continent as through they sharedyour reality. I just told you very clearly that African women has a very low status… they are not treated with the respect and given the freedom to say no that we have in the Western societies…

You still say “gift” and “you may abstain” as though you did not read my post.

 

[LJN21]

Well… I am against condoms too and pro-education. But until ideal and reality matches each other I still ask people what the African woman should do…? A Catholic western woman cannot even fathom how Africans live with oppression and fear of disease. A woman there is supressed and she cant leave her husband just like any of us could. The woman who has been told by her husband he will be expecting her in bed tonight and who she knows has HIV… what should we tell her? What would YOU tell her? Lets deal with reality… if the Church cant deal with reality while working for ideals then that is a problem.
It happens every day that women are infected with HIV… women waiting at home for their hooker-visiting husband… women who are faithful and who have severel children. look at Africa… go there and say: " No sweet sister in Jesus… persevere, Dont go to the pharmacy today and get a condom for your husband but wait 20 years until the Catholic school bus drops by… by that time you wont be here anymore but maybe one of your children will survive so long"…

A very good pastor once said: " My faith must never be bigger than my heart for people"… he was talking about the laws… I agree with him.

That is relativism. Truth does not chance because someone is oppressed. Besides I’d take it form you post you didn’t read the link on how the Condom in Africa is NOT working.

My sister-in-law is African, shes not completely sure how many step siblings she has. That doesn’t mean it would have been better for her can’t_ keep_his_pants_on_biological_father to use a condom so she wouldn’t have ever been born.

 

[Brendan]

Well… I am against condoms too and pro-education. But until ideal and reality matches each other I still ask people what the African woman should do…?

Say ‘No’.

. The woman who has been told by her husband he will be expecting her in bed tonight and who she knows has HIV… what should we tell her?

To say ‘No’,

What would YOU tell her? Lets deal with reality… if the Church cant deal with reality while working for ideals then that is a problem…

Again, what should we do if it’s not sex that the husband is looking for, but to beat her.

What should the response of the Church be? To simply say, “don’t beat your wife, but if you are going to do so anyway, wear some Everlasts?”

Should the Church’s teachings also "“deal with Reality” in that circumstance as well?

My perspective is not “American” but universal right and wrong. That does exist you know. Something does not stop being evil simply because the people involved live on a different continent.

Cardinal Arinze is from Africa ( the Pope’s 'second in command), but he too supports the Church’s teachings. Are you more in touch with the Moral situation in Africa than he is?

You still say “gift” and “you may abstain” as though you did not read my post.

Yes, I did read you post. It is still a gift and, if a husband has been unfaithful, or is infected, a wife may still abstain. That is the Moral Law, any opinions to the contrary do not change that.

 

[BlaineTog]

Whoa whoa whoa, what the heck just happened to the thread? My question is purely philosophical in nature. Please take the practical questions elsewhere, as they are off topic and will derail this thread entirely.

I thik thats the underly issue is that its not a cure, it is a possible prevention and not a very good one at that.

I actually looked it up: 85% increase. The study I saw said that over two years, less than 2% of HIV partners who used condoms transmitted the disease to their spouses.

I can’t think of a single example where something iffy is allowed to try and prevent something.

Everything is “iffy.” You don’t know for sure that shooting the guy breaking into your house will prevent him from killing you; you may miss, and he may shoot you before you get a chance to take a second shot. This doesn’t chance the situation.

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

No, the Church doesn’t make a distinction between different types of contraception. The contraceptive act can be either “before, during, or after” the sex act, anything that tries to prevent conception. What you’re essentially saying is that it’s ok for a Catholic couple to use the Pill for contraception but not a condom (which is explicitly against the Catechism). Technically, it would be OK for them to use a diaphragm, too, and there are probably even more contraceptive methods that would work as well.

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

I didn’t say you said otherwise. I said this is what the situation seems to imply.

The direct intent of the use of a condom was not to cure HIV but to have sex.

This kinda makes sense (though the direct intent would actually be “have sex without infecting my partner”), but isn’t sex between two married people a good thing? It’s certainly not worse than morally neutral; indeed, it’s sacramental!

 

[LJN21]

I actually looked it up: 85% increase. The study I saw said that over two years, less than 2% of HIV partners who used condoms transmitted the disease to their spouses.

I challenge your source

Last time I tired to look it up the numbers there was just an over lack of information that wasn’t form a questionable source invested in the “Condoms do work” myth.

 

[LJN21]

Everything is “iffy.” You don’t know for sure that shooting the guy breaking into your house will prevent him from killing you; you may miss, and he may shoot you before you get a chance to take a second shot. This doesn’t chance the situation.

That not related to what we’re talking about.

No, the Church doesn’t make a distinction between different types of contraception. The contraceptive act can be either “before, during, or after” the sex act, anything that tries to prevent conception. What you’re essentially saying is that it’s ok for a Catholic couple to use the Pill for contraception but not a condom (which is explicitly against the Catechism). Technically, it would be OK for them to use a diaphragm, too, and there are probably even more contraceptive methods that would work as well.

Not true, NFP would be wrong then too. The pill is wrong for birth control because it artificial interferes with conception and has the chance for an early term chemical abortion. A condom artificially interferes with conception as well. The pill however does have other medical purposes that are valid. A condom has no other use (when used during sex) then to keep the seamen (infected or other wise) out of the woman.

This kinda makes sense (though the direct intent would actually be “have sex without infecting my partner”), but isn’t sex between two married people a good thing? It’s certainly not worse than morally neutral; indeed, it’s sacramental!

Yes, however sex is not a blanket right. There are things that happen that can take away a spouses right. Cheating, drinking or an STD can lift the requirement to honor the spouse marital right. There is nothing sacramental in forcing your self on you spouse.

 

[Brendan]

.

I actually looked it up: 85% increase. The study I saw said that over two years, less than 2% of HIV partners who used condoms transmitted the disease to their spouses.!

So, what you are saying is that the Church should tolerate a solution that results in 2 out of 100 being infected.

How do you claim that to be moral.

Would it be morally acceptable to play Russian Roullette with a 50 barrel revolver, or should the Church teach that it’s better not to play at all?

 

[Brendan]

Whoa whoa whoa, what the heck just happened to the thread? My question is purely philosophical in nature. Please take the practical questions elsewhere, as they are off topic and will derail this thread entirely.

Also, Moral Theology is, by defintion, a practical discipline. It’s entire aim is practical application of the Natural Law and Revealed Religion.

 

[Holly3278]

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

So in other words, during World War II, it would have been a sin to lie about the Jews you were hiding in your house to protect them from the Nazis?

 

[Dale_M]

A very good pastor once said: " My faith must never be bigger than my heart for people"… he was talking about the laws… I agree with him.

Grace, thank you for speaking up. A wise person once said: “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” We need to be careful of excessive legalism, into which I think this thread is delving.

 

[GraceDK]

Grace, thank you for speaking up. A wise person once said: “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” We need to be careful of excessive legalism, into which I think this thread is delving.

Thank you Dale…
This is one topic where I think many Catholics are too legalistic.
All I ask is 1) we think about the one/the indivudual in front of us.
2) we imagine vividly what we would tell that person if she was our beloved daughter or sister and she was in a very bad marriage with a HIV-infected guy who would demand his rights for marital relations any of these nights …
Then I think the stand would suddenly not be so clear anymore… the hand would shake and suddenly we would all deep inside wish that the one we loved would be protected as much as possible (and condoms DO protect a great deal against HIV) …

Also… I think the debate must be practical and not only theoretical… we live in a real world with real people.

 

[GraceDK]

Say ‘No’.
To say ‘No’,

Long sigh.

Again, what should we do if it’s not sex that the husband is looking for, but to beat her.

What should the response of the Church be? To simply say, “don’t beat your wife, but if you are going to do so anyway, wear some Everlasts?”

The Church should stop at saying dont beat your wife… but if the Everlasts helped the wife…like, imagine the the Everlasts would take the power out of the blow so she would not be wounded… then I would be sister enough to admit I hoped the bad husband would wear these gloves… even if there was some acid inside them that hurt his own hands. You see…you talk about the condom harming the person who is already a culprit by having sex with his wife… but you should worry first about the wife…

My perspective is not “American” but universal right and wrong. That does exist you know. Something does not stop being evil simply because the people involved live on a different continent.

whereas universal right and wrong exist human situations are not always black/white. The moment of choice and dilemma exists… otherwise there would not be virtue and perseverence either. But if you demand the unbearable of poor people then you become like pharisees who would not touch that which they demanded of others…

Cardinal Arinze is from Africa ( the Pope’s 'second in command), but he too supports the Church’s teachings. Are you more in touch with the Moral situation in Africa than he is?

I have my own head on my shoulders… I test all things with the conscience I have been given… like should anyone of us, catholics and non-catholics… why, did you think that just because you are catholic you dont have to do your own thinking?
Yes, I did read you post. It is still a gift and, if a husband has been unfaithful, or is infected, a wife may still abstain. That is the Moral Law, any opinions to the contrary do not change that.

**Here is our disagreement… If I live in an arranged marriage with some African hooker visiting man then I dont find his poisenous semen at all a gift. Not in a million years.
And as I said… women in third world countries simply cannot abstain… they are not permitted. **

 

[LJN21]

So in other words, during World War II, it would have been a sin to lie about the Jews you were hiding in your house to protect them from the Nazis?

Apples and Oranges.

You in no way required to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth to someone who would do evil with it.

 

[fix]

When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal…

Veritatis splendor

 

[fix]

**Here is our disagreement… If I live in an arranged marriage with some African hooker visiting man then I dont find his poisenous semen at all a gift. Not in a million years.
And as I said… women in third world countries simply cannot abstain… they are not permitted. **

Then it is rape. If it is rape using a condom is not a contracpetive act. Right?

 

[Dale_M]

Then it is rape. If it is rape using a condom is not a contracpetive act. Right?

I think you are saying a wife, if she can not refuse her husband, but can negotiate a condom, then it is okay to use that condom. Is that what you mean?

 

[LJN21]

Long sigh.

The Church should stop at saying dont beat your wife… but if the Everlasts helped the wife…like, imagine the the Everlasts would take the power out of the blow so she would not be wounded… then I would be sister enough to admit I hoped the bad husband would wear these gloves… even if there was some acid inside them that hurt his own hands. You see…you talk about the condom harming the person who is already a culprit by having sex with his wife… but you should worry first about the wife…

Wow… thats just amazing. Okay guys, if your going to beat your wives make sure the stick is no bigger than you thumb!

whereas universal right and wrong exist human situations are not always black/white. The moment of choice and dilemma exists… otherwise there would not be virtue and perseverence either. But if you demand the unbearable of poor people then you become like pharisees who would not touch that which they demanded of others…

Or do you be become like the pharisees when you have God Divine law and look for loop wholes to let people sin?

I have my own head on my shoulders… I test all things with the conscience I have been given… like should anyone of us, catholics and non-catholics… why, did you think that just because you are catholic you dont have to do your own thinking?

My conscience says you can’t fix a problem by compounding it with sin. You do understand at there is actual harm in this world caused by sin. Telling people its okay to sin regardless of your good intentions hurts them. God laid down his law for a reason, its not just an abstract list of pointless don’t but a list of things that kill the life of grace in your soul.

**Here is our disagreement… If I live in an arranged marriage with some African hooker visiting man then I dont find his poisenous semen at all a gift. Not in a million years.
And as I said… women in third world countries simply cannot abstain… they are not permitted. **

I guess you’d want my Sister-in-law to have not been born then.

I doesn’t mater what you think of this ‘gift’, your interfering with Gods design for marriage and you can’t correct it with another sin.

Oh btw her mother died when she was really young of an STD, we don’t know which one.