AIDS and Condoms

[BlaineTog]

I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for this, but why wouldn’t the principle of double effect apply in cases in which one spouse has AIDS (or any STD, really) to allow the use of condoms as a disease preventative? After all, medicines which make a woman infertile are ok if they are taken to combat a disease. How is this different? (I’m not asking this rhetorically, either, I just really don’t know).

 

[tbc1983]

They also say that you cannot be electrocuted in 100% fresh water, since there are no ions to act as conductors, but at the same time, noone’s had the guts to see if that theory works.

Cheers!

 

[BlaineTog]

They also say that you cannot be electrocuted in 100% fresh water, since there are no ions to act as conductors, but at the same time, noone’s had the guts to see if that theory works.

There’s also no compelling reason to test the theory (and theory it is, since it’s a well-proven fact about the properties of water), whereas whether or not the use of condoms could be licit under certain circumstances could save lives as well as souls (since the people could use them without going against their consciences).

Please, it’s a reasonable thing to ask, and I have no bones to pick. Just an unanswered question.

 

[Holly3278]

Condoms are intrinsically evil. If you have AIDS or HIV, you should be celibate. To have sex with your spouse in such a case even with a condom would be to play Russian roulette.

 

[Newbie2]

Condoms are intrinsically evil. If you have AIDS or HIV, you should be celibate. To have sex with your spouse in such a case even with a condom would be to play Russian roulette.

Incorrect. Use of condoms is what’s problematic, the things themselves are not intrinsically evil. I’m sure that’s what you meant, though.

 

[1ke]

Your analogy to a medication that has a secondary effect of infertility is flawed.

If a woman or man is **treated **for a disease and the **treatment **makes them steril that is “double effect”.

A condom isn’t a **treatment **for AIDS, therefore it is not analogous to chemotherapy rendering a woman infertile.

 

[Newbie2]

Your analogy to a medication that has a secondary effect of infertility is flawed.

If a woman or man is **treated **for a disease and the **treatment **makes them steril that is “double effect”.

A condom isn’t a **treatment **for AIDS, therefore it is not analogous to chemotherapy rendering a woman infertile.

I’m sure that there are medications used to prevent disease that potentially could cause infertility…but that doesn’t negate the teaching on condoms as contrary to the unitive aspect of intercourse.

 

[BlaineTog]

Yes, I understand that it doesn’t fulfill the criteria for the principle of double effect. I am asking why.

 

[LJN21]

Because its not a treatment for AIDS and it interferes with the dual nature of martial relations.

If it was a pill that prevented the spread of AIDS but had the side effect of causing infertile then you would probably have a case for double effect.

 

[JRKH]

OK - No theologen or Canon Lawyer her but I’ll take a stab -

The Church’s teaching re: the sex act is that it’s primary purpose is procreation. The Church also recognizes the inherent pleasure of the act and the unique intimacy it provides between husband and wife.
However - The primary goal of sex is procreation and therefore sex should always be open to that possiblity.
Condoms have the effect of preventing procreation and therefore are forbidden by the Church.

The Church’s teaching re: harming another is simple - DON’T DO IT.
If you one has a STD of any kind they should not have sex and thereby put their partner in danger.

Your question really comes down to the “Why”.
Why use a condom? You say it is to prevent/protect the partner.
Is it the best form of Protection? No it is not. While it will decrease the chance, it is not a guarentee.
Is there a Better Option for protecting the Partner? Yes. Abstinance. No sex = No chance to transmit.

The sterility argument really doesn’t come into play in this. It really comes down to doing what is the best and most sure way of protecting your partner from a potentially lethal disease.

Peace
James

 

[KCT]

I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for this, but why wouldn’t the principle of double effect apply in cases in which one spouse has AIDS (or any STD, really) to allow the use of condoms as a disease preventative?

Not double effect related, but one spouse should love the other enough not to put them at rist AT ALL.

“I love you enough to protect you some, but since I want sex, I’ll put you at risk for a life threatening disease.” Hardly selfless love.

 

[laurate]

“penetrating one’s whole is an achievement”… is that correctly spelled?

I find great use in condoms, even if I have to cut off the top and slice the sides to be available in my kind of activities

 

[BlaineTog]

Because its not a treatment for AIDS and it interferes with the dual nature of martial relations.

If it was a pill that prevented the spread of AIDS but had the side effect of causing infertile then you would probably have a case for double effect.

But what’s the difference between the two? You can’t possibly be suggesting that the fact that there is a physical barrier between the spouses is what’s causing the problem, since that would mean that birth control bills would be ok all the time.

Condoms have the effect of preventing procreation and therefore are forbidden by the Church.

But why wouldn’t that count as the “unintended harmful effect” in this case?

The Church’s teaching re: harming another is simple - DON’T DO IT.
If you one has a STD of any kind they should not have sex and thereby put their partner in danger.

There’s a difference between “putting someone in harms way” and “harming someone.” Otherwise, Army recruiters would be sinning every time they went to work. Obviously, your spouse should know that you have AIDS, but maybe they don’t care enough to want to refrain from the marital act.

Let’s assume the uninfected partner is fully aware of the risks involved and wants to have sex anyway, despite the infected partner having voiced concerns repeatedly. In fact, let’s say the uninfected partner is demanding the act as his or her marital right. Given that, why doesn’t the principle of double effect apply?

 

[Dale_M]

Let’s assume the uninfected partner is fully aware of the risks involved and wants to have sex anyway, despite the infected partner having voiced concerns repeatedly. In fact, let’s say the uninfected partner is demanding the act as his or her marital right. Given that, why doesn’t the principle of double effect apply?

Your scenario is not at all uncommon, from what I have read in a forum for persons affected by HIV. The infected partner is often extremely reluctant, but the uninfected partner craves the unitive act.

I am unsure about double-effect. I suspect it comes down to the Church’s view that sex is unnecessary. Using a condom is an intrinsic evil and no good is gained from protecting a sexual act which shouldn’t have taken place. At least I think this is the Church’s view.

 

[Believe_85]

Maybe it would help if we broke down the principle of double effect an applied it to this scenario.

**First, the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral. **
Sex between husband and wife is good. Would we agree that this part of the scenario is properly applied here or would this be sex with a condom which is not good?

Second, the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself.

The agent would be the HIV+ spouse and intends to have marital relations with their spouse and they don’t intend to use the condom as a means to the good? (yes they do)

** lastly, the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect **

The pleasure of sex is definitely is not outweighed by contracting HIV.

Would this be the argument? Tweak it as you see fit

 

[Holly3278]

Incorrect. Use of condoms is what’s problematic, the things themselves are not intrinsically evil. I’m sure that’s what you meant, though.

My apologies for making an incorrect statement.

 

[whiteknite]

If a person had to have a blood transfusion and got AIDS would that also mean that the use of a comdom in the relationship be evil??

:knight1:

 

[Dale_M]

If a person had to have a blood transfusion and got AIDS would that also mean that the use of a comdom in the relationship be evil??:

I have no reason to think otherwise. Why do you think it would matter how a person contracted the disease?

 

[JRKH]

If a person had to have a blood transfusion and got AIDS would that also mean that the use of a comdom in the relationship be evil??

:knight1:

How one aquired the disease has no bearing on the use of condoms.

Peace
James

 

[Brendan]

Maybe it would help if we broke down the principle of double effect an applied it to this scenario.

**First, the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral. **
Sex between husband and wife is good. Would we agree that this part of the scenario is properly applied here or would this be sex with a condom which is not good?

Here is the problem. The act in question is not sex, but the deliberate seperation of the whole gift of the husband from the whole reception of the wife.

THAT is the good of the marital act, and it does not occur when the marital act is accomplished using a condom.

Since the end of the act in question is specifically desired to have this separation, then act is NOT morally neutral (as required by PDF), but a moral evil. Thus the ‘PDF flowchart’ stops right here.

Second, the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself.

The agent would be the HIV+ spouse and intends to have marital relations with their spouse and they don’t intend to use the condom as a means to the good? (yes they do)

** lastly, the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect **

The pleasure of sex is definitely is not outweighed by contracting HIV.

Would this be the argument? Tweak it as you see fit