AIDS and Condoms

[whiteknite]

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

Peace
James

Yes it does! If a person aquired the disease from no fault of there own then it doesnt mean there loveing relationship would end with there partner.
Condoms do have there uses!!!

:knight1:

 

[Newbie2]

My apologies for making an incorrect statement.

It’s important to make that distinction. Condoms make very good water balloons, and it would be a shame if they were evil.

I recall once when the guy who lived in our connecting room in the dorm…he worked part-time in a pharmacy…brought a couple cases of date-expired condoms. They also make great air-balloons. It’s surprising how many it takes to fill up a dorm room.

If that was an evil act, I never confessed it…

 

[JRKH]

Yes it does! If a person aquired the disease from no fault of there own then it doesnt mean there loveing relationship would end with there partner.
Condoms do have there uses!!!

:knight1:

No need to get all excited here.

It seems your original question must have been retorical since you are so adamant that my response is wrong. My apology, I naturally assumed you were looking for a real answer to a real question.

As to your statement above, I whole heartedly agree that regardless of the disease, the loving relationship doesn’t have to end. However, Sexual intercourse does.
If the “Loving Relationship” depends on the partners ability to perform then there is something seriously wrong with the relationship to begin with.
If a person with a lethal disease is willing to put their spouse at risk, even with their consent, there is something wrong with the relationship.

Look - overall these things are difficult and we here are simply not equiped to give specific answers to specific questions. These need to be discussed with a Priest or Spiritual Advisor.

Peace
Jmes

 

[Dale_M]

As to your statement above, I whole heartedly agree that regardless of the disease, the loving relationship doesn’t have to end. However, Sexual intercourse does.

It may be more complicated than that. When on HIV anti-retroviral therapy, it is sometimes possible (not always) to reduce the virus to undetectable levels in the blood, as well as the semen. I am not sure about vaginal and cervical secretions. Some couples do engage in sex without condoms because they want a child.

If a person with a lethal disease is willing to put their spouse at risk, even with their consent, there is something wrong with the relationship.

Again, I think it is complicated. Often it is the negative partner who wants the sex. The positive partner feels a good deal of guilt and worry. The disagreement between the two weighs heavily on their relationship.

 

[LJN21]

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.

You are purposefully taking way the reproductive element out of martial relations AND playing games with our spouses life. Thats 2 bads right there. Condom do not treat AIDS, they some times slow down the spread of it. Sex with a condom is morally bad, that right there fails double effect.

Birth Control pills are are ALWAYS wrong if taken for the propose of Birth Control, on rare occasion there may be a reason why the same medication might be taken for serious health reason unrelated to fertility, in which case the principle of double effect does apply. I think this is because taking medicine is a moral neutral act, treating a condition is a moral good, the untended side effect is possible miscarriages. That said one needs to find a good Catholic OB when perusing these reason because many of them can be resolved without the pill which modern medicine is so quick to hand out like candy.

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

Because the action of sex with a condom is all by its self immoral.

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?

Same reason it didn’t apply above.

For the principle to apply the action its self can not be immoral.

 

[Newbie2]

Here’s a twist:

Is sex with a condom make the sex act “more disordered” in fornication and homosexual activity?

 

[LJN21]

Here’s a twist:

Is sex with a condom make the sex act “more disordered” in fornication and homosexual activity?

Probably not, because there is nothing in homosexual activity thats procreative or unitive, which is why its “disordered”. The condom its self is a moral neutral object, there are perfectly legitimate uses for them out side of sexual relations.

 

[JRKH]

It may be more complicated than that. When on HIV anti-retroviral therapy, it is sometimes possible (not always) to reduce the virus to undetectable levels in the blood, as well as the semen. I am not sure about vaginal and cervical secretions. Some couples do engage in sex without condoms because they want a child.

Again, I think it is complicated. Often it is the negative partner who wants the sex. The positive partner feels a good deal of guilt and worry. The disagreement between the two weighs heavily on their relationship.

Thanks for the additional information.
You are right, these situations are generally more complex than we are able do deal with here. Here we can only paint with a Broad Brush. That is why I advised talking to a Priest or other Spiritual advisor…

Peace
James

 

[GraceDK]

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.

The way I see it … if a spouse has HIV he or she should not engage in sex with their spouse as this would be risking their life.

however if a man was to rape my daughter I would hope he would wear a condom… especially if I knew he was infected.

As for couples… if one is HIV infected there is only two options and both are bad:

• no sex
• or sex with a condom…
  the unity-thing is messed up anyway if you are hundred precent exposed to HIV… there is no unity in that… and certainly its not done out of love or love-union so lets leave that option aside…

The problem with the “condoms are intrincically evil” teaching is not so much the teaching itself but to apply it uncritically to people and continents where people dont have a habit of controlling their sexuality, where prostitution is as common as visits to the hair dresser, and where people are forced into marriages with men and women they don’t love…

Romantic love and free marriage are both ideas that are both new and rather western… the Church should be aware of that.
Think about it.

 

[LJN21]

however if a man was to rape my daughter I would hope he would wear a condom… especially if I knew he was infected.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Oddly enough that makes rape worse morally.

Secondly, if a guy was going to rape a woman the odds of him giving a rats *** to use a condom are slim and none.

As for couples… if one is HIV infected there is only two options and both are bad:

• no sex
• or sex with a condom…
  the unity-thing is messed up anyway if you are hundred precent exposed to HIV… there is no unity in that… and certainly its not done out of love or love-union so lets leave that option aside…

There is also the third option of having relations with the possibility of infecting the uninfected parter.

There is also many other reasons for a married couple to not have sex. Not all couples are capable of not having a sex life. Yeah its hard, maybe some day there will be a way to stop the transmission an moral way.

The problem with the “condoms are intrincically evil” teaching is not so much the teaching itself but to apply it uncritically to people and continents where people dont have a habit of controlling their sexuality, where prostitution is as common as visits to the hair dresser, and where people are forced into marriages with men and women they don’t love…

Romantic love and free marriage are both ideas that are both new and rather western… the Church should be aware of that.
Think about it.

Condoms are not intrinsically evil. Condoms themselves are a moral neutral thing. Having sex with a condom is intrinsically evil because it is against natural law. If I remember right, prostitution, fornication and even rape are morally evil, not intrinsically evil, because they are in order with natural law.

Romantic love and free marriage is newish, so is the rampant divorce rate. A marriage based solely on feelings of romantic love is heading no where fast. I fail to see how an arranged/forced marriage has anything to do with this topic.

 

[BlaineTog]

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.

But how is this relevantly different from taking birth control pills to treat a disease?

It’s important to make that distinction. Condoms make very good water balloons, and it would be a shame if they were evil.

They’re also good for smuggling drugs. Er, I mean, I’m told. >_>

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Oddly enough that makes rape worse morally.

This is exactly the sort of question the devil wants us to ask.

Secondly, if a guy was going to rape a woman the odds of him giving a rats *** to use a condom are slim and none.

He wouldn’t want to leave evidence.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

• The use of condoms within marriage is in and of itself a disordered act and therefore is wrong. Double effect does not apply because the act is neither good or neutral.
• Condom usage violates the unitative and the procreative aspects of the martial act. The intention (in this case to prevent disease) does not alter the nature of the disordered act.
• It is the external act that is judged, not the intention or the end.
• Rape, not being a martial act but rather an act of violence, does not apply here. The use of a condom is a defense against a criminal, not an act of contraception. So, if a victim can convince a rapist to use one, that would not be a bad thing. Rape is already a disordered act and rape with a condom remains a disordered act. “Rape with a condom” is not any more or less evil than rape without one.
• BCPs used as a means to distort the natural ends of a martial act are equally disordered. BCPs are a “chemical condom” if you will, that holds back the women’s seed just as a latex condom physically holds back the male’s seed. Morally, the same thing. BCPs are tolerated as a medical treatment if used legitimately to treat a disease or condition. However, any couple that “rejoices” in the contraceptive side effect is disordered.
• An HIV infected couple (as they are one even if only one party is infected) does not gain, as a result of their condition, unique rights with respect to the sexual aspects of marriage that uninfected couples do not have.

 

[LJN21]

But how is this relevantly different from taking birth control pills to treat a disease?

Because treating a disease is moral good.

Condoms do not treat AIDS.

 

[BlaineTog]

Because treating a disease is moral good.

Condoms do not treat AIDS.

But they can prevent the spread of AIDS, which is certainly good.

 

[LJN21]

But they can prevent the spread of AIDS, which is certainly good.

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

 

[LJN21]

Forum lag

 

[LJN21]

again

 

[LJN21]

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp

Three questions determine whether an action with a double effect is moral or immoral.

1. The first is the question of intention. One can never intend the evil effect (CCC 1752). One’s intention must be only for the good effect. The evil effect must be a regrettable byproduct.

1. The second is the question of causality. St. Thomas Aquinas articulated the principle that “the end does not justify the means” (CCC 1759). One may never do evil hoping that good may come of it. A bad effect may be the consequence of a morally good act, or it may occur simultaneously along with it, but the anticipated good must never be a result of evil actions. Such acts are never morally licit (CCC 1756).

1. The third question is of comparable gravity. Is the good being done proportional to the evil consequences of the action? In order to justify taking the action, it must be. When an action has both a good and an evil outcome, the gravity of the two must be weighed against each other. Although “circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” Still, they can and do “contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts” (CCC 1754).

1. wanting to stopping the spread of AIDs - Good continuing to 2
2. Use of condom during sex- evil act. Full stop, double effect does not apply.

 

[Brendan]

.
Condoms do have there uses!!!

:knight1:

True, you can use them to keep water out of your rifle when marching through a swamp.

Or filling them with water and dropping them out of your dorm window.

Other than that…no.

 

[Brendan]

But they can prevent the spread of AIDS, which is certainly good.

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.