Are condoms allowed to fight HIV?

[FishMonger]

On a side note - condoms have a significant failure rate in the prevention of transmission of the AIDS virus.
nccbuscc.org/prolife/programs/rlp//98rlplic.shtml

The CDC has a slightly different idea:

"Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."

cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Note the same report says abstinence is the only foolproof method.

 

[manualman]

The problem with every secular perspective on condoms (including the CDC) is that they look at them with the assumption that the behavior will be the same whether or not a condom is in the vicinity. THAT is the HEART of the problem with the secular outlook. The mere existence and proximity of the condom and the knowledge of its function ALTERS the behavior and decision making process of people.

In ages past, a couple knew that pregnancy was a real possibility and in many cases(of course not all), that knowledge bolstered their conscience to do the right thing (abstain outside of marriage). Now along comes the CDC and Planned Parenthood with the gospel of condoms which tells people “it’s OK, the condom will prevent pregnancy AND VD.” What they never realize is that this fundamentally alters people’s mindsets and INCREASES the likelihood that they will engage in risky behavior.

Nobody seriously suggests that we hand out bullet-proof vests to gang members in order to decrease the tragedy of deaths from gang shootings - Why? Because the lack of protection isn’t the cause of those deaths, the violent BEHAVIOR is the cause. Handing out vests won’t change that behavior and might even EMBOLDEN the thugs by making them feel invulnerable. Same thinking ought to apply to kids and condoms.

 

[Delphinus85]

What if you are in love with someone who has had a questionable past?

If you are in a monogamous relationship and want to have sex, does it mean that it is better for the spouse to have HIV than use a condom?

Funny enough, I used to think that anyone who opposed the use of condoms in Africa or whatever to stop the spread of AIDS was a mean horrible unchristian thing to do to people. Then someone on these forums said basically this:

People are against abstinance because no one is perfect.

However, Condoms are far more absitnance. They only work if you wear them EVERY time, so therefore you have to be perfect in use, and condoms are not 100 percent effective in halting the spread of AIDS. They can break, they can slip, they can have tiny holes sometimes that let something through. So, condoms are imperfect. They are imperfect devices used by imperfect people. Now, if someone is trying for absitnance and they mess up, it won’t be that often, but if you hand condoms out, and people are using them and having sex often, the chance for infection is FAR higher!

Absitnance is by far the more logical thing to invest in. There are less things that can go wrong. Handing out condoms is a way to endure more people will be killed by this horrible disease.

 

[Newbie2]

If I knew my spouse had a potentially deadly disease, I would hope he would do whatever it takes to keep from giving it to me.

How is it sacrificial love to say, “I love you enough to protect you some, but not completely. My sexual desire comes before your health.” --KCT

Good point.

Here’s a question:

Let’s say a couple is using NFP, one partner gets HIV through, say, getting exposed in some manner through their work in the health profession i.e. not from an adulterous relationship; not their fault.

Is it licit to use a condom during the time when they would normally have relations during the non-fertile time?

One one side, this would be a reasonable compromise between the negative effects of abstaining completely from marital unity, and, it would be a time when fertility wasn’t there anyway (assuming NFP is as effective as claimed).

On the flip side, any marital act under these circumstances could be potenitally life-threatening to the spouse, even with the use of a condom.

I know the answer here; just throwing it out for discussion.

 

[Delphinus85]

Under certain conditions, yes.

For example, if a crazed attacker was trying to stab you with a dirty needle infected with HIV, and all you had to defend yourself was a crate of condoms, it would be morally permissible to use it to block his attack, possibly breaking the needle, or to throw it at him before fleeing.

I think it highly unlikely though, for anyone to find himself in such an unusual set of circumstances.

Well, and I am also sure it’s morally acceptable that if a woman was about to be raped beyond the shadow of a doubt, she can ask her attacker to use a condom. And maybe the slight distraction of that can let her take him off goard, beat him down and get the heck out of there!

 

[johnnycatholic]

You people simply amaze me…DON’T commit fornication or adultery (I agree with that) but if you do…DO NOT WEAR A CONDOM or it’s worse…instead, bring home an STD to your spouse or give one to the person you’re fornicating with. Sheesh! No, don’t commit the sin, but if you DO commit the sin, cover up. You’ve already commited a GRAVE SIN, so why worry about the whole condom issue?

Yes, I agree, fornication and adultery is WRONG a GRAVE SIN, but if one commits that sin, USE A FLIPPING CONDOM.

It’s like saying…DON’T DRAG RACE, but if you do, WEAR A SEAT BELT AND HELMET.

If you won’t ask someone to stop having sex to save their own life, how can you claim to care about them or anyone else? Your heart is in the right place, but your head is not. Fornication and adultery are mortal sins. Engaging in sex that’s not open to life is a mortal sin. Why is it okay to kill your soul twice to save your earthly life once? If you really believe in sin and hell, then preaching abstinence and only abstinence is the only way you can honestly express this belief. If one marriage partner is HIV positive, then abstinence is also the only loving way to go. How can you say it’s loving to risk one’s life for an orgasm? Even if both partners are willing, it’s sinful to encourage them. Not that it’s not a hard cross, but it’s better than hell.

 

[FishMonger]

The problem with every secular perspective on condoms (including the CDC) is that they look at them with the assumption that the behavior will be the same whether or not a condom is in the vicinity. THAT is the HEART of the problem with the secular outlook. The mere existence and proximity of the condom and the knowledge of its function ALTERS the behavior and decision making process of people.

In ages past, a couple knew that pregnancy was a real possibility and in many cases(of course not all), that knowledge bolstered their conscience to do the right thing (abstain outside of marriage). Now along comes the CDC and Planned Parenthood with the gospel of condoms which tells people “it’s OK, the condom will prevent pregnancy AND VD.” What they never realize is that this fundamentally alters people’s mindsets and INCREASES the likelihood that they will engage in risky behavior.

Nobody seriously suggests that we hand out bullet-proof vests to gang members in order to decrease the tragedy of deaths from gang shootings - Why? Because the lack of protection isn’t the cause of those deaths, the violent BEHAVIOR is the cause. Handing out vests won’t change that behavior and might even EMBOLDEN the thugs by making them feel invulnerable. Same thinking ought to apply to kids and condoms.

The CDC said nothing about condoms being OK. It said they were effective.

 

[Jennifer123]

The CDC has a slightly different idea:

"Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."

cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Note the same report says abstinence is the only foolproof method.

The issue is still under study because yet again the findings are “controversial” and counter-cultural . It will take a long time before the science/medical community in the US admit such a problem exists, but there are many indications that the AIDS virus can escape from the tiny “perforations” present in latex.

lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex3.html#a43

prolife.com/CONDOMS.html

lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html
"In 1987, the Los Angeles Times published an article entitled, Condom Industry Seeking Limits on U.S. Study.21 It stated that “[t]he condom industry has launched an intensive campaign to weaken, delay or possibly shut down a federally funded Los Angeles study of the effectiveness of condoms in preventing transmission of the AIDS virus…”

“Voeller (ÔAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses’, 1994) reported that leakage of virus-sized particles occurred in different brands of condoms of different ages at a rate of 0.9 per cent to 22.8 per cent in the laboratory setting… Lytle and others (ÔSexually Transmitted Diseases’, 1997) reported that under test conditions, 2.6 per cent of latex condoms allowed some virus penetration…”. "

 

[FishMonger]

The issue is still under study because yet again the findings are “controversial” and counter-cultural . It will take a long time before the science/medical community in the US admit such a problem exists, but there are many indications that the AIDS virus can escape from the tiny “perforations” present in latex.

lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex3.html#a43

prolife.com/CONDOMS.html

lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html
"In 1987, the Los Angeles Times published an article entitled, Condom Industry Seeking Limits on U.S. Study.21 It stated that “[t]he condom industry has launched an intensive campaign to weaken, delay or possibly shut down a federally funded Los Angeles study of the effectiveness of condoms in preventing transmission of the AIDS virus…”

“Voeller (ÔAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses’, 1994) reported that leakage of virus-sized particles occurred in different brands of condoms of different ages at a rate of 0.9 per cent to 22.8 per cent in the laboratory setting… Lytle and others (ÔSexually Transmitted Diseases’, 1997) reported that under test conditions, 2.6 per cent of latex condoms allowed some virus penetration…”. "

Of course the issue is still under study. That’s what responsible researchers do. However, many of the studies are based on actual usage by actual people. Even with the leakages you cite, they were still effective. There are many factors involved in the transmission of AIDS, and I doubt anyone would claim condoms are 100% effective. The CDC doesn’t; they say abstinence is 100% effectve. We should also note the two studies you cite are from 1987 and 1994. A great deal has been learned in that time.

I’m not sure if you are implying the CDC study was done in bad faith and is a fraud. Eyerolls are a bit ambiguous. Are you making that accusation?

 

[Jennifer123]

Of course the issue is still under study. That’s what responsible researchers do. However, many of the studies are based on actual usage by actual people. Even with the leakages you cite, they were still effective. There are many factors involved in the transmission of AIDS, and I doubt anyone would claim condoms are 100% effective. The CDC doesn’t; they say abstinence is 100% effectve. We should also note the two studies you cite are from 1987 and 1994. A great deal has been learned in that time.

No one here is saying that the assumption is that condoms are 100% effective. I am not, nor is anyone else here on this site. What I am pointing out is that the claims that condoms are an effective, nay the most effective means of prohibiting AIDS transmittal, may not be entirely true. In the “real world” people are being taught that proper usage of condoms will stop the AIDS virus. They aren’t reading studies by the CDC or any other medical journals. Not many people know this. They are believing what society at large is telling them, which is condoms stop AIDS. Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to make these claims when many studies exist showing how the properties of latex, and the size of the AIDS virus, make “leakages” even possible? You can still get AIDS even with “proper usage” of a condom. These are lives at stake.

I’m not sure if you are implying the CDC study was done in bad faith and is a fraud. Eyerolls are a bit ambiguous. Are you making that accusation?

**I’m not stating the CDC study is fraudulent. What I am saying is the science is not without bias. How much money does the average condom manufacturer have to influence as opposed to any number of scientists who rely on research grants, a “good” name so as to publish in review journals, etc.? **

 

[Delphinus85]

the problem is, condoms aren’t the answer, no matter what anyone says. I’ll be honest, I struggle with what the church says about birth control. I follow the rules even though I really strongly disagree, and I continue to pray for understanding. However, I know that condoms are NOT the answer for the AIDS pandemic. There is ALWAYS a failure rate, and that failure rate costs lives.

The thing people don’t want to face is the fact that it just takes one generation. Just one. We’re looking at most 100 years to completely irradicate ALL STDs. If everyone who has AIDS (and knows it) no longer had sex, it would die with them. (tragic, but true!) If everyone practiced sex **only in marriage **in a completely monogamous environment, it would end. Especially if everyone got blood tests before their marriage.

Yes, it’s idealistic, and yes it requires a lot of people. But it’s the only thing that will work. We can’t accept “slowing” the spread, it needs to STOP. People need to stop dying of his disease. True love demands that we don’t find even one new infection acceptable. This means no condoms. Condoms help spreadif anything, because it encourages people to “go ahead” since they are “mostly safe”. Because of this, some people will be infected due to the failure rate. This is not acceptable at all. It all needs to stop. We have to teach people that it is entirely possible to end AIDS once and for all. It’s is 100 percent preventable.

 

[manualman]

The CDC said nothing about condoms being OK. It said they were effective.

You didn’t understand my post. It had nothing to do with the CDC and morality. The CDC finds condoms ‘effective’ because they ASSUME that people with a condom in the pocket and the condom indoctrination in the mind behave the same as people who know nothing about condoms. This is faulty methodology. The belief that the condom will make him invulnerable inevitably ALTERS the decision making process of the person with one in his pocket in the heat of the moment.

My read on the CDC studies is that they simplistically assumed the human behavior to be unaffected by the condom propaganda. If THAT were true, then it would be a no-brainer to concede that condom use reduces disease transmission. But its not true. This blundered assumption makes their data worthless.

See a similar post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2879090#post2879090

 

[vern_humphrey]

What if you are in love with someone who has had a questionable past?

Then that person should be tested for HIV. If she or he refuses to get tested, or show you the results, you can bet your bottom dollar that – as much as you may love them – they sure don’t love you.

If you are in a monogamous relationship and want to have sex, does it mean that it is better for the spouse to have HIV than use a condom?

If you loved your parter, would you try to get her to play Russian Roulette? Just for your personal gratification?

“Safe sex” isn’t safe. If you pin down the proponents of condoms, they will waffle and say, “Well, it’s safer sex.”

Check the failure rate of condoms (you can find the data on the web.) Would anyone who loves another person subject the person they love to those odds?

 

[whatevergirl]

Then that person should be tested for HIV. If she or he refuses to get tested, or show you the results, you can bet your bottom dollar that – as much as you may love them – they sure don’t love you.

If you loved your parter, would you try to get her to play Russian Roulette? Just for your personal gratification?
“Safe sex” isn’t safe. If you pin down the proponents of condoms, they will waffle and say, “Well, it’s safer sex.”

Check the failure rate of condoms (you can find the data on the web.) Would anyone who loves another person subject the person they love to those odds?

I have long not understood this whole thing, until just now…major lightbulb went off! (your statement that I bolded in red, I now totally understand.) Excellent point. Vern, I sometimes disagree with you, but when you’re right…you are R-I-G-H-T.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If I knew my spouse had a potentially deadly disease, I would hope he would do whatever it takes to keep from giving it to me.

How is it sacrificial love to say, “I love you enough to protect you some, but not completely. My sexual desire comes before your health.” --KCT

Exactly! That’s the first flaw in the condom argument.

The second flaw is that sex isn’t a one in a lifetime event. If you convince infected people and people at risk that there is such a thing as “safe sex,” you encourage them to have more sex. And as any statistician will tell you, if the probability is greater than zero, over a long enugh run, the probability becomes one. (If it can happen, and you keep trying, it will happen.)

We had a debate involving a UN worker in Botswana (which is 40% HIV-positive) about that. She complained that condoms would work,** if **they used them. The problem is, illicit sex, drugs and alcohol go together in a modern danse macrabe. So even if condoms did work, they wouldn’t in that atmosphere.