Can man with HIV use condom with post-menopausal wife?

[TheAdvocate]

A man with HIV in Africa is 55 years old. Sadly, he has HIV. His wife, fortunately, does not. There is no chance of conception because of her age, also 54. They love each other. Would it be okay for him to use a condom with her? Why or why not? After all, there is no chance of conception.

 

[1ke]

No.

A couple past child bearing age may not engage in sexual acts that are disordered, it is a sin against the sixth commandment. Disordered sex acts are those that are not objectively ordered to both unity AND procreation.

A couple is such a situation would be called to abstinence for the sake of the wife.

 

[TheAdvocate]

No.

A couple past child bearing age may not engage in sexual acts that are disordered, it is a sin against the sixth commandment. Disordered sex acts are those that are not objectively ordered to both unity AND procreation.

A couple in such a situation would be called to abstinence for the sake of the wife.

As far as being disordered toward procreation, conception wouldn’t be possible anyway. Their sex act CANNOT be ordered toward procreation. And the unitive aspect would still be present.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A man with HIV in Africa is 55 years old. Sadly, he has HIV. His wife, fortunately, does not. There is no chance of conception because of her age, also 54. They love each other. Would it be okay for him to use a condom with her? Why or why not? After all, there is no chance of conception.

The Bible is filled with stories of couples beyond child bearing age having a child. Of course most famous of which are Abraham and Sarah. So saying that they do not have the possibility of a child because of age is not a factor in the eyes of the Church. We believe if God desires, an older couple can still concieve.

 

[1ke]

As far as being disordered toward procreation, conception wouldn’t be possible anyway.

It must be objectively ordered to both unity and procreation.

This means a completed act of vaginal intercourse. Not contraceptive. Not an act replacing intercourse (i.e. masterbatory acts, anal, oral substitution, etc). *Ordered to *procreation.

Their sex act CANNOT be ordered toward procreation.

That is irrelevant. The Church does not teach that an act must *result in *procreation. The Church teaches that it must be *ordered to *procreation.

And the unitive aspect would still be present.

It would be* ordered to *unity but not *ordered to *procreation. Therefore it is disordered, a sin against the sixth commandment.

 

[TheAdvocate]

The Bible is filled with stories of couples beyond child bearing age having a child. Of course most famous of which are Abraham and Sarah. So saying that they do not have the possibility of a child because of age is not a factor in the eyes of the Church. We believe if God desires, an older couple can still concieve.

You’re talking about miraculous interventions here. I’m talking about real life here. The woman has no more eggs.

But fine, let’s change things up a bit. Not only is she sterile, he had a vasectomy. You see, when he learned he was HIV positive, he decided that he didn’t want to have any children because he didn’t want his children to be born with HIV.

Later, he converts to Catholicism, and regrets his vasectomy, but – very reasonably, mind you – he decides not to reverse it because his wife is well past menopause anyway. He has HIV because he used to be unfaithful to his wife, but now, in his new-found faith, he pledges fidelity–but he has HIV.

So once again: he had a vasectomy AND she is post-menopausal. Why not condom use? Procreation won’t happen anyway, and the unitive aspect is still there.

 

[Corki]

You’re talking about miraculous interventions here. I’m talking about real life here. The woman has no more eggs.

But fine, let’s change things up a bit. Not only is she sterile, he had a vasectomy. You see, when he learned he was HIV positive, he decided that he didn’t want to have any children because he didn’t want his children to be born with HIV.

Later, he converts to Catholicism, and regrets his vasectomy, but – very reasonably, mind you – he decides not to reverse it because his wife is well past menopause anyway. He has HIV because he used to be unfaithful to his wife, but now, in his new-found faith, he pledges fidelity–but he has HIV.

So once again: he had a vasectomy AND she is post-menopausal. Why not condom use? Procreation won’t happen anyway, and the unitive aspect is still there.

Because “ordered to procreation” isn’t the same thing as procreative. Authentic marital acts are ordered to procreation unless something is done to break that - a condom or other artificial contraceptive breaks that.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Because “ordered to procreation” isn’t the same thing as procreative. Authentic marital acts are ordered to procreation unless something is done to break that - a condom or other artificial contraceptive breaks that.

Maybe so, but given the circumstance, I believe one–after prayerful consideration–could in good conscience legitimately go outside the norm. You’ve got to follow the spirit of the law, too.

After all, let’s think of why the teaching is what it is: it is to be *ordered *to procreation because the loving act *could *result in pregnancy, to which a couple should always be open. Not so in the case I presented above.

Sometimes if we color outside the lines a little it results in legalism, which Jesus condemned. Big picture, people. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

 

[1ke]

So once again: he had a vasectomy AND she is post-menopausal. Why not condom use? Procreation won’t happen anyway, and the unitive aspect is still there.

It doesn’t matter if she has no reproductive organs at all, total hysterectomy. It doesn’t matter if it’s Tuesday. It doesn’t matter if it’s your birthday.

The answer is the same.

Every person is subject to God’s law on the proper use of our sexuality.

Each act of intercourse must be ordered per se to both unity and procreation within marriage or it is a disordered act and a sin against the sixth commandment.

 

[Corki]

A couple that went ahead with your plan would be following an ill-formed conscience, in my opinion. Not to mention exposing the wife to an unacceptable level of risk in order to fulfill a physical pleasure.

 

[1ke]

Maybe so, but given the circumstance, I believe one–after prayerful consideration–could in good conscience legitimately go outside the norm. You’ve got to follow the spirit of the law, too.

This is contrary to the Church’s teaching on contraception, marital intercourse, conscience formation, and morality in general.

It is, actually, a heresy of moral relativism.

After all, let’s think of why the teaching is what it is: it is to be *ordered *to procreation because the loving act *could *result in pregnancy, to which a couple should always be open. Not so in the case I presented above.

No. That is not true.

The proper use of our sexual faculties are not dependent upon circumstances but on the objective way in which God has created them and told us we may use them.

Sometimes if we color outside the lines a little it results in legalism, which Jesus condemned. Big picture, people. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

God’s law is not legalism.

 

[TheAdvocate]

A couple that went ahead with your plan would be following an ill-formed conscience, in my opinion. Not to mention exposing the wife to an unacceptable level of risk in order to fulfill a physical pleasure.

Who said marital intercourse is strictly “physical pleasure”? It also has a unitive, loving, bonding aspect.

 

[Corki]

Who said marital intercourse is strictly “physical pleasure”? It also has a unitive, loving, bonding aspect.

A married couple can demonstrate unitive, loving, and bonding without the need for sexual intercourse or the use of a condom (which many would say makes the unitive aspect null anyway).

 

[TheAdvocate]

A married couple can demonstrate unitive, loving, and bonding without the need for sexual intercourse or the use of a condom (which many would say makes the unitive aspect null anyway).

Thanks for your replies. I didn’t say that one cannot engage in unitive bonding outside of intercourse. But I assert that when a couple IS engaged in intercourse (condom or not), they are lovingly bonding to one another.

 

[Willy_Jose]

A man with HIV in Africa is 55 years old. Sadly, he has HIV. His wife, fortunately, does not. There is no chance of conception because of her age, also 54. They love each other. Would it be okay for him to use a condom with her? Why or why not? After all, there is no chance of conception.

First of all, a condom has a failure rate of 10 to 20%. Unless the man with HIV is invincibly ignorant of this, he is intentionally subjecting his wife to HIV infection when he indulges in condomized intercourse with her. Also we must go to the basics of determining the morality of a given act: the object, the intention, and the circumstances altogether. The object in this case is condomized intercourse which is neither morally good nor morally indifferent, so the principle of double-effect does not apply. Investigating the intention (minimizing the possibility of HIV infection) will not change the fact that condomized intercourse is against natural law.

 

[1ke]

But I assert that when a couple IS engaged in intercourse (condom or not), they are lovingly bonding to one another.

Your assertion is at odds with the truths of the Catholic faith.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Your assertion is at odds with the truths of the Catholic faith.

And yet, you yourself not less than two hours ago wrote:

“**It would be ordered to unity **but not ordered to procreation.”

 

[1ke]

And yet, you yourself not less than two hours ago wrote:

“**It would be ordered to unity **but not ordered to procreation.”

I misread your post, actually. Hence the miscommunication.

If they engage in contracepted intercourse it is disordered because it is not ordered to BOTH unity and procreation. It doesn’t matter if it is ordered to one if it is not ordered to the other. As if one compensates morally for the other.

It has to be ordered to both simultaneously. Or it is disordered and a mortal sin.

 

[twoangels]

A man with HIV in Africa is 55 years old. Sadly, he has HIV. His wife, fortunately, does not. There is no chance of conception because of her age, also 54. They love each other. Would it be okay for him to use a condom with her? Why or why not? After all, there is no chance of conception.

I would lean toward the total continence route primarily because condoms are like safety belts. Wearing a saftey belt gives you a higher chance of survival if you’re in a car accident, but they do not guarentee that you will survive. In the case of someone with HIV, its like driving a car that the machenic tells you is not safe to drive and relying on a safety belt to save your life.

The Catechism says that sexual pleasure is morally disordered sought for itself isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes. I do not interpret this passage at all to be giving couples a step by step guide over how to have sex, but rather general principals that simply mean we cannot distort the sexual act for the pursuit of sexual pleasure alone.

Moreover the Church does teach the principal of double effect. For it to fit into the principal of double effect, the act itself must be good or morally neutral. It can be argued that putting a piece of latex over your skin is morally neutral. If I put latex gloves on before I change a baby’s diaper, I am not sinning. If a man is asked to put a condom over himself but is not asked to engage in any sexual acts, he is not sinning. The latex itself is not sinful. It is to what ends the latex is used for that can make it sinful.

Then there is the agent intending the good effect alone and not the bad as a means toward a good end. Now let’s assume a more clear case of true infertility: the woman had a hysterectomy. It is entirely impossible for her to get pregnant. The hysterectomy fell under the principal of double effect so we have no question about her having had a hysterectomy. Let’s also then assume that the couple would be open to a pregnancy arising if it were possible. The use of the condom would not be to prevent or subvert the procreative meaning of sex, but as a way to prevent disease (just like the latex gloves worn by a physician when doing invasive surgury are there to prevent disease). This would mean that the agent is intending the good effect alone of prevention of disease.

The third is that the good effect outweights the bad effect in circumstances significantly grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to mimimize the harm. This is where I would say would say the moral question rests upon. Not having sexual relations at all in a marriage is not a good thing and can do harm to a marriage. In fact, married couples do to some extent have a moral obligation to have sex with each other unless they’ve been given permission to enter a Josephite marriage. We will assume though that this isn’t about entering a Josephite marriage, but about practicing total continence in the marriage from a specific time after consumation forward. This definitely too falls under the principal of double effect as well.

The question then becomes a choice between two things that are not good: total continence and utilizing a condom. At this point what must be weighed out is how much harm each would do and how much protection each would offer. This leads us to an area that simply does not have a cut and dry answer. That said, because its not cut and dry, this isn’t an area where the Church should ever say that there are some circumstances where it is morally licit for the fear of leading others to rationalize their own sins. This overall is an area for the couple to discern over and preferribly with a good spiritual director if one is available.

 

[Rascalking]

These are all interesting answers.

It seems to me that alot of people almost look for reasons to play the “celibacy” card and tell people that abstinence is the only option. I don’t understand why people are like that.

I’m a bachelor, so I don’t have a dog in the fight. I personally don’t care about anything like this, but it’s very interesting to me how people seem say “Abstinence! Celibacy!” without even thinking the horrible effects that can have on a marriage.