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

[twoangels]

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.

This is not what the Catechism says. The Catechism talks about the sin of lust and defines lust. It then says to clarify what lust is that sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for isolated from its unitive and procreative meanings.

First off, sexual pleasure includes any pleasant sexual feelings from getting mildly aroused to a climax. It is not limited to climaxing. As such, to say that sexual acts are disordered if they are not objectively ordered to both unity and procreation, you’re basically saying that if a couple begins experiencing any sort of sexual pleasure, their actions or morally disordered unless they finish it off in intercourse. However, the sexual urge does not work that way. There are times where things might start heading in that direction but never get to the point where the couple is ready for intercourse or where either can climax no matter how hard they try. In fact, putting that pressure on them to have a completed act of intercourse tends to make the act much more difficult to achieve. Then of course there are babies interupting, etc.

It just astounds me that a bunch of people have decided to define “sexual pleasure” as “sexual climax” for the sake of trying to explain why its wrong to substitute other sexual acts during the fertile period for intercourse. The reason it is wrong is because the couple is actively closed and seeking substitution in the pursuit of more sexual pleasure while actively rejecting the procreative meaning of sexuality.

But in the case of HIV, the couple is not looking for a way to reject or get around the procreative meaning of sexuality. Heck, that’s why the Catechism says “MEANING.” The meaning is what is to be respected. Again it is not that the couple has to have pretty much dry unaroused sex to santize the rest legimatize the rest of their sexual behavior. So anyway, in the case of HIV, the condom is not being used to get around the procreative meaning. The question then becomes like that of women going on the birth control pill for health reasons when there is no alternative and that being on the pill has nothing to do looking to prevent pregnancy. Or more clearly, it is like a woman having a hysterectomy because she had uterine cancer. She is not seeking to render herself infertile and the fact that she is rendered infertile does not make her having sex afterward immoral.

I explained the moral problems with the condom in my last post. I would tend to agree that it cannot be morally justified because the option of total continence remains and because the condom does not in fact do enough in regular long term use to eliminate the risk of transmitting the disease to their partner. I am only disagreeing with your reasons that differ from my own even though we reach the same conclusion.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

No, he may not.

They can offer their marriage and their life to the Lord.

If this is any comfort, condom does not guarantee that the HIV/AIDS will not be transmitted to the partner. So he should love the wife and ensure that no possible harm can be done to her by him.

 

[Newbie2]

Methinks the HIV complicates things a bit. There is every reason to suggest abstainance for this couple, as the question becomes “It is an act of love to potentially expose your spouse to a potentially fatal virus?”

Change the scenario a bit:

Woman has has an ovariohysterectomy (no ovaries, no uterus). Man has bilateral testicular cancer, and has had both testes removed.

ZERO chance of conception.

Condom use in such a case is not contraceptive.

Does this change the morality if the condom use?

How about if the couple engages in…um…“non-vaginal” intercourse with a condom. Again, zero chance of conception, even if the couple is fertile.

Does this change the morality of the condom use?

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Good post.

 

[twoangels]

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.

I think there are just some people that still see sex itself as a necessary evil that can only be justified to go through by pregnancy. I know for me, growing up, I was absolutely disgusted by sex. I remember thinking becoming an adult was a process of going insane. I was very frightened of men and their sexual desires and looked at sexual desires as something very hostile. I remember as a kid, I decided I wanted to remain a virgin my entire life, but I still wanted to marry for the sake of companionship. I was told that if I did that, my husband would cheat on me, and was also given arguments about my duty to have sex with whoever I married to prevent him from falling into sin. This led me to believe that men were truly incapable of love because they valued sex over women.

As such, I had no problem with saying at all that if sex became a life threatening situation, life is much more important than sex, so definitely give it up. I remember expressing this to my Dad and he was flabergasted and didn’t know how to respond to me at all.

My very negative attitudes toward sex (which were contributed to through other sexual trauma in my past as well) unforunately worked their way to causing me to develop a psychological condition that had physical side effects caused vaginismus which prevented me from being able to consumate my marriage for the first two months.

This was very hard on both my husband and I, but the hardest part was my lack of recognition over what my husband was going through. Up to that point, I imagined that the drive to have sex was like desiring to go on a rollar coaster and I considered him to be very selfish for not being patient with me. I overall felt completely abandoned and pressure to try to fix my problem, but his desires repulsed me because I interpretted them to be desires to use me. I would have never imagined just how bad things could get and how distant we could get from each other by this.

Finally a friend of mine helped me to start seeing that sex filled a need in my husband to be loved and fully accepted by me, his wife. I started seeing that for him it would be like being in a marriage where there was no physical affection at all.

Things have gotten better and eventually I have learned just how special those intimate moments are between my husband and myself. I still still have my own mental hang ups that show up from time to time and makes things very difficult for me, but its getting much better. The thing is sex is is about the expression of love. God is love and it is the nature of love to bring about new life. That is essentially the reason God creates: because He is love. Its not because He is bored, but that it is the nature of love to expand upon itself and to bring more individuals into a communion of love (the image of the family). To respect the procreative meaning of sex is to basically allow the fruits of marriage to form. It is not to get all hung up about the right way to approach the marital act in order to morally legitimize it.

But as I did say in my previous post, I still tend to lead to the answer of this question to total continence. I do think however it is a pity when people to not acknowledge just how important sex is to a marriage, as if you were just telling a person to remove sugar or their favorite food from their diet.

 

[Reuben_J]

Methinks the HIV complicates things a bit. There is every reason to suggest abstainance for this couple, as the question becomes “It is an act of love to potentially expose your spouse to a potentially fatal virus?”

Change the scenario a bit:

Woman has has an ovariohysterectomy (no ovaries, no uterus). Man has bilateral testicular cancer, and has had both testes removed.

ZERO chance of conception.

Condom use in such a case is not contraceptive.

Does this change the morality if the condom use?

How about if the couple engages in…um…“non-vaginal” intercourse with a condom. Again, zero chance of conception, even if the couple is fertile.

Does this change the morality of the condom use?

Well, the HIV husband should in the first place considers the risk of having intercourse with the wife even with condom. If he still intentionally persists, he has to confess that as a sin.

In the hypothetical situation you give, well, I can see no reason why the condom should be used. Cancer is not infectous.

The usage of condom can be likened to the ‘sin of Onan’, where the sperm was spilled not according to original purpose.

BTW, non-vaginal intercourse is not allowed by the Church. A woman who has undergone hysterectomy still has her vagina intact and still can have normal sex life.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, the HIV husband should in the first place considers the risk of having intercourse with the wife even with condom. If he still intentionally persists, he has to confess that as a sin.

In the hypothetical situation you give, well, I can see no reason why the condom should be used. Cancer is not infectous.

I can’t either, but for the sake of discussion, let’s say it helps prevent…irritation and discomfort.
The usage of condom can be likened to the ‘sin of Onan’, where the sperm was spilled not according to original purpose.

But if there are no testicles, there is no sperm.

BTW, non-vaginal intercourse is not allowed by the Church. A woman who has undergone hysterectomy still has her vagina intact and still can have normal sex life.

Quite correct. But (no pun intended ) it goes to the condom use, not to the unauthorized entry.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, here is my suggestion. he he

For irritation and discomfort, KY jelly would be quite fine. If he must use the condom, he could take out a scissor and chip off the other end to create an opening. It will essentially become s sort of sex toy or to facilitate comfortable sex.

My argument is no to unnatural sex, a stance I know will receive a lot of flak from the sexologists.

 

[1ke]

This is not what the Catechism says.

Yes. It is what the Catechism says. And Humanae Vitae. And Casti Connubii. And every other Church teaching on the subject.

The Catechism talks about the sin of lust and defines lust. It then says to clarify what lust is that sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for isolated from its unitive and procreative meanings.

And using a condom isolates the act from its procreative meaning. So do masterabation. Oral sex and anal sex. They are disordered-- ordered away from procreation. Some of these are also ordered away from unity as well.

First off, sexual pleasure includes any pleasant sexual feelings from getting mildly aroused to a climax. It is not limited to climaxing. As such, to say that sexual acts are disordered if they are not objectively ordered to both unity and procreation, you’re basically saying that if a couple begins experiencing any sort of sexual pleasure, their actions or morally disordered unless they finish it off in intercourse.

No, this is not what I said. Hugging, kissing, and touching are normal parts of the marital embrace and normal parts of marital intimacy. Certainly a couple may do this with or without intercourse.

I said masterbation, contraception, oral sex, and anal sex were disordered acts. All of these are acts completed to climax. I said that to be properly ordered, a completed act must be vaginal. Stimulating the genitals to climax without intercourse is a disordered use of our sexual faculties.

This is what the Church teaches.

However, the sexual urge does not work that way. There are times where things might start heading in that direction but never get to the point where the couple is ready for intercourse or where either can climax no matter how hard they try. In fact, putting that pressure on them to have a completed act of intercourse tends to make the act much more difficult to achieve. Then of course there are babies interupting, etc.

I never said there was any sin in this. Nor does the Church teach that there is.

Read the OP. He is talking about intercourse.

It just astounds me that a bunch of people have decided to define “sexual pleasure” as “sexual climax” for the sake of trying to explain why its wrong to substitute other sexual acts during the fertile period for intercourse.

Please show me where I have ever, in ANY post of mine, made this assertion. I have not. That you don’t understand my post is one thing. That you assert I am saying something I have never said is quite another.

The reason it is wrong is because the couple is actively closed and seeking substitution in the pursuit of more sexual pleasure while actively rejecting the procreative meaning of sexuality.

The reason it is wrong is because it is not per se ordered to unity and procreation. The same reason what the OP proposes is disordered.

But in the case of HIV, the couple is not looking for a way to reject or get around the procreative meaning of sexuality. Heck, that’s why the Catechism says “MEANING.” The meaning is what is to be respected.

CCC 2366 So the Church, which is “on the side of life” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”

Again it is not that the couple has to have pretty much dry unaroused sex to santize the rest legimatize the rest of their sexual behavior.

Honestly, what are you talking about? This makes no sense and no one has made any such statement.

So anyway, in the case of HIV, the condom is not being used to get around the procreative meaning.

The Church has repeatedly reiterated that it is immoral to use condoms in this circumstance. It is a disordered use of the marital embrace.

The question then becomes like that of women going on the birth control pill for health reasons when there is no alternative and that being on the pill has nothing to do looking to prevent pregnancy. Or more clearly, it is like a woman having a hysterectomy because she had uterine cancer. She is not seeking to render herself infertile and the fact that she is rendered infertile does not make her having sex afterward immoral.

And, yet, the Church has repeatedly rejected this line of reasoning in relation to the condom. It is not a legitimate medical treatment. It has one purpose and one mechanism of action. And, it violates the Church’s teaching on the requirements of the marital act.

I explained the moral problems with the condom in my last post. I would tend to agree that it cannot be morally justified because the option of total continence remains and because the condom does not in fact do enough in regular long term use to eliminate the risk of transmitting the disease to their partner. I am only disagreeing with your reasons that differ from my own even though we reach the same conclusion.

See the Vatican document here.

 

[tjm190]

The official position as I understand it, is that with every sex act the couple must ‘try their best’ to conceive. Sure, they can have sex when they know that the wife is more likely to spontaneously combust while winning the lottery than conceive- but regardless, they can not do anything themselves to reduce that probability even further.

So in this case, the couple is obligated to abstain or risk spreading the disease, although I assume that risking spreading the disease would be considered immoral as well.

 

[1ke]

The official position as I understand it, is that with every sex act the couple must ‘try their best’ to conceive.

No, this is not Church teaching at all. The Church does not teach that a couple must “try their best” to conceive in any sex act let alone with every sex act.

Sure, they can have sex when they know that the wife is more likely to spontaneously combust while winning the lottery than conceive- but regardless, they can not do anything themselves to reduce that probability even further.

An accurate statement of Church teaching would be that each act must be per se ordered to unity and procreation.

The Church’s teaching has nothing to do with probabilities or likelihood of conceiving.

So in this case, the couple is obligated to abstain or risk spreading the disease, although I assume that risking spreading the disease would be considered immoral as well.

Yes, there are certainly moral arguments apart from condom issue against the couple having intercourse.

 

[Rascalking]

I think there are just some people that still see sex itself as a necessary evil that can only be justified to go through by pregnancy. I know for me, growing up, I was absolutely disgusted by sex. I remember thinking becoming an adult was a process of going insane. I was very frightened of men and their sexual desires and looked at sexual desires as something very hostile. I remember as a kid, I decided I wanted to remain a virgin my entire life, but I still wanted to marry for the sake of companionship. I was told that if I did that, my husband would cheat on me, and was also given arguments about my duty to have sex with whoever I married to prevent him from falling into sin. This led me to believe that men were truly incapable of love because they valued sex over women.

As such, I had no problem with saying at all that if sex became a life threatening situation, life is much more important than sex, so definitely give it up. I remember expressing this to my Dad and he was flabergasted and didn’t know how to respond to me at all.

My very negative attitudes toward sex (which were contributed to through other sexual trauma in my past as well) unfortunately worked their way to causing me to develop a psychological condition that had physical side effects caused vaginismus which prevented me from being able to consumate my marriage for the first two months.

This was very hard on both my husband and I, but the hardest part was my lack of recognition over what my husband was going through. Up to that point, I imagined that the drive to have sex was like desiring to go on a rollar coaster and I considered him to be very selfish for not being patient with me. I overall felt completely abandoned and pressure to try to fix my problem, but his desires repulsed me because I interpretted them to be desires to use me. I would have never imagined just how bad things could get and how distant we could get from each other by this.

Finally a friend of mine helped me to start seeing that sex filled a need in my husband to be loved and fully accepted by me, his wife. I started seeing that for him it would be like being in a marriage where there was no physical affection at all.

Things have gotten better and eventually I have learned just how special those intimate moments are between my husband and myself. I still still have my own mental hang ups that show up from time to time and makes things very difficult for me, but its getting much better. The thing is sex is is about the expression of love. God is love and it is the nature of love to bring about new life. That is essentially the reason God creates: because He is love. Its not because He is bored, but that it is the nature of love to expand upon itself and to bring more individuals into a communion of love (the image of the family). To respect the procreative meaning of sex is to basically allow the fruits of marriage to form. It is not to get all hung up about the right way to approach the marital act in order to morally legitimize it.

But as I did say in my previous post, I still tend to lead to the answer of this question to total continence. I do think however it is a pity when people to not acknowledge just how important sex is to a marriage, as if you were just telling a person to remove sugar or their favorite food from their diet.

Wow! That was an amazing post, and thank you for your openess and honesty.

It repulses me that people seem (key word, seem) almost gleeful about telling people they have the celibacy cross to bare. It’s almost like some Catholics go out and look for reasons to tell married people they can’t be intimate. It’s disgusting and sad, and tells alot about the people lecturing others.

Whatever, I guess. I don’t have a dog in the fight, I’m a bachelor so I don’t need to worry about these things.

 

[tjm190]

No, this is not Church teaching at all. The Church does not teach that a couple must “try their best” to conceive in any sex act let alone with every sex act.

I was speaking colloquially- the teaching is generally applied to mean that the couple may not do anything which directly reduces the probability of conception occurring.

The OP seems interested in what is and is not acceptable under Church teaching- he knows the teaching itself, but seems to misunderstand how it is generally applied.

An accurate statement of Church teaching would be that each act must be per se ordered to unity and procreation.

The Church’s teaching has nothing to do with probabilities or likelihood of conceiving.

/sigh. “ordered towards X” is not a phrase that is generally understood. In all applications I have ever seen come down to “Any action X that has as a direct effect a reduction in the probability of conception occurring intercourse is immoral if done at the same time as intercourse.”

So of course things like intercourse after chemo (if someone somehow had the energy) or while pregnant are fine- those have a reduction in the probability of conception as an indirect effect.

The pill, for the sake of birth control, and condoms have a reduction in the probability of conception as a direct effect- so they’re considered no-no’s

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Why in the world would a woman want to risk infection in the first place? It’s an incurable disease & condoms fail.

 

[tjm190]

Why in the world would a woman want to risk infection in the first place? It’s an incurable disease & condoms fail.

You risk death with almost everything you do from walking down stairs to eating- the issue is what risks are worth it. Occasional sex with one’s spouse with a condom carriers a nonzero, but very low, risk of transmission.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

You risk death with almost everything you do from walking down stairs to eating- the issue is what risks are worth it. Occasional sex with one’s spouse with a condom carriers a nonzero, but very low, risk of transmission.

For this woman, that’s a risk not worth it.And assuming the husband caught HIV through drug or sexual activity, he’s not someone I’d trust with my well being anyway.

 

[tjm190]

For this woman, that’s a risk not worth it.And assuming the husband caught HIV through drug or sexual activity, he’s not someone I’d trust with my well being anyway.

How do you know what is an is not worth it? The odds of transmission from a sex act without a condom are below .1%, and a condom reduces this to below .01%.

If this woman can’t trust this man, they have no business being married to begin with.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

How do you know what is an is not worth it? The odds of transmission from a sex act without a condom are below .1%, and a condom reduces this to below .01%.

If this woman can’t trust this man, they have no business being married to begin with.

Well, they definitely have no business having sex together.

 

[Debora123]

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.

Well that’s just silly.

 

[Debora123]

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.

AMEN