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

[davidv]

Well that’s just silly.

How so?

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

I know it’s not Politically Correct to point out, but the odds for a man to get AIDS in heterosexual intercourse is very, very low. Odds are the husband hasn’t just cheated, he’s done so very frequently and has probably engaged in sodomy. So, unless the wife has a good understanding of how he became infected, she shouldn’t trust him to use the condoms effectively, even if she has no objection against condoms.

My opinion, she would be gambling with her life for a man who doesn’t deserve it.

 

[JMAquinas]

YES! A man who has HIV can use condoms w/ a post menopausal wife, or even a wife who could bear children. Everyone seems to be missing the Church’s teachings on the elements of a moral act. First is the “object chosen,” followed by the “intent” and then the circumstances. In this case the object chosen is placing a barrier during sexual intercourse to prevent the spread of AIDS and death of the wife. Pope Benedict made news a few months ago by commenting on this topic, and said that condoms could be used in certain situations (i.e. to prevent the spread of AIDS). This is NOT a change in the Church’s teachings, it is simply an application of natural law principles.

There are still things that can never be the “object chosen,” like the intentional killing of an innocent human being. But suppose suppose a woman has a terminally cancerous uterus in which an unborn baby is developing. It would NOT be immoral for a doctor to remove the womb (thereby causing the death of the fetus) so long as the object chosen was the removal of the cancerous womb. Abortion of course would not qualify for this since the object chosen is the willful killing of the unborn fetus.

These are basic concepts that sadly many people on this forum (including individuals with thousands of posts) have not picked up. :newidea:

 

[GraceDK]

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.

Conception or union is not the question here…

The man has HIV. If he loves his wife he will never sleep with her again.
Love doesn’t put another person at risk. If she gets infected her sickness and death is on his conscience.

 

[Eric_Peter]

Pope Benedict made news a few months ago by commenting on this topic, and said that condoms could be used in certain situations (i.e. to prevent the spread of AIDS).

I tried googling on the Pope’s actual speech text (English translation, of course) but failed. Is there anyone who can help me with this?

I think what you have read is the twisted interpretation by many others, by twisting and putting words to the Pope’s mouth. Things like these are comment. Just that the professional journalist got heard more. non-journalist got heard less.

 

[Willy_Jose]

YES! A man who has HIV can use condoms w/ a post menopausal wife, or even a wife who could bear children. Everyone seems to be missing the Church’s teachings on the elements of a moral act. First is the “object chosen,” followed by the “intent” and then the circumstances. In this case the object chosen is placing a barrier during sexual intercourse to prevent the spread of AIDS and death of the wife. Pope Benedict made news a few months ago by commenting on this topic, and said that condoms could be used in certain situations (i.e. to prevent the spread of AIDS). This is NOT a change in the Church’s teachings, it is simply an application of natural law principles.

There are still things that can never be the “object chosen,” like the intentional killing of an innocent human being. But suppose suppose a woman has a terminally cancerous uterus in which an unborn baby is developing. It would NOT be immoral for a doctor to remove the womb (thereby causing the death of the fetus) so long as the object chosen was the removal of the cancerous womb. Abortion of course would not qualify for this since the object chosen is the willful killing of the unborn fetus.

These are basic concepts that sadly many people on this forum (including individuals with thousands of posts) have not picked up. :newidea:

People are not missing the Church’s teachings on the elements of a moral act, we just interpret them differently. You claim that “the object chosen is placing a barrier during sexual intercourse to prevent the spread of AIDS and death of the wife”. I beg to disagree and claim otherwise that the object is condomistic intercourse. Investigating the intention and the circumstances will not change the fact that condomistic intercourse is against natural law.

AS for the Pope’s statements, I thought this has already been extensively covered ad nauseam. The Pope said that the use of condom in those cases is a first step in the realization of responsibility. No matter how we read it, the Pope’s statements cannot be construed as a justification for the use of condoms as a morally good act. It is a first step.…oh, well.

I have no issue on your second paragraph and would agree wholeheartedly, but it has no real bearing on the issue at hand.

Lastly, the number of posts by commenters to not have any relation at all to the strength of their arguments. Individual comments should stand on their own merits, no matter if the poster has thousands upon thousands of posts to his credit. (or a single one in your case).

 

[Vico]

I tried googling on the Pope’s actual speech text (English translation, of course) but failed. Is there anyone who can help me with this?

I think what you have read is the twisted interpretation by many others, by twisting and putting words to the Pope’s mouth. Things like these are comment. Just that the professional journalist got heard more. non-journalist got heard less.

What Pope Benedict XVI said is in the interview-book Light of the World.

CDF – Note on the banalization of sexuality Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World":

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

 

[Vico]

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.

The form of conjugal act which the right to is granted in the marital covenant, is apt for the creation of children. This form of the conjugal act is not dependent upon fertility of the couple individually or together in use of the act. The right is distinct from the use of the right.

 

[prstoessel]

YES! A man who has HIV can use condoms w/ a post menopausal wife, or even a wife who could bear children. Everyone seems to be missing the Church’s teachings on the elements of a moral act. First is the “object chosen,” followed by the “intent” and then the circumstances. In this case the object chosen is placing a barrier during sexual intercourse to prevent the spread of AIDS and death of the wife. Pope Benedict made news a few months ago by commenting on this topic, and said that condoms could be used in certain situations (i.e. to prevent the spread of AIDS). This is NOT a change in the Church’s teachings, it is simply an application of natural law principles.

The Pope never said that about the use of condoms. He only made the observation that if someone (using a male prostitute as an example) uses a condom, it shows that the individual may be having a moral awakening, and ONLY is a first step.

Of course the news media immediately took off with this as saying the Pope now approves condoms. Never get your news on the Catholic Church from the mainstream media.

The couple must abstain.

 

[da_nolo]

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.

if no one else has stated it, condoms don’t protect you completely against HIV, and there are different forms of transmitted diseases which the condom can not protect anyone for anything.

here’s why…
one: condoms only cover a portion of the penis, yet many disease may be transmitted from other surfaces.

two: all condoms have holes to allow air movement, otherwise it’s like suffocating that portion of your body and is unhealthy. countless diseases (among HIV) may pass through those holes.

so using a condom may work a few times, but ultimately every time they would have sex is a risk that she may still contract HIV.

 

[da_nolo]

YES!

NO!
I mentioned in another post and will do so again…condoms do not protect 100% against HIV and other stds. so it’s rather pointless trying to play russian roulette with the wife.

Pope Benedict made news a few months ago by commenting on this topic.

This was touched on by another, hope you read it.

There are still things that can never be the “object chosen,” like the intentional killing of an innocent human being. But suppose a woman has a terminally cancerous uterus in which an unborn baby is developing. It would NOT be immoral for a doctor to remove the womb (thereby causing the death of the fetus) so long as the object chosen was the removal of the cancerous womb. Abortion of course would not qualify for this since the object chosen is the willful killing of the unborn fetus.

this situation you mentioned is incorrect. it is only acceptable to have an abortion if both the mother’s and baby’s life is at risk, and saving the baby’s life would still result in his/her death as well as the mother vs. the mother may at least be saved. since there are countless new technologies and services within the medical field. the above reason for abortion is shrinking.