Codom in Catholic marriage - one person with HIV/AIDS?

[Koko81]

Praised be Lord Jesus Christ,

Here is some issue. There is marriage (or it’s going to be) and one of spouses is carrying HIV or is sic on AIDS. They are Catholics.

Will use of condom be excused in that marriage?

We can develop discussion more, since that issue is coming back in my discussion ALL THE TIME.

God be with you!

 

[Castello]

If my husband had a deadly disease, he loves me to much to trust a bit of laytex to protect me from it.

They are morally wrong as well.

 

[followingtheway]

I usually hate being shallow and don’t discriminate against spouses but why would anyone want to marry someone with an STD in the first place? If you can’t have sex with them anyway doesn’t that take away both the unitive and procreative functions of marriage?

 

[VonDerTann]

followingtheway, you write:

“…why would anyone want to marry someone with an STD in the first place?”

–Let’s say spouse X gets HIV from a blood transfusion or some other way (i.e., an HIV positive nutjob spits on them or whatever).

What about that situation?

 

[manualman]

The actual, as used track record for condoms in pregnancy prevention is sketchy, at best. I’ve no experience, but it seems its rather easy to goof it up. And that’s for PREGNANCY which can only happen a few days a month. One wonders just how good it would be at long term prevention of HIV transmission, which can happen anytime.

A little handy math. Let’s grant that a condom, (for discussion I’m making this figure up) as actually used protects 99% of the time (not likely that it’s really that good). Let’s also presume our newlyweds average lovemaking 2 times a week for a year (rather a low count for newlyweds, eh?). The chance of the spouse NOT getting HIV transmission after that year is 0.99 to the 104th power = 35%. In other words, that’s a 65% chance of giving your spouse AIDS after one year of marriage. After 2 years, that increases to 88%. 3 years=96%. This is statistics 101.

What’s the definition of love again? Sacrificing yourself for the sake of the beloved. If you are HIV positive, your only loving option is abstinance. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any way around it. Playing Russian Roulette with your beloved is not love.

 

[MrZosimus]

Well, my understanding is that birth control can sometimes be allowed if it is required for some other important health reason and contraception is not the reason for use of it, so condom usage could possibly be justified for similar reasons in this case(though I’m not entirely sure). I think the point people have been making, however, is that condoms are not completely effective in preventing disease transmission, so there would still be a large risk of passing on the disease, especially over the entire course of the marriage. So even if it is morally permissible to use condoms, abstinence would still be the better means of preventing the spread of the disease.

 

[SonCatcher]

Spouses facing that situation are called to permanent continence (never having marital reations). It is exceedingly difficult for couples who find themselves in that situation after they are already married. Actively choosing such a marriage must be even more difficult.

 

[manualman]

…So I’m going to guess that, as always, the Catholic church teaching will be that if they have sex, they cannot use a condom *no matter what. *
Even if it means it might be giving the spouse a deadly virus that will kill him/her in a terrible way.

Right?

Classic case of false dilemma. You MUST choose:
A. Have sex and die of disease.
B. Have sex and use a condom and MAYBE prevent the spread.

Apparently you never considered the possibility that true love (desiring the best outcome for the beloved) demands abstinance in this case. Option C.

 

[SonCatcher]

Well, my understanding is that birth control can sometimes be allowed if it is required for some other important health reason and contraception is not the reason for use of it, so condom usage could possibly be justified for similar reasons in this case(though I’m not entirely sure). I think the point people have been making, however, is that condoms are not completely effective in preventing disease transmission, so there would still be a large risk of passing on the disease, especially over the entire course of the marriage. So even if it is morally permissible to use condoms, abstinence would still be the better means of preventing the spread of the disease.

That is only applicable to licit medicinal use. For example, a woman who uses hormonal therapy that also happens to be birth control (i.e. the Pill) to control endometriosis.

 

[frteatao]

Shalom.

The use of condom is clear by Catholics. It is morally evil. In this particular case, the patner should live joyfully without ‘expressing their love’. If the patner is definitely sure of this deadly sickness, (because in one case one man make up the story to bring burden on his ‘brother’) he/she has to avoid the danger of the patner’s death.

God bless.

 

[manualman]

…wives whose doctors have said if she gets pregnant again, it will kill her…even if it’s for another reason, like a woman was told to use the pill for bleeding and cramps that make her pass out it is so painful…

And btw, whoever told you this was misinformed or you misunderstood. Women who have an actual medical condition (the body is malffunctioning) are morally permitted to use medications to attempt to alleviate those symptoms and correct the problem (sounds like you might be talking about PCOS). They are wise if they look beyond drug company dependency and see if the doctor can find a way to heal the condition rather than just suppress the symptoms, but if that is the best they can do, it is fine. This isn’t contraception, regardless of what pill it happens to be. Contraception is when people take pills or operations that take a PROPERLY functioning fertile system and intentionally make it MALfunction for the express purpose of avoiding pregnancy. That’s never morally acceptable, even if it comes with good sounding reasons.

 

[Dale_M]

A little handy math. Let’s grant that a condom, (for discussion I’m making this figure up) as actually used protects 99% of the time (not likely that it’s really that good). Let’s also presume our newlyweds average lovemaking 2 times a week for a year (rather a low count for newlyweds, eh?). The chance of the spouse NOT getting HIV transmission after that year is 0.99 to the 104th power = 35%. .

That number is based on a faulty assumption: that HIV is transmitted every time there is an exposure. In fact, the risk of transmission per coital act is much lower, around 1/10th what you estimated.
thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673600043312/fulltext/

Moreover, the risk of transmission is very dependent on the viral load carried by the infected partner. If the viral load is undetectable, due to effective treatment of medicine, the risk of transmission is negligible. For couples where one partner is infected but other other is now, the risks can be minimized and safe sexual relations possible.

 

[Koko81]

I would say the same, that being sick on deadly disease putting a spouse into THE SAME DEADLY risk, and condom is not preventing it in 100%.

For me is quite simple…

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Classic case of false dilemma. You MUST choose:
A. Have sex and die of disease.
B. Have sex and use a condom and MAYBE prevent the spread.

Apparently you never considered the possibility that true love (desiring the best outcome for the beloved) demands abstinance in this case. Option C.

Amen.

 

[vera_dicere]

We all have our crosses to bear. Some are heavier than others. Take for example the individuals afflicted with SSA. They can likely never marry - unless they can find a “cure” for themselves. They can likely never be a priest. They must live a sexless life. A burden indeed. However the rewards for them on the other side of life will be great!

The married couple, one with HIV infection, will truly be under a great deal of stress and heart ache. But true love is about sacrifice. Condoms are not ideal protection against HIV. The HIV is actually smaller than the bonds in latex. Meaning, theres a good shot it can slip through, and condoms have a failure rate of about 50% over ten years.

The majority strands of HIV are now no longer as vicious as they used to be. A person can live a long and healthy life with this virus as long as they take their medication. There’s evidence that a lot of people in the male SSA community are not affraid of HIV anymroe because its essentially a chronic disease.

AIDS on the other hand, well, those people with AIDS are incredibly sick, I can’t quite see them placing sex at the top of their pirority list.

Pregnancy can be protected by various medication that stops the virus crossing the placenta, I think its about 80 - 90% efficacy.

End of the day, there are actually WORSE things out there than HIV, things that kill quicker, and probably in a lot worse ways.

This society has become so saturated by sexual lusts that instead of thinking about love between this couple, we try and find ways to justify sex between them when it might not be a good idea.

 

[thistle]

Praised be Lord Jesus Christ,

Here is some issue. There is marriage (or it’s going to be) and one of spouses is carrying HIV or is sic on AIDS. They are Catholics.

Will use of condom be excused in that marriage?

We can develop discussion more, since that issue is coming back in my discussion ALL THE TIME.

God be with you!

Frankly, you have given us far too little information.

In my opinion, if the couple is getting married with the express intention of committing a mortal sin by only having sexual relations using condoms then I would be surprised if the priest would agree to that. The use of condoms is forbidden under all situations whether it is to prevent pregnancy or disease.

Even those persons without disease cannot (I think) easily enter marriage intending not to be open to life at all.

Can. 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

 

[manualman]

That number is based on a faulty assumption: that HIV is transmitted every time there is an exposure. In fact, the risk of transmission per coital act is much lower, around 1/10th what you estimated.

For the sake of argument, I’ll take your word for it and we’ll assume just for discussion that condoms combined with other treatment for HIV virus supression makes sex 99.9% effective at transmission prevention. Same couple, lovemaking 2x/week long term over 3 years = 312 events. 0.999 ^ 312 = 0.73.

IF this “safety” is true (and I’m not convinced actually), then the couple STILL has a 27% chance of transmitting the disease after 3 years. I ask again, is that what LOVE is?

 

[Newbie2]

If my husband had a deadly disease, he loves me to much to trust a bit of laytex to protect me from it.

They are morally wrong as well.

You mean using them is morally wrong, correct? A condom in itself is just a piece of latex and is quite morally neutral.

According to the posts i’ve seen here…my understanding is that, as a Catholic, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES is any sort of birth control to be used–EVER.

NO MATTER WHAT.

We’ve had postings here about wives whose doctors have said if she gets pregnant again, it will kill her…even if it’s for another reason, like a woman was told to use the pill for bleeding and cramps that make her pass out it is so painful…

So I’m going to guess that, as always, the Catholic church teaching will be that if they have sex, they cannot use a condom *no matter what. *
Even if it means it might be giving the spouse a deadly virus that will kill him/her in a terrible way.

Right?

NFP is birth control. Contraception is morally unacceptable.

Well, my understanding is that birth control can sometimes be allowed if it is required for some other important health reason and contraception is not the reason for use of it, so condom usage could possibly be justified for similar reasons in this case(though I’m not entirely sure). I think the point people have been making, however, is that condoms are not completely effective in preventing disease transmission, so there would still be a large risk of passing on the disease, especially over the entire course of the marriage. So even if it is morally permissible to use condoms, abstinence would still be the better means of preventing the spread of the disease.

This illustrates the principle of double effect. The action is the use of a medication for purposes of restoring health to the body. The effects are twofold; first, in the case of oral medication, changing the pathologic hormonal patterns in order to restore health and in the second, as a result of those changes, making the body unsuitable for conception and pregnancy.

The second effect, although predictable and undesirable, is acceptable under certain circumstances.

A condom, however, does not have a medically necessary function; one does not use one to treat disease. The contra-argument is that it prevents disease, but the key is that it is not necessary to prevent disease. Abstenance does that quite nicely, and is always 100% effective.

The question may be asked if condom use is intrinsically evil even in the face of sterility. For example, a woman has a hysterectomy and is permanently sterile. The couple, for whatever reason (say they simply like to use a condom for whatever weird reason) likes to use a condom. It is not sinful to use for the purposes of contraception; since conception is not possible, contraception is also not possible.

An argument could be made that a condom use in such a situation is contrary to the unitive nature of the marital act; a lack of total self-giving to one’s spouse. The contra-argument is that such a prohibition focuses simply on the direct genital-genital contact as the crucial thing that defines “unitive”.

 

[Leegal]

In a book, around this time last year, Pope Benedict XVIII said:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals,” he said, “as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be the first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.” I think that was amended to mean prostitutes in general because of the increasing spread of AIDS in Africa.

However, at a Conference held in May of this year, the Catholic Church has not moved off it’s condemnation of condoms use.

If as the Pope seems to suggest, that use of a condom in a sex act for sale, may be the first step toward moral responsibility leading to a realization that abstinance is the only course, it would seem that continued use of condoms in a marriage, a marriage that was performed while one is known to carry this disease, is not a step toward responsibility.

I would question the sacramental validity of such a marriage, even if conducted by a priest. First, the priest must be told. If one does not tell, then you have committed a sin of omission and the priest married the couple without full knowledge and disclosure.

Second, the disease would certainly restrain sexual relations which are the union of the couple who are open to procreation. Such an act, unprotected, could lead to unintended consequences for an innocent.

So abstinance would be the only answer both because condoms are not leading to the full responsibility which means abstinence.

But, to enter into a marriage with the knowledge that a disease will require abstinence is not a valid marriage either. While there are times a couple may abstain, this is a marriage that the disease requires complete and total abstinence in order to be fully responsible.

I think the priest will refuse to marry the couple. Remember, the use of condoms to avoid spreading HIV/AIDS is seen as a first step toward complete responsibibility in sexual matters.

 

[Dale_M]

For the sake of argument, I’ll take your word for it and we’ll assume just for discussion that condoms combined with other treatment for HIV virus supression makes sex 99.9% effective at transmission prevention.

There is no reason to simply take my word for it. I have already pointed to one study which stated, on average, the risk is 99.9%

But that figure is an average. Some couples are at greater risk, others at lesser risk. With proper treatment of the infected person, the risk can reduced greatly
washingtonpost.com/national/hiv-drugs-sharply-cut-risk-of-transmission-study-finds/2011/05/12/AFmFdV1G_story.html

Moreover, it is possible for the uninfected person to take anti-retroviral medicine which also lowers the risk.
cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/PrEPHeterosexuals.html

I ask again, is that what LOVE is?

Couples may decide they want to have a baby. Or the uninfected person may miss the physical intimacy and pressure the infected person. Whether or not the couple should engage in sex is a personal decision, and a highly individual one depending upon their medical circumstances. The risk posed to some couples may greater, and they should abstain. But that certainly isn’t true for all such couples.