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

[GWright]

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!

Its a nonsensical question really. Someone who is HIV+, or has full blown AIDS, should not be having sexual intercourse with anyone, condoms or not, spouse or not. Quite simply the common need to minimise contagious disease in society, particularly if incurable, is over-riding.

Condoms are not 100% effective against STDs. So the uninfected partner WILL get HIV eventually.

It is deeply irresponsible and selfish to knowingly propagate, or even risk propagating, incurable disease in society. Health services cannot deal with an infinite amount of HIV, globally or regionally.

Also, a healthy person sleeping with a HIV+ person is not showing respect for their body, to risk its health in such a way.

And the infected partner needs the uninfected to remain in good health, so they can act as a carer, should their own health deteriorate through HIV/AIDS.

Its a bit like asking - if someone was going to shoot themselves in the head, should they wear a crash helmet?

 

[GWright]

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

Hi Dale,

Surely abstinence is the more realistic/sensible choice than putting people on drugs to only lower their chance of getting HIV?

Quite apart from religion, would general taxpayers recognise large amounts of antiviral medicine, so people can sleep with HIV+ partners at lower risk, as a priority for their tax dollars?

 

[thistle]

The topic is about a couple getting married with one of them having HIV/AIDS and can they use condoms.
Why are we debating the effectiveness or not of condoms. That is not relevant.
The answer is that the use of condoms by married couples is forbidden whether it is to prevent pregnancy or disease.

 

[Dale_M]

The topic is about a couple getting married with one of them having HIV/AIDS and can they use condoms.
Why are we debating the effectiveness or not of condoms. That is not relevant.
The answer is that the use of condoms by married couples is forbidden whether it is to prevent pregnancy or disease.

I think you make a good point.

About a year ago, Pope Benedict made headlines when he stated in an interview book that condoms might be permissible in specific situations, such as a prostitute using a condom, if doing so was a first step towards accepting responsibility.

“There can be single justified cases,” Benedict said, “for example when a prostitute uses a condom, and this can be the first step toward a moralization, a first act of responsibility in developing anew an awareness of the fact that not everything is permissible and that we cannot do everything we want.”

“However,” he said, “this is not the best way to overcome the infection of HIV. It is really necessary to humanize sexuality.”

articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/21/world/la-fg-pope-condoms-20101121

The pope’s comments were (of course) misinterpreted by many, particularly in news reports, as saying that condoms for disease prevention were acceptable…which isn’t what he said.

 

[Dale_M]

Surely abstinence is the more realistic/sensible choice than putting people on drugs to only lower their chance of getting HIV?

I think the use of preventative medicine should only be used in conjunction with the infected spouse having a very low or undetectable viral load. The use of preventative medicine would be an additional safeguard.

I am not sure of the wisdom of long-term use of such drugs. However, for short periods in order to conceive a child or to relieve the burden of abstinence, I think a couple may want to consider the possibility… guided by the advice of their HIV physician.

 

[Koko81]

Thank you very much for answers.

One thing to be sure: Church DOSE NOT allow use of condom in ANY situation? Just to be sure.

I was not sure once, and actually was thinking that in case of described situation this would be possible.

I was thinking that its like with “pill” to treat hormonal imbalance, as long intentions is not contraception than its fine.

So in case of condom protection from disease (what about other STD’s??) is not an issue.

 

[ahs]

One thing to be sure: Church DOSE NOT allow use of condom in ANY situation? Just to be sure.

Correct! It’s never okay in ANY situation.

 

[thistle]

Thank you very much for answers.

One thing to be sure: Church DOSE NOT allow use of condom in ANY situation? Just to be sure.

I was not sure once, and actually was thinking that in case of described situation this would be possible.

I was thinking that its like with “pill” to treat hormonal imbalance, as long intentions is not contraception than its fine.

So in case of condom protection from disease (what about other STD’s??) is not an issue.

The only situation where use of a condom is allowed is to collect sperm for fertility analysis. However, such a condom is perforated to allow openness to life while still being able to collect a sample of sperm.

For prevention of pregnancy or ANY disease the use of condoms is forbidden.

 

[Hokomai]

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.

This assumes a probability of 1 for every act of unprotected sex. That’s a false assumption.

 

[Newbie2]

Thank you very much for answers.

One thing to be sure: Church DOSE NOT allow use of condom in ANY situation? Just to be sure.

.

Water balloons are OK.

One time a roomate in college brought home cases of expired condoms. We blew them up and ***filled ***our suitemate’s room with them.

I’ve also heard of them being used to cover the business end of a firearm when hunting during the rainy season.

Otherwise…no.

 

[manualman]

This assumes a probability of 1 for every act of unprotected sex. That’s a false assumption.

I’ve since been corrected on that and informed by Dale M that the literature assures people that condoms protect against HIV transmission at an average single use effectiveness rate of 99.9%.

From that, I traced out the probability that this means that over 3 years of a typical marriage that actually leads to a statistical probability of the spouse being infected at 27% chance ( 1 - (0.999^(3252))). I’m open to criticism of my analysis, of course.

I maintain that placing one’s spouse at significant risk of fatal disease is NOT an act of love.

Thistle, this IS relevant to the topic, because it demonstrates the rationality the underlies catholic moral teaching.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The fact that condoms have ANY chance whatsoever of breaking means that having sex in such a situation is irresponsible, reckless, and immoral.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Hi manualman & Dale_M .

… Kind of a funny thing that (my own percentage here) about 99 % of the sites I visited trying to find figures on transmission of HIV and its relation to condoms, all said that condoms are “highly effective”, but would not admit to them being “failsafe” and, even more importantly , would not provide a percentage as to just how “highly effective” they are …

… …Apparently, we can have “responsible sex” without having responsible condom manufacturers - ( yeah, right ) : Of course, anything less than 100% protection from STD’s would be bad for business, wouldn’t it ?

And I was searching for medical professionals first - not Church documentation.

So guys, please forgive me for providing a link to this site (because it appears this doctor promotes the use of condoms - big ugly pic of a condom box if you follow the link) but she looks to be high up there on the credibility scale.

Try these figures on for size (highlights mine):
Dr. Jen Gunter ; OB/GYN and a pain medicine physician ; author of the book:

“ … for those who don’t know about Cochrane reviews. In short, it’s a review of the medical literature only considering the highest quality evidenced based articles

… The Cochrane review looked at studies of “always” users, meaning for every act of vaginal penetration, and compared them with “never” users.

Based on the high quality studies in the Cochrane review, if 100 people have sex on a regular basis with a partner who is HIV positive, 5.75 will become HIV positive themselves after a year. Factors such as receptive anal intercourse and not taking antiretroviral medications will increase that risk (not covered in the Cochrane review, but well studied elsewhere).

People who use condoms all the time reduce their risk of getting HIV by 80% (so slightly less than I had been quoting), however** based on the studies condom effectiveness at preventing HIV could range anywhere from 35% to 94%."**

Here’s the link if someone thinks they really can’t live without it.

And of course, we’re talking specifically HIV here. If we’re talking herpes or HPV … forget it:dts:
no link for now - it comes from one of those "highly effective" sites:

But even with correct condom use, diseases like herpes and HPV can be transmitted because they appear on skin surrounding the genitalia.

That one kills me a bit guys … “correct condom use” …an oxymoron for sure.

One more with a link:
Sydney Morning Herald ;Pell backs Pope in saying condoms worsen AIDS spread:

Read more: smh.com.au/world/pell-backs-pope-in-saying-condoms-worsen-aids-spread-20090410-a2u0.html#ixzz1egzuku3e

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, made use of one of the holiest days in the Christian calendar yesterday to support the Pope’s controversial claim that condoms worsen the spread of HIV and AIDS.

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney said on morning television yesterday that condoms “encourage promiscuity” and were not the solution to the AIDS epidemic.

“The idea that you can solve a great spiritual and health crisis like AIDS with a few mechanical contraptions like condoms is ridiculous,” he said on Sky News.

 

[manualman]

…One woman in another post said her doctor prescribed birth control pills for her because her cramps were so excruciatingly bad…but the advice she was given here was that she could not take them, even though they’d alleviate the pain.
Was that not correct?
She can indeed take them?

The general principle is that if a hormone pill is prescribed to alleviate a medical issue, but happens to have the side effect of causing infertility, that is NOT contraception, as you said here.

My advice to such a person would be to try to find a doctor who is willing to figure out WHY she has such severe menstrual cramps rather than to submit to a perpetual dose of artificial hormones with a host of known (some severe) side effects. But that’s a medical prudential judgement, not a moral one. And she should examine her conscience to be sure that she isn’t secretly rationalizing the need for the hormone pill because she really WANTS the contraceptive side effect. The human capacity for rationalization is a powerful thing. That’s how we got all sorts of apalling things in history: human sacrifice, slavery, nazis, etc. Never underestimate your power of rationalization.

 

[quiet52]

The general principle is that if a hormone pill is prescribed to alleviate a medical issue, but happens to have the side effect of causing infertility, that is NOT contraception, as you said here.

My advice to such a person would be to try to find a doctor who is willing to figure out WHY she has such severe menstrual cramps rather than to submit to a perpetual dose of artificial hormones with a host of known (some severe) side effects. But that’s a medical prudential judgement, not a moral one. And she should examine her conscience to be sure that she isn’t secretly rationalizing the need for the hormone pill because she really WANTS the contraceptive side effect. The human capacity for rationalization is a powerful thing. That’s how we got all sorts of apalling things in history: human sacrifice, slavery, nazis, etc. Never underestimate your power of rationalization.

There is a moral issue not yet mentioned, concerning Catholic women taking hormone pills for medical persons. If she is married (and thus presumably sexually active), her pills must not contain abortifacients.

 

[Koko81]

Thank you very much for answers