Condom Usage Among Married Couples Where One Or Both Has AIDS/HIV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hi everyone. I am in a debate on another forum about the use of condoms by married couples where one or both partners has HIV/AIDS. I am arguing that condom usage is not acceptable even in this case because condoms leave the sex act closed to life and the sex act must be open to life. Could you all please help me out? I am particularly needing an authoritative reference from the Vatican or the Magisterium or something that says that the sex act must be open to life. Thanks!

I’ll keep you updated on the debate as needed. 🙂
 
The Catechism (Sixth Commandment) clearly states every marital act must be unitive and procreative as does the encyclical Humanae Vitae.
 
Are the people you are debating with Catholic?
2366:
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life"150 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."152
Click to expand...
Here is the relevant section.

The people you are debating against will likely bring up the Principle of Double Effect, but that only applies when the action is not inherently sinful. Blocking the procreative aspect of sex is.
 
Caesar517 said:
Are the people you are debating with Catholic?

Here is the relevant section.

The people you are debating against will likely bring up the Principle of Double Effect, but that only applies when the action is not inherently sinful. Blocking the procreative aspect of sex is.
Click to expand...
Yes, the people that I am debating with are Catholic. Really, it is only one person who objected to what I said. This person is a more liberal Catholic.
 
It should be mentioned that Condom’s are not 100% effective against transmission.

It defies logic that one would be willing to risk their life, just for a few moments of “pleasure.”
 
Holly3278 said:
Yes, the people that I am debating with are Catholic. Really, it is only one person who objected to what I said. This person is a more liberal Catholic.
Click to expand...
In such cases, they would be called to celibacy. One infected with HIV has a moral duty to stop the spread of the illness. In fact, several have been prosecuted and imprisoned for knowingly spreading HIV.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
It should be mentioned that Condom’s are not 100% effective against transmission.

It defies logic that one would be willing to risk their life, just for a few moments of “pleasure.”
Click to expand...
No doubt God would wish they don’t live as husband and wife. yes, that helps a marriage a good deal. :eek:
 
“Honey, I love you enough to reduce your risk ot being infected, but I’m not willing to protect you 100%. My need for sex comes before your health.”
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. I am in a debate on another forum about the use of condoms by married couples where one or both partners has HIV/AIDS. I am arguing that condom usage is not acceptable even in this case because condoms leave the sex act closed to life and the sex act must be open to life. Could you all please help me out? I am particularly needing an authoritative reference from the Vatican or the Magisterium or something that says that the sex act must be open to life. Thanks!

I’ll keep you updated on the debate as needed. 🙂
Click to expand...
If one or both have HIV/AIDS then they should abstain from sex, i.e. live a life of continence.
 
thistle said:
If one or both have HIV/AIDS then they should abstain from sex, i.e. live a life of continence.
Click to expand...
The church does not require them to abstain. They may of course but they are not morally obligated to do so. I agree with you that it is wise and prudent to do so, though.
 
Seatuck said:
The church does not require them to abstain. They may of course but they are not morally obligated to do so. I agree with you that it is wise and prudent to do so, though.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with this position. They must abstain! If both or one have HIV and they conceive child , the child will more than likely be born HIV positive. What gives anyone the right to risk a child’s life? :mad:
Let them do penance for putting themselves at risk and getting HIV. No sex would be the perfect penance.
When you are life threateningly ill and your spouse as well it would be completely irresponsible to deliberately create a potentially very sick child. :eek:
 
maria_rose said:
I completely disagree with this position. They must abstain! If both or one have HIV and they conceive child , the child will more than likely be born HIV positive. What gives anyone the right to risk a child’s life? :mad:
Let them do penance for putting themselves at risk and getting HIV. No sex would be the perfect penance.
When you are life threateningly ill and your spouse as well it would be completely irresponsible to deliberately create a potentially very sick child. :eek:
Click to expand...
Maria Rose, this is kind of judgemental. Not everyone who gets it puts themselves at risk for HIV . There are medical personnel who get it and there are blood transfusions that sometimes transmit it. I’m really disappointed that you chose to phrase your response with this attitude and the obvious feeling they should not be punished. Fortunately , in the end it is God and not you who will decide our punishment.

This still doesn’t change the church position. The marital act is considered a “good” of marriage and the church does not require this couple to abstain. The church recognizes the right of a healthy partner to defend themselves against mortal danger but in the end leaves it up to the couple to decide.

You obviously have your opinion on how you would want to handle it in your marriage. That is your perogative.
 
Seatuck said:
Maria Rose, this is kind of judgemental. Not everyone who gets it puts themselves at risk for HIV . There are medical personnel who get it and there are blood transfusions that sometimes transmit it. I’m really disappointed that you chose to phrase your response with this attitude and the obvious feeling they should not be punished. Fortunately , in the end it is God and not you who will decide our punishment.

This still doesn’t change the church position. The marital act is considered a “good” of marriage and the church does not require this couple to abstain. The church recognizes the right of a healthy partner to defend themselves against mortal danger but in the end leaves it up to the couple to decide.

You obviously have your opinion on how you would want to handle it in your marriage. That is your perogative.
Click to expand...
I agree not everyone gets it by intentionally putting themselves at risk, but most are. My point strictly pertained to the potential child. No one has the right to children , they are a God given privilege which to me is abused when you knowingly create a seriously ill child because you have AIDS/HIV. How the adults got the desease doesn’t matter as much as them having to abstain in order not to pass a deathly illness on. It’s called the higher good.
PAX!
 
kage_ar said:
Believe it or not, the sacrifices we make for our spouses are blessed by God.
Click to expand...
I agree. But this is quite another thing entirely. That two people should sacrifice their marital relationship because of a ban on using a condom is quite a different thing. I question whether this is what God wants. Since both effectively deny any possible procreation, do you really think God splits hairs in this fashion? This does nothing but drive people apart. To be realistic of course, I can’t imagine that many couples would reach such a conclusion in the first place. These bizarre threads always seem to be the creation of rather inventive minds here.
 
KCT said:
“Honey, I love you enough to reduce your risk ot being infected, but I’m not willing to protect you 100%. My need for sex comes before your health.”
Click to expand...
Your conclusion that only the one party is forcing the issue is not necessarily the case. A couple armed with the careful and specific information provided by their doctor may well mutually conclude that the risk of infection are slim and that they need not give up what is to most a most important aspect of married life. Your attempt to paint it in some evil selfish manner is not necessarily the case.
 
maria_rose said:
I agree not everyone gets it by intentionally putting themselves at risk, but most are. My point strictly pertained to the potential child. No one has the right to children , they are a God given privilege which to me is abused when you knowingly create a seriously ill child because you have AIDS/HIV. How the adults got the desease doesn’t matter as much as them having to abstain in order not to pass a deathly illness on. It’s called the higher good.
PAX!
Click to expand...
And still the church does not agree with you that the couple must morally abstain. By your way of thinking couples who have the possiblility of passing along genetic defects should abstain.
 
Seatuck said:
And still the church does not agree with you that the couple must morally abstain. By your way of thinking couples who have the possiblility of passing along genetic defects should abstain.
Click to expand...
wrong ! with genetic defects you don’t know if they are dominant or recessive so the3 chances are not that high.But with one or both parties having AIDS/HIV it is almost dead certain that the child will have the disease.
What about the inalienable right of the child to be born healthy and the parents’ responsibility to do all they can to make that happen. Yes, genetic diseases happen, but they strike pretty random.
I, in case you are interested , have two sons with Autism. A fluke of biology.
Autism, Downs et all except a few are not a death sentence, HIV/AIDS is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top