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

[SpiritMeadow]

In the Catholic world we are not talking about using condoms or other forms of contraception since they are not permitted.

And Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about losing sight of the reason for the law in persuit of following the law rigidly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You don’t have to question - if condoms are in the picture, the Church has told us that this is not what God wants. Where is the confusion? Dissident theologians aside, the Holy Spirit has been quite clear on the matter…

The Pharisees said as much to Jesus

 

[Seatuck]

And Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about losing sight of the reason for the law in persuit of following the law rigidly.

Jesus wouldn’t want us to lose sight of the meaning of the marital act. Condomistic sex destroys that meaning. Jesus came to fulfill the law perfectly and encourages us to do the same. God’s law is written on all our hearts and in the use of our bodies. We cannot corrupt the use of our bodies by using condoms in the marital act.

 

[mattkubes]

The Pharisees said as much to Jesus

Understood, but we can’t pit one part of scripture against another. If Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit would be with His Church until the end of time, you can’t reconcile your view with His words (short of proclaiming yourself Pope or stating that the Holy Spirit was in error I suppose…).

John 6 shows us that, when confronted with Truth that doesn’t sit well with us, we may be tempted to walk away - but our job is to trust that Jesus has “the words of eternal life” and that when we hear His vicar, we hear Him.

God Bless,
Matt

 

[Dale_M]

If Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit would be with His Church until the end of time, you can’t reconcile your view with His words (short of proclaiming yourself Pope or stating that the Holy Spirit was in error I suppose…).

It is possible to say, not that the Holy Spirit is in error, but that the official Church position isn’t in tune with the Holy Spirit. Certainly several bishops and cardinals have spoken in favor of allowing condoms for persons with HIV. These leaders of the Church listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, as do ordinary members of the Church.

 

[Magicsilence]

It is possible to say, not that the Holy Spirit is in error, but that the official Church position isn’t in tune with the Holy Spirit. Certainly several bishops and cardinals have spoken in favor of allowing condoms for persons with HIV. These leaders of the Church listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, as do ordinary members of the Church.

Please, this is just rubbish.

If the ‘official Church teaching’ isn’t in tune with the Holy Spirit, we might as well not have a Church.

Sometimes, the issues surrounding morality take time to be clarified (think circumcision), but the Church has been very clear on this subject since the introduction of ABC.

Rogue bishops have no more ‘claim’ to inspiration of the Holy Spirit than the Pope or the councils which have met, debated these issues, and made a proclamation to the people of the Church.

 

[mattkubes]

Please, this is just rubbish.

Thank you for calling a spade a spade. If we can’t be sure that the official Church teaching is in line with the Holy Spirit, we would be silly to follow any of it. No, the Church would have imploded long ago if that was the way things worked.

 

[Dale_M]

Rogue bishops have no more ‘claim’ to inspiration of the Holy Spirit than the Pope or the councils which have met, debated these issues, and made a proclamation to the people of the Church.

Indeed. The presumption would be against anyone who makes a claim contrary to the official Church teaching. Going against what is official isn’t something which should be done lightly or with an easy conscience.

But there is concern at high levels over forbidding the use of condoms for married couples in which one is infected. The pope requested that the Pontifical Council on Health Care prepare a study of the matter. This report was submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith late in 2006 It, in turn, was expected to report directly to Pope Benedict, but no reaction from the Pope ever came.

 

[mattkubes]

But there is concern at high levels over forbidding the use of condoms for married couples in which one is infected. The pope requested that the Pontifical Council on Health Care prepare a study of the matter. This report was submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith late in 2006 It, in turn, was expected to report directly to Pope Benedict, but no reaction from the Pope ever came.

To me, this is exactly what happened before Humanae Vitae was issued - people were sure that Church teaching would change…it was a reasonable assumption for the time. Why else was Pope Paul 6 studying the issue? The recommendations from pontifical councils were clear; the screams from the mob even more so.

No, I think that this is just like the case in Humanae Vitae - the world (including many Catholics) hold a position that is contrary to Church teaching and are screaming for things to change. It has always been the Pope’s job at times like these to ask questions, initiate studies, and ultimately uphold constant Church teaching. Pope B16 knows that the ends does not justify the means. I don’t see any reason to speculate that he would allow such an obvious break with Catholic morality (which represents Truth, let’s at least be sure of that).

The Truth is a burden - but if we accept it with our eyes fixed on Calvary, we’ve been guaranteed to find the burden light.

 

[Seatuck]

It should probably be noted that the spouses are not required to render the marital obligation under this situation. Serious health issue is justification to withold the marital act.

 

[jcoldc]

This is an intersting topic, I thought about after watching Rent. I think that for the argument of not having children because of their exposure to HIV, I agree with those who have mentioned that medical breakthroughs have seriously reduced babies contracting the virus. Also with regards to lumping HIV/AIDS folks in with Tay Sachs carriers etc., doesn’t work. Genetic disease carriers could practice NFP. With AIDS, you can’t practice NFP. Getting pregnant is the least of their concerns (IMHO), since babies have a serious fighting chance at not contracting HIV. (Besides, doesn’t GOD create life? Who says He doesn’t want an HIV baby in the world? Maybe he won’t let them get pregnant? Maybe they’ll find a cure in a few years? Who are we to know?) The problem is the part where sex at any time could result in infection. And in case it wasn’t mentioned, even if both have HIV, they can keep reinfecting each other, which is bad.

I think this is a more complex issue. I read from an apologist on this website that the church does not disapprove of the use of the pill for medical reasons. The fact that it would prevent pregnancy is a side effect. (I guess it’s likened to a hysterectomy.) Granted the pill wouldn’t help in this case, but the use of a condom is much more likely to be used medically to prevent disease than to prevent a pregnancy. Remember, the marital act is procreative AND unitive. (I’m not saying that it should necessarily be permitted. I don’t really know what to think. Good thing I’m not the pope). Just making an argument.

If the vatican is looking into the issue, it at least says it’s not exactly cut and dry as some on this thread are implying. Maybe there won’t be a “special circumstances” handed down. But at least it’s known that it’s a complex situation.

My prayers to those dealing with this issue.

 

[Joe_5859]

If they both have HIV, why would they need to use a condom?

I admit, that’s the first thing that came to my mind as well. If both of them already have HIV, they can’t get any more infected than they already are.

Look, I dunno about y’all, but I ain’t having sex with a HIV/aids infected lady if they give me *TEN condoms *to use.

So I dunno what all the fuss is about.

And this answers the question about those cases where only one spouse has HIV. In addition, if I were the one with HIV, I don’t think I could, in good conscience, take the chance of infecting my wife. Even if I used a condom, the chance still exists. Imagine how you would feel if your spouse became infected, and you knew it was your fault. No thanks!

 

[mattkubes]

I think this is a more complex issue. I read from an apologist on this website that the church does not disapprove of the use of the pill for medical reasons. The fact that it would prevent pregnancy is a side effect. (I guess it’s likened to a hysterectomy.) Granted the pill wouldn’t help in this case, but the use of a condom is much more likely to be used medically to prevent disease than to prevent a pregnancy. Remember, the marital act is procreative AND unitive. (I’m not saying that it should necessarily be permitted. I don’t really know what to think. Good thing I’m not the pope). Just making an argument.

This is a nice thought, but it misses the mark. You cannot make the pill analogous to condoms; the equivalent to the pill in this scenario is the medical ‘cocktail’ that is given to treat the patient (now if these cocktails had the side effect of sterility, things would be different). But condoms are not used in any situation as a treatment, so your point is invalid (though honest) from the start. In fact, the only thing that condoms “treat” is the HIV infected person’s call to chastity.

If the vatican is looking into the issue, it at least says it’s not exactly cut and dry as some on this thread are implying. Maybe there won’t be a “special circumstances” handed down. But at least it’s known that it’s a complex situation.

I also think this is an invalid assumption. It has always been the Pop’s role to look into an issue when millions of Catholics (including Bishops) dissent from Church teaching. From the Divinity of Christ at Trent to the screams for artificial birth control in the 60s, the vatican always looked into these issues and only made them more clear…that’s not to say that the outcome was what the majority wanted to hear.