Condom Usage When It Comes To AIDs/HIV

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. I am a member on Christian Forums. Anyway, I am currently dealing with a member in OBOB about condoms and AIDs or HIV. The debate came about as a result of a news article. This is the news article:

Toronto Catholic Cathedral Fundraiser to Support Condom-Pushing Effort in Africa

So basically she is saying that it is fine for Catholics to distribute condoms or contribute to condom distribution in a case like this. I strongly disagree as I believe that condom useage is always a sin and indeed, sometimes a mortal sin.

Basically what I am trying to figure out is I am trying to figure out if there has ever been an official stance by the Catholic Church on issues like this. I mean, the Church would indeed condemn condom usage even in a case like this right?

Anyway, if you want to help me out with my debate, feel free to go directly to my thread. However, if you aren’t registered first, you’ll probably just want to go to the index page of Christian Forums at christianforums.com/

christianforums.com/t2269575-toronto-catholic-cathedral-fundraiser-to-support-condom-pushing-effort-in-africa.html#post19604996

Thanks everyone!

 

[dafalax]

Condom use is always wrong, even in a marriage where one partner is infected. People get so up in arms about the thought of an abstinent marriage, but what is moral or good about telling some man or woman that they are obligated to put their lives at risk by having sex with their infected partner? Condoms fail 14% of the time in heterosexual sex, even more during homosexual sex because they weren’t designed for that. People are not animals in heat who can’t help having sex. I hate it when we treat people in developing countries like dogs that need to be fixed. Uganda was a success story with the only declining AIDS rate in Africa because the Catholic missionaries were succeeding in their abstinence only promotion. I heard the UN was getting their condom-y tentacles in on that, though, so it might be worse now. Anyway, sex is not a right, it is a privilege (otherwise, what’s wrong with rape?). And when you have contracted AIDS, you have a duty to not have sex with the uninfected because you endanger their lives when you do. Period.

 

[kaymart]

Say you are infected with pneumonia, you are highly contagious, do you have the right to go around and cough and sneeze on everyone, because you feel you can’t control the urge to cough or sneeze, even though you carry tissues, but some particals do not stay in the tissue, and someone else might get sick. A decent, caring person would stay away from others especially those at high risk. Same thing with AID’s HIV, herpes and other STD’s you simply stay away, in this case, it’s sex you stay away from, a condom is like a tissue with a person with a cold, it might work, but it dosen’t always. Besides that the sex act in this case, is cheapen to “animal urges” which is against teachings of the Catholic Church and you are bring another person into sin.

 

[Brendan]

To say that condoms are a solution to AIDS is like saying boxing gloves are a solution to spousal abuse.

Can anyone image the Church saying to a guy “You really shouldn’t beat her, but we understand that there are sometime where you just have to give in to the ‘urge’, so why don’t you just strap on these Everlasts first, it will help ‘protect’ her”

Someone who is infected with AIDS is doing just as much violence to their partner as if they slugged them, even with a condom on. Why should the Church condone that?

 

[1ke]

First it’s important to point out that a rogue hospital is NOT the same as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. And, by clearly contravening church teaching a smackdown from the bishop awaits them. Now that this has become public the bishop should take action (and hopefully will!!!).

There are many institutions that claim Catholicity and transgress church teaching. It’s unfortunate but it happens. However, that does not mean that they speak for the church.

The Church, of course, clearly teaches that contraception is intrinsically disordered and that condom usage in this instance is immoral. Here are some links that outline the Church’s true teaching:

cathnews.com/news/108/01.php

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2574

 

[Island_Oak]

Clearly this is a huge moral and medical challenge which the post here do little to address. What is not discussed all too often in the realm of abstinence policy discussions is that girls, not mature women, not women viewed as equal partners with their mates, but children are betrothed to much older men for marriage in many African countries. These children are by custom delivered over by their families to an older male who often continues to engage in sex with other women with no regard for the consequence of exposing his spouse to disease. In fact, one of the reasons the preference for children has become even stronger is that young girls are viewed as “safer” in that they are not infected, yet.

Applying an expectation of abstinence within marriage requires mutual commitment, maturity, self-discipline, unselfishness, support from social or moral traditions and comprehension of the disease process which causes infection in the first place. These conditions are not usually pervasive in rural, 3d world settings. That recognition does not equate to a suggestion that the uninformed are “animalistic.” But to ignore the limitations of education, culture, tradition and human nature is also foolhardy and in some case deadly.

That said, condom use is still no guarantee of freedom from disease, though research has demonstrated a reduction in disease levels when compared to unprotected sex. It is a vexing issue.

 

[AmISearching]

Isn’t the HIV virus so small that it can pass through condoms? (at least thats what we were taught at my Christian highschool that taught abstinance)

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

Applying an expectation of abstinence within marriage requires mutual commitment, maturity, self-discipline, unselfishness, support from social or moral traditions and comprehension of the disease process which causes infection in the first place. These conditions are not usually pervasive in rural, 3d world settings. That recognition does not equate to a suggestion that the uninformed are “animalistic.” But to ignore the limitations of education, culture, tradition and human nature is also foolhardy and in some case deadly.

Either there is consent or no consent. If there is consent, then one may not contracept. If there is no consent, then it is rape and there would be no discussion of contraception.

 

[dafalax]

In a society where it is common for older men to marry girls and cheat on them, thus putting themselves and their wives at risk, the solution is not condoms; it is getting through to these people in such a way that they realize if they have sex outside of marriage, they will die. It is a long process to change any aspect of a culture, but this is the right solution. If you throw condoms at these people, you are telling them to continue having promiscuous sex. When a condom inevitably fails, they will contract the virus and die. The problem with condoms is not so much the scientific aspects of them, but the psychological effect they have on people. When you tell them there’s such a thing as consequence free sex, they will have sex, protected and unprotected. That is why STD rates are through the roof anywhere condoms are promoted. So while in the meantime many young girls will continue to be exploited, working toward the right solution will eventually make this a rarity. Furthermore, i’d like to point out that a man who seeks sexual partners outside his marriage is already unlikely to care enough to use a condom to protect his wife at home. How can you say he respects her enough to protect her when he has already put her at risk by sleeping around?

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Brendan:

To say that condoms are a solution to AIDS is like saying boxing gloves are a solution to spousal abuse.

Can anyone image the Church saying to a guy “You really shouldn’t beat her, but we understand that there are sometime where you just have to give in to the ‘urge’, so why don’t you just strap on these Everlasts first, it will help ‘protect’ her”

Someone who is infected with AIDS is doing just as much violence to their partner as if they slugged them, even with a condom on. Why should the Church condone that?

That’s a great post, made me laugh (albeit in a sad way). Very true Brendan

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

Either there is consent or no consent. If there is consent, then one may not contracept. If there is no consent, then it is rape and there would be no discussion of contraception.

Tell us, then, does a 12 year old “consent” to marriage and marital relations (that could infect her with a deadly disease and kill her) when her family delivers her up with no other options other than to be abandoned and/or ostracized by her community? And if you find no consent, how do you propose to upend generations of tradition to protect the lives of these young women?

Black and white is not so easy to come by in this context.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

Tell us, then, does a 12 year old “consent” to marriage and marital relations (that could infect her with a deadly disease and kill her) when her family delivers her up with no other options other than to be abandoned and/or ostracized by her community? And if you find no consent, how do you propose to upend generations of tradition to protect the lives of these young women?

Black and white is not so easy to come by in this context.

I would think consent would be lacking in many cases, but that would be judged in each particular case.

If you want to change a culture, for the better, violating the natural moral law is not the way. As for black and white it would seem to some that your position is the simple one and that simple answer, latex barrier, hardly will respond to the physical and spiritual needs of these people.

What I find distressing is that many in the Church would so quickly jettison the truth in favor of some false secular compassion that leads to no good end.

 

[dafalax]

Island Oak:
Why is it more believable that a man who marries a young girl and sleeps around on her will use a condom to protect her than he will fear for his life and stop sleeping around in general? Once again, i point out that giving this man a condom is telling him to keep promiscuously fornicating and continues to put his young bride at risk if the condom fails. By getting at the heart of this problem (infidelity in marriage), we will ultimately do more good than by putting a band-aid on a shotgun wound. Once again, look to how well Uganda was doing with abstinence promotion.
Also, if you allow condom use for one situation, you basically open the doors for it in any situation. Look at what happened when the Anglican church said birth control could be used at certain times by married couples! The culture of death that the whole world is currently gripped is succeeds by latching onto fear stories, like saying birth control pills are now a valuable treatment for endometriosis or that if we get rid of condoms, these young girls will never have a chance to not get infected. The pill and condoms are the cause of so many of the world’s ills and we keep looking for them to be the answer to something. Look at how we’ve changed since 1933 when the Anglican church okayed the pill and tell me what ANY form of birth control is the answer to?

 

[LSK]

Island Oak:

Tell us, then, does a 12 year old “consent” to marriage and marital relations (that could infect her with a deadly disease and kill her) when her family delivers her up with no other options other than to be abandoned and/or ostracized by her community? And if you find no consent, how do you propose to upend generations of tradition to protect the lives of these young women?

Black and white is not so easy to come by in this context.

Absolutely - and if this horrific tradition was replaced by Catholic tradition there would be no problem. Just as if the tradition, in these African communities, of raping women as a legit form of warfare was replaced by Catholic tradition there would be no problem.
Of course, distributing condoms has not helped either. The condoms are not used by the men, as they are seen as a sign of weakness. The problem, therefore, is still not solved.
Another way the AIDS virus is spread in Africa is by the eating of Bushmeat. It is a HUGE problem. Most of the primate meat is infected with the AIDS virus and it is NOT destroyed by cooking, despite the fact that it is a fragile virus. Yet the hunting of primates and the eating of Bushmeat is an ancient tradition in many parts of Africa and simply saying, “This meat may kill you” is not going to stop people from eating it.
So, handing out condoms isn’t doing it and trying to teach these men that the women are not to be given away and raped and beaten or have their private parts mutilated in a strange attempt to preserve their sexual purity isn’t going to do it and trying to educate them on proper diet is going to do it…I give up.

I guess we’re back at square one…turning to the Lord.

Now there’s an idea.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

As for black and white it would seem to some that your position is the simple one and that simple answer, latex barrier, hardly will respond to the physical and spiritual needs of these people.

What I find distressing is that many in the Church would so quickly jettison the truth in favor of some false secular compassion that leads to no good end.

Please summarize for me to what position you are referring and where I ever advocated or supported wide-scale condom distribution/use as a solution to this epidemic?! Frankly, I see as many problems as solutions with their use. I think education is the biggest challenge when trying to address any 3d world health crisis. But that education can take many forms and does not require a default to wide ranging condom distribution. I made one simple obsevation that condom use does result in diminished disease rates when compared to sexually active populations where condoms are not used. I hardly said that was the end of the story. Please stop jumping to conclusions or being “distressed” by things that are nothing more than your own erroneous assumptions.

 

[Island_Oak]

dafalax:

Island Oak:
Why is it more believable that a man who marries a young girl and sleeps around on her will use a condom to protect her than he will fear for his life and stop sleeping around in general? Once again, i point out that giving this man a condom is telling him to keep promiscuously fornicating and continues to put his young bride at risk if the condom fails.

You will not get an argument from me on this point. It is one of the pitfalls of relying solely on condom usage.

Also, if you allow condom use for one situation, you basically open the doors for it in any situation…

The Catholic Church currently permits the use of the hormones/compounds contained in birth control pills for the treatment/management/cure of several conditions. When used for disease treatment, not contraception, even though there may be an unintended contraceptive effect, the pills are medication, not birth control and not forbidden. What is the difference with condoms? Condoms are permitted for use (in altered form) with fertility assessment by the Church. If they are employed for disease prevention with the incidental effect that they can reduce fertility and conception, what is the difference? I would suggest it is a difference without a distinction.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Island Oak:

The Catholic Church currently permits the use of the hormones/compounds contained in birth control pills for the treatment/management/cure of several conditions. When used for disease treatment, not contraception, even though there may be an unintended contraceptive effect, the pills are medication, not birth control and not forbidden. What is the difference with condoms? Condoms are permitted for use (in altered form) with fertility assessment by the Church. If they are employed for disease prevention with the incidental effect that they can reduce fertility and conception, what is the difference? I would suggest it is a difference without a distinction.

The pill is an abortifacient and MAY NOT BE USED MEDICALLY IF THERE IS SEXUAL ACTIVITY!!! The info you are quoting does not take this into consideration. The pill doesn’t just contracept it can kill the unborn child. Condom use in a situatuion where two people have intercourse once can potentially prevent infection 14% chance. If these two are married and have intercourse regularly (assuming one of them is infected) the virus WILL be spread. Maybe not the first or second time but eventually. End of story.Furthermore the purpose of marriage is impeded if the people are not open to children.If the natural sexual act cannot be performede then no marriage.Cannonically some marriages are never technically consumated if condoms are used because this is not te type of sex act that consumates.If there is a chance of getting the virus then they should not marry. If the child is forced to marry a condom won’t save her. It won’t even help. This is a no win situation that should not exist in the first place. the ONLY way to battle this is with teachings and morality…

 

[allhers]

johnnycatholic:

The pill is an abortifacient and MAY NOT BE USED MEDICALLY IF THERE IS SEXUAL ACTIVITY!!! The info you are quoting does not take this into consideration. The pill doesn’t just contracept it can kill the unborn child. Condom use in a situatuion where two people have intercourse once can potentially prevent infection 14% chance. If these two are married and have intercourse regularly (assuming one of them is infected) the virus WILL be spread. Maybe not the first or second time but eventually. End of story.Furthermore the purpose of marriage is impeded if the people are not open to children.If the natural sexual act cannot be performede then no marriage.Cannonically some marriages are never technically consumated if condoms are used because this is not te type of sex act that consumates.If there is a chance of getting the virus then they should not marry. If the child is forced to marry a condom won’t save her. It won’t even help. This is a no win situation that should not exist in the first place. the ONLY way to battle this is with teachings and morality…

…and when are people going to wake up and realize that using all these condemns, pills, creme’s, and other artificial barrier’s are what got them into this situation to begin with?! Come on now, really, how has any artificial birth control benefited anyone? This culure of death has got to stop. I think people are actually going insane over the use of all that stuff. :whacky: they certainly aren’t thinking clearly. It is only getting worse!!

 

[Katie1723]

What do you say to the medical person, be it nurse,doctor or whomever, who, through their job, contracts HIV? Would you tell them to NOT use a condom with their partner or would you tell them to take up celibacy?
~ Kathy ~

 

[Karin]

Katie1723:

What do you say to the medical person, be it nurse,doctor or whomever, who, through their job, contracts HIV? Would you tell them to NOT use a condom with their partner or would you tell them to take up celibacy?

~ Kathy ~

I would say “Please get away…please find me another doctor, I am not comfortable having a doctor /nurse whatever with HIV work on me.”
All of my doctors but one are single…so I would hope that they (single) were not having sex