Condom use and Catholic church's postition?

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Your way or the highway. Yeah, they may snuggle up to that now that you’ve professed the true way and one way in life. I don’t argue against it as have used the idea myself. If 50 of 100 follow you and 50 do not, we’ve still a problem here. As the Lord might suggest, when a shepherd has 100 sheep and loses one, he may leave his 99 doing just fine, in order to seek the one lost and find a way to bring that one back into protection. It’s nice and wonderful if it all goes according to Hoyle, but oft times, there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip.

The condom debate reminds me of the following hypothetical scenarios:

1. A friend comes to me and tells me: “Tonight I’m going to beat my wife. Do you think I should use an irod rod or one made out of wood?”
2. Friend comes and tells me: “Tonight I’m going to break into the bank. Shall I use a bulletproof west? Do you endorse the use of bulletproof wests by bank robbers or not?”
3. Friend comes and tells me: “Tonight I’m going to play Russian rulette with my buddies. We are undecided on one issue though. Shall we load 5 ammos into the revolver, leaving one place empty, or shall we load only one ammo and leave 5 places empty. I thought that loading only one ammo is safer, because the chance of having yourself killed is only 1 out of 6, as opposed to 5 out of 6 with the other way around. What’s your opinion, which set of rules shall we use while playing Russian rulette tonight?”

I mean, do you really expect me to tell my friend to beat his wife with a wooden rod, wear a bulletproof west while robbing the bank, and load only one ammo when he plays Russian rulette?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Abstinence education, OTOH, has an absolutely abysmal compliance rate. It’s no coincidence that the areas with “abstinence only” sex ed have the highest rates of teen pregnancy.

Not so much. Every source of statistics for STDs or pregnancy in condom users that I’ve seen has included all users, even those who are sexually active but only use condoms some of the time, or those who use condoms incorrectly (e.g. reusing them). When condoms are used properly, they’re an excellent defense against STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

And every source of statistics for STDs or pregnancy in abstinent people includes all users, even those who try to stay abstinent but fail and give in to temptations, or those who only received education in abstinence and utterly rejected the message.

When abstinence is used properly, its efficacy in protecting against STDs and unwanted pregnancy even surpasses that of such an excellent defense as the condoms.

 

[gearhead]

And every source of statistics for STDs or pregnancy in abstinent people includes all users, even those who try to stay abstinent but fail and give in to temptations, or those who only received education in abstinence and utterly rejected the message.

Fair enough. But how do you actually get people to practice abstinence properly and consistently? Experience shows that drilling the idea into their head won’t do this.

When abstinence is used properly, its efficacy in protecting against STDs and unwanted pregnancy even surpasses that of such an excellent defense as the condoms.

But here’s the thing: teaching “abstinence only” leaves those who won’t practice abstinence, who you know exist and in large numbers despite all best efforts, improperly equipped to conduct themselves in a way that won’t lead to STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Fair enough. But how do you actually get people to practice abstinence properly and consistently? Experience shows that drilling the idea into their head won’t do this.

But here’s the thing: teaching “abstinence only” leaves those who won’t practice abstinence, who you know exist and in large numbers despite all best efforts, improperly equipped to conduct themselves in a way that won’t lead to STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

As far as I am concerned, I don’t carry a condom with me precisely because I don’t want to fall into temptation. Likewise, I avoided Bourbon Street in New Orleans and I avoid the striptease bars in Florida, because I don’t want to fall into temptation. I don’t have a better solution than this, but at least I found that staying away from temptations works. However if I would engage in promiscuous sex using condoms, I would still risk catching STDs or getting someone pregnant. I’ve heard that genital herpes and HPV gets way too easily transmitted even when condoms are used.

Hey, I won’t go robbing the bank and don’t have to worry about using bulletproof wests. Likewise I’m staying abstinent and don’t worry about condoms. But if other people wish to act otherwise, good luck to them.

 

[gearhead]

As far as I am concerned, I don’t carry a condom with me precisely because I don’t want to fall into temptation. Likewise, I avoided Bourbon Street in New Orleans and I avoid the striptease bars in Florida, because I don’t want to fall into temptation. I don’t have a better solution than this, but at least I found that staying away from temptations works.

Fine for you. But would you advise someone who was trolling Bourbon Street looking for a one-night stand that he shouldn’t carry a condom, and that it’s better for him to have his promiscuous sex without any protection at all?

However if I would engage in promiscuous sex using condoms, I would still risk catching STDs or getting someone pregnant. I’ve heard that genital herpes and HPV gets way too easily transmitted even when condoms are used.

For HPV, you heard wrong. For genital herpes, that’s only true if there’s a sore or ulcer that’s not covered by the condom.

Hey, I won’t go robbing the bank and don’t have to worry about using bulletproof wests. Likewise I’m staying abstinent and don’t worry about condoms. But if other people wish to act otherwise, good luck to them.

What a truly awful analogy. Does the Church say it’s okay for you to rob a bank after you get married as long as you don’t wear a bulletproof vest?

 

[NewAgeCatholic]

Fine for you. But would you advise someone who was trolling Bourbon Street looking for a one-night stand that he shouldn’t carry a condom, and that it’s better for him to have his promiscuous sex without any protection at all?

For HPV, you heard wrong. For genital herpes, that’s only true if there’s a sore or ulcer that’s not covered by the condom.

What a truly awful analogy. Does the Church say it’s okay for you to rob a bank after you get married as long as you don’t wear a bulletproof vest?

Good to point that out gearhead. I agree. The analogy they used was in my opinion was not a good choice as to robbing a bank. Robbing a bank with or without a bulletproof vest is against the law, period. Wearing or not wearing a condom during sex is not. Some tend to compare behaviour breaking the law with actions that are legal.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Gearhead and NewAgeCatholic, I apologize for my analogy with the bank robbery. Indeed that’s illegal while using condoms is not. But will you consider please the Russian rulette analogy? A safer way of having sex is still not safe, just like a safer way of playing Russian rulette is still unsafe. If I would know that a friend of mine is going to Bourbon Street looking for a one night stand, I would not advise him to take a condom. Instead, I would advise him not to go to Bourbon Street at all.

 

[gearhead]

Gearhead and NewAgeCatholic, I apologize for my analogy with the bank robbery. Indeed that’s illegal while using condoms is not. But will you consider please the Russian rulette analogy? A safer way of having sex is still not safe, just like a safer way of playing Russian rulette is still unsafe.

Still a bad analogy. There’s a small but definitely non-zero chance of getting an STD from your spouse even if both of you are 100% faithful (maybe she got HIV from coming in contact with infected blood while doing first aid, for instance). Is sex within marriage still “Russian Roulette”?

If I would know that a friend of mine is going to Bourbon Street looking for a one night stand, I would not advise him to take a condom. Instead, I would advise him not to go to Bourbon Street at all.

Try it from another perspective: he’s bound and determined to have his one night stand. He’s got a condom in his pocket. After giving him your counsel about going to Bourbon Street (which might convince him but might not), do you also tell him to leave the condom behind?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Still a bad analogy. There’s a small but definitely non-zero chance of getting an STD from your spouse even if both of you are 100% faithful (maybe she got HIV from coming in contact with infected blood while doing first aid, for instance). Is sex within marriage still “Russian Roulette”?

Try it from another perspective: he’s bound and determined to have his one night stand. He’s got a condom in his pocket. After giving him your counsel about going to Bourbon Street (which might convince him but might not), do you also tell him to leave the condom behind?

That’s just extremely risky behavior, going out to randomly hook up with strangers. It is in the same category as binge drinking and reckless driving. Some people will end up ruining their lives or getting killed, with such behavior. I would be definitely very scared if someone I know would plan to hook up with a random stranger on Bourbon Street. There’s the risk of STDs, being robbed, etc. A Catholic priest was actually killed in 1997, he was found stabbed in a Bourbon Street hotel room.

Someone behaving like this really needs help, and it goes way beyond condoms. He shouldn’t be on Bourbon Street, in the first place. I wouldn’t frankly care whether he has a condom in his pocket, I would just try to talk some sense into him, and prevent him from going out in the first place.

Now more specifically about condoms and STDs, I did some reading and let me tell you what I found: apparently, the prevalence of STDs dramatically increased in the USA. One out of 4 teenage girl or college student has some kind of STD; one out of 5 adult is infected with genital herpes. Thus, anyone engaging in random promiscuous sex is practically guaranteed to catch some nasty stuff sooner or later. And that’s not even in Africa, it’s here in the USA. Of course, if the overall prevalence of STDs in a young population is 25%, the prevalence among the sexually active and promiscuous segment of this population must be higher, easily above 50%.

Actually, both HPV, genital herpes, and hepatitis B as well, are transmitted by skin-to-skin contact, oral sex, and even by french kissing when wounds are present. Chlamydia is also transmitted among people using condoms. I checked out several sources this afternoon and there appears to be consensus regarding this. Yes, you may decrease the risk of transmission by 60% to 80% when using a condom, but such degree of protection is simply not enough. Also, the failure rate for transmission of HIV virus seems to be as high as 30% during a 1-year period of sexual activity, which is abysmal. Apparently, the microscopic pores in latex are more than one order of magnitude larger than the size of HIV and other viruses, and thus those viruses can penetrate the condom even in the absence of a macroscopically visible tear or hole.

The bottom line seems to be this: stay abstinent or have monogamous sex with a partner who was tested for STDs and is free of disease, if you want to be safe. Promiscuous sex in a society in which 25% of people are infected with some form of STD, can only lead to trouble. And no, condoms are not the answer since they cannot effectively block the transmission of STDs.

Just enter “condom failure rate” or “condom STD” into your search engine if you want more.