Condoms (not as contraceptive)

[musicality]

A married Catholic woman with several children is infected with HIV after getting a tattoo with a unsterilized needle.

She becomes aware of this infection after experiencing symptoms of AIDS. Thankfully her husband remains uninfected.

The couple have several options:

1. Abstain from intercourse.
2. Have intercourse risking the infection of the husband (and the infection of any baby that may result from pregnancy).
3. Have intercourse with a condom as a means of preventing disease transmission.

I have no doubt that you will agree that option 1 is not objectionable and that option 2 is not worth the risk. But here is the question: May one morally have intercourse using option 3?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A married Catholic woman with several children is infected with HIV after getting a tattoo with a unsterilized needle.

She becomes aware of this infection after experiencing symptoms of AIDS. Thankfully her husband remains uninfected.

The couple have several options:

1. Abstain from intercourse.
2. Have intercourse risking the infection of the husband (and the infection of any baby that may result from pregnancy).
3. Have intercourse with a condom as a means of preventing disease transmission.

I have no doubt that you will agree that option 1 is not objectionable and that option 2 is not worth the risk. But here is the question: May one morally have intercourse using option 3?

No. First, the condom is not 100% effective. Second, it would also have a role in preventing pregnancy. Thus, it separates the procreative aspect from the uniative aspect of sex, which is morally wrong.

Certainly our prayers would be with this woman and her family, and certainly we as Christians would along with prayers work toward getting her the medications she would need to help her live as long and productive a life as possible.

Sex is a great gift of the Lord. . .but I’m here to tell you nobody ever died of its’ ‘lack’, not even after decades.

 

[Adam1986]

A married Catholic woman with several children is infected with HIV after getting a tattoo with a unsterilized needle.

She becomes aware of this infection after experiencing symptoms of AIDS. Thankfully her husband remains uninfected.

The couple have several options:

1. Abstain from intercourse.
2. Have intercourse risking the infection of the husband (and the infection of any baby that may result from pregnancy).
3. Have intercourse with a condom as a means of preventing disease transmission.

I have no doubt that you will agree that option 1 is not objectionable and that option 2 is not worth the risk. But here is the question: May one morally have intercourse using option 3?

Well, IMO I see nothing wrong with ABC, so keep that in mind when reading my answer.

I personally feel that they should do number 1. Because his life is scared and he doesn’t need to get a horrible disease that will kill him in a horrific way.

That being said, let’s say the woman decides to be EXTREMELY SELFISH and the man EXTREMELY FOOLISH and they decide to have sex. I’d say number two is completely out, so their best bet would be to go with number three.

BUT you raised a VERY good question/point. You said “May one morally have intercourse using option 3?”
I’m going to go with no. They can’t. And for a few reasons.

1. You said they had kids. In your situation; not only are the two people affecting their own lives; they are affecting their kids lives. Those kids deserve at least one parent who is healthy.
2. His life is SACRED. It’s just as sacred as his wife’s or their kids or an unborn child. Putting himself in a deadly risk over and over again; even with a condom, is not moral.

Now I also want to say that even though I said it’s not moral; I don’t mean that if they have sex with a condom they are going to Hell. If anything the only reason they would end up possibly in Hell would be because they were selfish and didn’t value his life or their kids quality of life. NOTHING to do with condoms.

 

[lizaanne]

Well, IMO I see nothing wrong with ABC, so keep that in mind when reading my answer.

Then as a Catholic you need to get yourself right with God on that. ABC is immoral. Period. I didn’t make it up, it’s not my opinion, it is the teaching of the Church. If you choose to be Catholic you do not have an option to just pick and choose what you want to believe and leave the rest at the curb. And no amount of rationalization can make that ok.

~Liza

 

[LemonAndLime]

No. First, the condom is not 100% effective.

The condom is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, it is the ONLY contraceptive which is capable of stopping AIDS (including of course the female condom).

The condom is believed to be 97.5% effective at preventing pregnancy. But if used correctly, it will always protect against AIDS. Condoms used correctly very very rarely break, and if they do it is normally because the condom was too tightly-fitting so that there was no “give” when the man… well…

Even if the condom broke during intercourse, the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS is very small. Particularly as it is the woman who is infected, and not the man… if it was something the man did which broke the condom… ahem.

Also, surely what the Pope says means that they would be allowed to use them? Surely the Pope isn’t allowing prostitutes while denying married couples in such circumstances?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The condom is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, it is the ONLY contraceptive which is capable of stopping AIDS (including of course the female condom).

The condom is believed to be 97.5% effective at preventing pregnancy. But if used correctly, it will always protect against AIDS. Condoms used correctly very very rarely break, and if they do it is normally because the condom was too tightly-fitting so that there was no “give” when the man… well…

Even if the condom broke during intercourse, the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS is very small. Particularly as it is the woman who is infected, and not the man… if it was something the man did which broke the condom… ahem.

Also, surely what the Pope says means that they would be allowed to use them? Surely the Pope isn’t allowing prostitutes while denying married couples in such circumstances?

No, the Pope is not allowing prostitutes to use condoms.
Or married couples.

You misunderstood.

The use of a condom by a male prostitute to supposedly ‘protect’ against infection is not a moral action. The instinct to protect is a step toward morality. But the use of a condom, even to ‘protect’ is still immoral.

Suppose you have a man who is mugging people with an aluminum bat, and killing or gravely injuring those people. But all he wants is their money, really. So instead of using an aluminum bat, he switches to a padded bat. That way, he only stuns them instead of killing or gravely injuring them, and he still gets the money he wants.

Is the use of a padded bat MORAL? No, it isn’t. Is the intention ‘not to kill or gravely injure’ good? It’s a step in the right direction, but the guy is still mugging people, right?

Would you really argue that it was MORAL to use a padded bat in order to mug people ‘properly?’ I don’t think you would. . .

 

[Redratfish]

The condom is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, it is the ONLY contraceptive which is capable of stopping AIDS (including of course the female condom).

The condom is believed to be 97.5% effective at preventing pregnancy. But if used correctly, it will always protect against AIDS. Condoms used correctly very very rarely break, and if they do it is normally because the condom was too tightly-fitting so that there was no “give” when the man… well…

Even if the condom broke during intercourse, the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS is very small. Particularly as it is the woman who is infected, and not the man… if it was something the man did which broke the condom… ahem.

Also, surely what the Pope says means that they would be allowed to use them? Surely the Pope isn’t allowing prostitutes while denying married couples in such circumstances?

The Pope isn’t changing doctrine at all, it is all being blown out of context

insidecatholic.com/feature/pope-changes-catholic-faith-completely.html

 

[BlueShadow123]

I don’t see a problem with it if it was being used as protection against a life-threatening disease rather than birth control (not getting preggo). But God made sex to be physically and mentally (psychologically) beneficial. There are many benefits to having sex with the one you love in marriage. That is why he made it that way. If they absolutely have to be sexual in some way, I would suggest doing it in other ways without actual contact of parts.

 

[Romanova]

The condom is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, it is the ONLY contraceptive which is capable of stopping AIDS (including of course the female condom).

The condom is believed to be 97.5% effective at preventing pregnancy. But if used correctly, it will always protect against AIDS. Condoms used correctly very very rarely break, and if they do it is normally because the condom was too tightly-fitting so that there was no “give” when the man… well…

Even if the condom broke during intercourse, the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS is very small. Particularly as it is the woman who is infected, and not the man… if it was something the man did which broke the condom… ahem.

“Always” protect against AIDS? Even public health educators don’t claim that. Reduce the risk, sure. But not always effective.

About a year ago, a research scientist from Harvard wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post about how promoting condom use has done nothing to lower Africa’s rates of AIDS transmission, and suggesting “evidence-based AIDS prevention.”
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

 

[stuart12]

As the Holy Father has said thee use of a condom to prevent disease is merely the first step in a humanization of sexuality, the recognition that we have responsibility for each other and that our actions are not consequent-less. This is only the awakening of some form of morality, not the moral solution that can be promoted.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t know what the poll is trying to achieve. Sin is not a democracy; we cannot decide what it is by voting.

 

[Reuben_J]

The condom is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, it is the ONLY contraceptive which is capable of stopping AIDS (including of course the female condom).

The condom is believed to be 97.5% effective at preventing pregnancy. But if used correctly, it will always protect against AIDS. Condoms used correctly very very rarely break, and if they do it is normally because the condom was too tightly-fitting so that there was no “give” when the man… well…

Even if the condom broke during intercourse, the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS is very small. Particularly as it is the woman who is infected, and not the man… if it was something the man did which broke the condom… ahem.

Also, surely what the Pope says means that they would be allowed to use them? Surely the Pope isn’t allowing prostitutes while denying married couples in such circumstances?

I am afraid you are not quite right here. HIV/AIDS virus is transferred through human fluid, that include male seminal fluid and female vaginal exudates. Unprotected intercourse will surely expose the participants to the danger of contracting this virus as transmission is through any opening of the human body - wounds and natural break and opening of the skin.

Secondly, condom does not offer guaranteed protection against HIV/AIDS virus. The nature of the rubber condom is that it has a certain amount of porosity. Look at it through the microscope, it is not completely imporous. Then think about the size of the virus. It is so small it can always pass through the holes of the porous rubber tissue of the condom. Scientists also could not guarantee 100% that condom is safety proof.

So why would the couple expose themselves to this risk in order to have sex? I like the saying - no one has died for lack of it and may I add, people who risk HIV/AIDS virus is just like committing suicide. Sometimes we like to give a blind eye to something that is not true so that we can continue to do what we want.

The Church offers the Sacrament of Confession; God is a forgiving God but he is not going to nullify sin, not in any circumstances. Any weaknesses on the part of human must be dealt by the Sacrament which of course is a consolation for us but let see sin for what it is.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I am afraid you are not quite right here. HIV/AIDS virus is transferred through human fluid, that include male seminal fluid and female vaginal exudates. Unprotected intercourse will surely expose the participants to the danger of contracting this virus as transmission is through any opening of the human body - wounds and natural break and opening of the skin.

Secondly, condom does not offer guaranteed protection against HIV/AIDS virus. The nature of the rubber condom is that it has a certain amount of porosity. Look at it through the microscope, it is not completely imporous. Then think about the size of the virus. It is so small it can always pass through the holes of the porous rubber tissue of the condom. Scientists also could not guarantee 100% that condom is safety proof.

So why would the couple expose themselves to this risk in order to have sex? I like the saying - no one has died for lack of it and may I add, people who risk HIV/AIDS virus is just like committing suicide. Sometimes we like to give a blind eye to something that is not true so that we can continue to do what we want.

The Church offers the Sacrament of Confession; God is a forgiving God but he is not going to nullify sin, not in any circumstances. Any weaknesses on the part of human must be dealt by the Sacrament which of course is a consolation for us but let see sin for what it is.

Actually I am afraid that you are not quite right there, not myself. It is impossible for the AIDS virus to get through a condom if used correctly.
Condoms4life.org:

Important Roman Catholic leaders such as the late Cardinal John O’Connor and Bishop James McHugh, who was a special advisor to the Holy See Mission at the United Nations, have frequently claimed that condoms are not effective in preventing AIDS. In addition, anti-family planning organizations such as the American Life League and Human Life International have aggressively questioned the efficacy of condoms. They argue that condoms should not be promoted as a way to fight AIDS because the virus that causes AIDS is small enough to pass through latex condoms, or that condoms have an unacceptably high “failure rate” (the frequency which condoms break or slip off), or that condoms are not reliable because they don’t prevent all sexually transmitted diseases.

Such claims that condoms should not play an important role in halting the spread of HIV are unfounded, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and leading AIDS researchers. Condoms opponents have seized on the fact that condoms are not 100% perfect in preventing AIDS to further their arguments that abstinence and sex within marriage are the only ways to prevent AIDS.

Condoms, like all contraceptives, are not 100% foolproof. Most condom failure is due to human factors such as the failure to use condoms consistently or incorrect use of the prophylactic.1 Many of these problems can be corrected through safe sex education, which opponents of condoms also oppose. Poorly manufactured condoms, which are sometimes found in the developing world, or those stored at excessive heats for long periods of time, can also fail. Non-latex condoms, such as those made of sheepskin, are not adequate protect against AIDS because HIV can pass through the larger pores of these condoms.

Claims that latex condoms allow HIV to pass through are unfounded. The pores of latex condoms are too small to allow HIV to pass through. Condoms have been shown to be effective barriers not only to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but also to herpes simplex, CMV, hepatitis B, chlamydia and gonorrhea.2

While condoms are not foolproof, they are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. According to the CDC, studies examining sexually active people at high risk for contracting HIV have found that “even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected.3 The CDC recently issued prevention guidelines for state health departments that state “correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections.4 On August 16, 2001, the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization issued a statement that said that condoms were “the best defense” in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.5

condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm

 

[musicality]

I don’t know what the poll is trying to achieve. Sin is not a democracy; we cannot decide what it is by voting.

This is an apologetics forum. It is intended to promote discussion.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is an apologetics forum. It is intended to promote discussion.

Noted. Please do go ahead.

 

[Reuben_J]

Actually I am afraid that you are not quite right there, not myself. It is impossible for the AIDS virus to get through a condom if used correctly.

condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm

Great. The site you gave is by someone with the nick condoms4life.

In any case, human life is not a gamble even if the risk is 2%.

The claim by condoms4life that the pores of the rubber sheet is smaller as compared to the HIV/AIDS virus is not the last word on this. We should also be open to other studies too.
condoms4life:

Important Roman Catholic leaders such as the late Cardinal John O’Connor and Bishop James McHugh, who was a special advisor to the Holy See Mission at the United Nations, have frequently claimed that condoms are not effective in preventing AIDS. In addition, anti-family planning organizations such as the American Life League and Human Life International have aggressively questioned the efficacy of condoms. They argue that condoms should not be promoted as a way to fight AIDS because the virus that causes AIDS is small enough to pass through latex condoms, or that condoms have an unacceptably high “failure rate” (the frequency which condoms break or slip off), or that condoms are not reliable because they don’t prevent all sexually transmitted diseases.

Such claims that condoms should not play an important role in halting the spread of HIV are unfounded, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and leading AIDS researchers. Condoms opponents have seized on the fact that condoms are not 100% perfect in preventing AIDS to further their arguments that abstinence and sex within marriage are the only ways to prevent AIDS.

Condoms, like all contraceptives, are not 100% foolproof. Most condom failure is due to human factors such as the failure to use condoms consistently or incorrect use of the prophylactic.1 Many of these problems can be corrected through safe sex education, which opponents of condoms also oppose. Poorly manufactured condoms, which are sometimes found in the developing world, or those stored at excessive heats for long periods of time, can also fail. Non-latex condoms, such as those made of sheepskin, are not adequate protect against AIDS because HIV can pass through the larger pores of these condoms.

Claims that latex condoms allow HIV to pass through are unfounded. The pores of latex condoms are too small to allow HIV to pass through. Condoms have been shown to be effective barriers not only to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but also to herpes simplex, CMV, hepatitis B, chlamydia and gonorrhea.2

While condoms are not foolproof, they are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. According to the CDC, studies examining sexually active people at high risk for contracting HIV have found that “even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected.3 The CDC recently issued prevention guidelines for state health departments that state “correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections.4 On August 16, 2001, the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization issued a statement that said that condoms were “the best defense” in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.5

 

[Reuben_J]

Its funny how we can choose information selectively that may serve to justify our argument.

As for the safety of condoms against HIV/AIDS virus – it’s not difficult to look for it in the internet if one is not directly knowledgeable about it. Just goggle ***is condom safe against HIV ***or the like. Preferably go into healthcare to get a more unbiased information; not someone who have vested interest marketing the condoms.

Here is an example:

How safe are condoms against HIV - assess yourself
In one UK survey, holes were found in up to thirty-two out of a hundred condoms of the least reliable makes. These holes were gross defects, not microscopic holes seen in some latex (5 micron, HIV is 0.1 micron), which are worrying but probably far less significant. The British Standards Institute permits up to three out of a hundred to have holes in them when they leave the factory. In the US, government standards allow only four condoms out of every thousand to have leaks. But users still experience a failure rate of between 3% and 15%, which is the percentage of women who have an unwanted pregnancy using this method of birth control over a year.

A spokesman from the London Rubber Company (Durex) admitted that if incorrectly used, the failure rate of condoms could be anything from 25% up to 100%, and there are real problems with teaching people how to use them

Another study of partners using condoms suggests that the risk of catching HIV is reduced by 85%. That sounds excellent, but it is not. If you persist in sleeping regularly with someone who is positive or with numbers of unknown people who are possibly positive, then eventually, condom or no condom, you may get AIDS. Vaginal or anal sex using a condom is not a low-risk or no-risk activity. It carries a medium risk at best.

World Health Organisation: `The most effective way to prevent sexual transmission of HIV is to abstain, or for two people who are not infected to be faithful to one another. Alternatively, the correct use of a condom will reduce the risk significantly.’
hivaidscare.com/hivaidsarticle7.php?acode=na

Here’s another study that confirm that condom is not guaranteed safe. It mentions specifically condom’s pores size is much bigger (50-500 times) the size of HIV virus.

Studies have shown a condom failure rate of 10-33% for preventing pregnancies… But disease can be transmitted any time of the month… And industry officials admit condoms have holes 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus. In fact, the government withdrew a $2.6 million grant to study condom effectiveness because of the number of condom users who could become infected in such a study.

**Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus. **

**Even if there were no pores in latex, in-use breakage and slip-off rates are “so high as to make condoms ineffective for protection against HIV,” says biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. David G. Collart, Ph.D., of Stone Mountain, Ga. **

dianedew.com/condom.htm

 

[Newbie2]

The condom is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, it is the ONLY contraceptive which is capable of stopping AIDS (including of course the female condom).

The condom is believed to be 97.5% effective at preventing pregnancy. But if used correctly, it will always protect against AIDS. Condoms used correctly very very rarely break, and if they do it is normally because the condom was too tightly-fitting so that there was no “give” when the man… well…

Even if the condom broke during intercourse, the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS is very small. Particularly as it is the woman who is infected, and not the man… if it was something the man did which broke the condom… ahem.

Also, surely what the Pope says means that they would be allowed to use them? Surely the Pope isn’t allowing prostitutes while denying married couples in such circumstances?

Hold on there, Chief. On one hand you say that Condoms will always protect against AIDS, then say that they “rarely break” and the risk of transmission of AIDS in such a break is “very small”.

These are two very, very different claims. Which do you claim as true, because both claims cannot be true at the same time.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

So as I see the Popes comments, is that sex outside of marriage is wrong and intrinsically evil. Which is church teaching. I do not believe that any Dogma or teaching in the recent press has been changed by any statements regardless of some peoples claims that he is now saying it is ok for some people to use them to prevent HIV?

I also believe most Catholics believe that if an HIV positive rapist, homosexual or prostitute decides to wear a condom in order to protect the person that they are already violating or servicing that somewhere deep in their being they are at least acknowledging that the persons life they are morally violating, or corrupting, does have worth that needs to be valued? That is what I believe the Pope meant in his recent writing and through statements from the Vatican.

On the other hand some are trying to say that the Pope believes this TINY acknowledgment that a partners life by the condom wearing HIV partner is good, or that a condom would allow them enough grace to counter balance the inherent selfish and evil nature of their selfish sex act when the act, with or without a condom, is putting a partners physical life, as well as eternal life at risk, and they are flat out wrong and way off the mark.

IMHO an HIV homosexual person that is acting out his or her lifestyle, or prostitutes, are already leading a selfish lifestyle as they have accepted the twisted expression of creation or sold the expression God holds for a married Man and Wife. If these people claim to be Catholic then they fully understand that through their actions they are putting a supposed “Loved” one or customer’s soul at risk by and through their actions. Wearing a condom or not only effects this mortal life as they may have already participated in the damnation of their “Loved” ones, or customers eternal soul. The HIV positive rapist is at least protecting a life, and although what he is doing is intrinsically evil his actions are not putting the eternal soul of his victim at risk. He is only putting his own soul at risk through his evil actions.

I would think that a married couple is no different and in some respects I actually think an HIV spouse wearing a condom is worse then a rapist wearing a condom. If an HIV man or woman puts their own pleasure above the life of their spouse and well being of their children are they showing love (Agape)? NO! they are showing selfish desire. Their spouse is showing love (Agape) by risking themselves for the simple pleasure that they would feel to satisfy their spouse. They may be guilty of risking their children’s well being over that of their spouse and for that that they will then have to answer to God.

If a non infected spouse actually willingly participate in a sex act with a condom on and they have children how is that not selfish? One might argue that they are, or need to express with their spouse the unitive portion of sex by wearing a condom, and yet they put at risk the union? This act might leave children without parents? When balanced against the fact that it does not create life, but can potentially only end life and possibly make life worse on innocent children it is simply morally wrong. It is selfish and therefore IMHO evil. How can you defend an act that only puts innocent people at risk? What is the gain but selfish pleasure? The ONLY good that could come from an HIV positive union is the potential CHANCE of a new life not corrupted with the virus, but wearing a condom prevents that. If they are wearing a condom they obviously have no intent on participation in the creation of life? So it truly is ONLY for the pleasure of the HIV positive spouse or even both, but pleasure and maybe a temporary increase in the unitive portion of the marriage, but again it threatens to end the marriage through death and leave any children without parents. SELFISH!!. How selfish that a spouse would put their mate and children at such risk… PATHETIC, SELFISH, and in my opinion evil they are. I believe that abstinence in the case of a married couple is showing TRUE love (agape) for that life and benefit of the spouse and children.

Some ignore the intrinsically selfish nature of a CONDOM when worn by a couple at ALL times. When one is HIV positive it only makes a condom more an expression of SELFISH love then before. When a condom is worn by two healthy people they are both being selfish by denying life. When worn when one is HIV positive it twists the marriage act into a bestial act of pure self pleasure and lust. I wonder if these people that advocate the use of CONDOMS for HIV couples have an agenda? Do you think they may be trying to make some greater good linkage that will ultimately lead to them saying that all condom usage in marriage is good and that then when the CONDOMS fail that abortion too is OK, especially if the unborn is tested and is HIV postivte, poor little baby should not have to be born with AIDS, tis better to kill it? I wonder where is Satan in these arguments? Which side of the fence do you think he is on? Which side does he profit more throwing his weight behind? Where does Planed Parenthood stand on this?

Since using a CONDOM for an HIV Couple is Morally Evil due to the selfish nature and threat to spouse and any children the person that is HIV positive should pleasure themselves that way they alone must atone for their selfish behavior without dragging their supposed loved ones down.

 

[Newbie2]

Just for the sake of discussion, let’s say that a condom was developed that was 100% effective at preventing the transmission of HIV. I dunno, make of a Kevlar/Gortex combination. Always works, every time.

Does this change anyone’s position on the subject?

Again, this is just for purposes of discussion; I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind one way or the other.