Condoms (not as contraceptive)

[LemonAndLime]

Anybody who has HIV or an STD and uses a condom to try and protect them is an idiot. If they have an STD they should not be having sex in the first place. And the fact that they got an STD should have taught them that being promiscuous isn’t the way to go. But people are stubborn and can’t seem to figure things out that easily, apparently. (this doesn’t apply to babies who were born with it passed to them)

Also too, another good reason not to share needles.

If used correctly, a condom will protect against pregnancy 97.5% of the time, and is the only method of contraception which, if used correctly, will prevent STIs. STDs such as HIV are also protected if the condom is used correctly, (2.5% chance it will break) but it will not protect against things such as pubic lice. Those are facts.

I think that “people are stubbon and can’t seem to figure things out easily” when they don’t actually know the facts. I think the fact that I was raised in a culture of sex ed means that I know these things, I don’t find it at all surprising that I find many of the American members of this forums getting it wrong.

 

[LemonAndLime]

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.
​

There you go. Of the LEAST RELIABLE MAKES. Wow, thats breaking news. Poor manufacturing standards lead to poor products.​

 

[JayLynn]

Hypothetically, what if the wife was raped and got an STD that way?

Is she and her husband never to have intercourse again, even though she contracted the STD through no action of her own choosing?

In that situation would a condom be ok? I realize no one will die without sex, but one has to admit that it is a very important part of married life.

 

[Kyu]

Hypothetically, what if the wife was raped and got an STD that way?

Is she and her husband never to have intercourse again, even though she contracted the STD through no action of her own choosing?

In that situation would a condom be ok? I realize no one will die without sex, but one has to admit that it is a very important part of married life.

An important part, yes, but not the only part.
Sex is not the end all be all of marriage, it’s just the easiest way for two spouses to express their love for each other. There are still other ways.
Using a condom just to have sex (even if it’s to show love for a spouse), also takes away from the other important aspect of sex–procreation.
Sex does not always lead to children, but it must always be open to the possibility. If it is not, then it is as if the spouses are saying to each other, “I do not want to take any responsibility for this action”. This leads to a utilitarian mentality, and eventually the marriage will break down.

I recommend Pope John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility or Edward Sri’s more accessible outline of it, Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love.

 

[Observer3]

I’m glad seven of the people who voted have courage to stand up to the church’s flawed teaching on contraception. Disturbing that more than 20 actually believe they would abstain from sex if this happened to them. Even the church tells us that holding back from each other is a sin and not natural.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I’m glad seven of the people who voted have courage to stand up to the church’s flawed teaching on contraception. Disturbing that more than 20 actually believe they would abstain from sex if this happened to them. Even the church tells us that holding back from each other is a sin and not natural.

As if the Church had the authority to change. Such gall.

 

[Debora123]

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?

Considering it is the only option really available, yes.

Despite what some people here say, I think it is extremely wrong and unchristian to say that a married couple are no longer allowed to have sex, so option 1 if out. Option 2 is just wrong, and I don’t think anyone needs to explain why. So the only choice they really have is option 3.

Look at it this way:

Humanae Vitae states that women are allowed to be on the pill for health reasons without having to abstain. In this case, the condom would be worn for health reasons as well, meaning like the pill, married couples are allowed to use a condom during sex for health reasons. Does that make sense?

A side note: Some people here have stated that option 1 is the only option available bc even while wearing a condom, there is a risk for infection of the husband. I think this is pretty absurd, for a couple reasons. When you are married, you become ONE with the other person. And sex is a physical way of expressing that oneness. Having sex would be putting one person at risk of getting the disease that the other person has, but that’s all part of being ONE with that other person. Do you follow?
Also, I try to think about it as though it were me. If my husband contracted HIV, there is NO WAY I would deprive ourselves of making love to each other before he died. There is NO WAY I would refuse to still be intimate with him or refuse to express our marriage by giving ourselves to each other. And I would rather DIE with him than not be able to engage in the act that makes us one and speaks the language of marriage. For better or for worse, in sickness and in health, I would still be a wife to him, and that includes engaging in the marital act. To tell a married couple that they cannot morally make love to each other anymore is downright wrong, unchristian, illegitimate, and goes against the marriage vows. Period.

 

[Debora123]

"The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (Humanae Vitae 15).

 

[kbwall]

Number one would be the best one. Even with a condom, it just seems like borderline suicide. If all that seperated me from a fatal, horrible disease was a thin layer of latex, I know I wouldn’t be having sex.

 

[Debora123]

Number one would be the best one. Even with a condom, it just seems like borderline suicide. If all that seperated me from a fatal, horrible disease was a thin layer of latex, I know I wouldn’t be having sex.

But it’s your SPOUSE! You seriously would refuse to make love to your spouse for the rest of his/her life? Out of fear of contracting the HIV that she/he has??

Wow, for each their own I guess. My husband and I personally share a much stronger bond than that, and if one of us had a disease, we wouldn’t deprive the other of the marital act. If he had HIV, heck, I’d have HIV with him before I stopped making love to him. “In sickness and in health,” man!

 

[choose_to_love]

Deb, you’ll note that HV states that one can use therapeutic means to “cure” a bodily disease. Does the condom cure the STD? Of course not.

No one is saying that one cannot have relations, but the question is whether that is prudent. What if you have kids? The couple will engage in relations and expose the uninfected spouse to the potential of a fatal infection? Where does that leave the kids exactly? And, if one is truly seeking what is best for the other, would that include exposing them to a fatal infection risk?

That being said, of course I do think that the decision to abstain or continue relations in this situation is absolutely up to the couple after prayerful discernment. I would respect the decision that the couple made.

Regarding you and your husband having a stronger bond than someone else who you apparently know through a few posts on an internet forum, I am not sure how you can make that call on the info available.

 

[JayLynn]

I agree with Debra. The truth is, as much as some of you state otherwise, there wont be much of a marriage with ever having sex again. The purpose of intercourse is not just to reproduce, but also to form and retain the marriage bond.

The pope has himself recently stated that the use of condoms was a better option then the spreading of HIV. I believe in this circumstance, a condom would be acceptable.

 

[Cristiano]

…Look at it this way:

Humanae Vitae states that women are allowed to be on the pill for health reasons without having to abstain. In this case, the condom would be worn for health reasons as well, meaning like the pill, married couples are allowed to use a condom during sex for health reasons. Does that make sense?..

I think that you missed completely the point. It says for health reasons not sexual reasons. The condom is for sexual reasons only. If the person had to use a condom 24 hours a day independently of the sexual act then you could have a point.

 

[Cristiano]

But it’s your SPOUSE! You seriously would refuse to make love to your spouse for the rest of his/her life? Out of fear of contracting the HIV that she/he has??..

So you are saying that you would give your husband a deadly disease just because he would like to have sex with you. Would you also let him drive completely intoxicated? Would you play Russian roulette with him because he would like to feel the thrill of it?

 

[Cristiano]

I agree with Debra. The truth is, as much as some of you state otherwise, there wont be much of a marriage with ever having sex again. The purpose of intercourse is not just to reproduce, but also to form and retain the marriage bond.

The pope has himself recently stated that the use of condoms was a better option then the spreading of HIV. I believe in this circumstance, a condom would be acceptable.

Go back and read what the Pope really said and what the meaning of his statement was.

 

[Debora123]

I think that you missed completely the point. It says for health reasons not sexual reasons. The condom is for sexual reasons only. If the person had to use a condom 24 hours a day independently of the sexual act then you could have a point.

There isn’t a specific rule out there for every single different scenario. The bottom line here is that the couple wouldn’t be using the condom for contraceptive reasons, they would be using it for health reasons - to keep from spreading the disease. Not in the exact same way as the pill, of course, but nonetheless, for something disease/health related. If you read the line I posted from Humanae Vitae, it clearly states something along the lines of “as long as it’s not for contraceptive reasons…”

"…provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (Humanae Vitae 15).

 

[Debora123]

So you are saying that you would give your husband a deadly disease just because he would like to have sex with you. Would you also let him drive completely intoxicated? Would you play Russian roulette with him because he would like to feel the thrill of it?

1. You can’t compare making love to your spouse to driving drunk. Sex is a beautiful, amazing thing. You need to read Theology of the Body for more accurate understanding of the beauty and importance of marital love making.
2. Sex isn’t just about “liking to do it.” It is about renewing your marital bond and it is much deeper and more spiritual than just doing it because you like it. Again, read Theology of the Body.
3. I wouldn’t intend on giving him a disease, that’s why very careful use of a condom would be necessary. However, I would be willing to take that risk, yes. Why? For all the same reasons I stated in my first post. If I was the one who was healthy, I would still make love to my sick husband. Vice versa would apply as well in his case if he were the healthy one.

 

[JayLynn]

There isn’t a specific rule out there for every single different scenario. The bottom line here is that the couple wouldn’t be using the condom for contraceptive reasons, they would be using it for health reasons - to keep from spreading the disease. Not in the exact same way as the pill, of course, but nonetheless, for something disease/health related. If you read the line I posted from Humanae Vitae, it clearly states something along the lines of “as long as it’s not for contraceptive reasons…”

"…provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (Humanae Vitae 15).

Exactly!

Not to mention the fact that the pill can cause an abortion whereas a condom cannot.

 

[John_of_Woking]

But it’s your SPOUSE! You seriously would refuse to make love to your spouse for the rest of his/her life? Out of fear of contracting the HIV that she/he has??

We would abstain and offer it up as a heroic sacrifice. I would not abstain for fear of contracting HIV but because I fear it would be objectively sinful and I would rather die than sin.

I am not 100% sure whether it is objectively sinful. However, I beleive it would be more pleasing to God to offer it up.

 

[Debora123]

We would abstain and offer it up as a heroic sacrifice. I would not abstain for fear of contracting HIV but because I fear it would be objectively sinful and I would rather die than sin.

I am not 100% sure whether it is objectively sinful. However, I beleive it would be more pleasing to God to offer it up.

I disagree. Sex with your spouse is a good, holy, spiritual thing. I don’t think refusing to make love to your spouse is in any way pleasing to God. On the contrary, I’m pretty sure it might actually be grounds for annulment.