Condoms (not as contraceptive)

[Debora123]

Exactly!

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

I know, right? The pill can cause abortions, and yet the Church STILL sees marital lovemaking as SO important that even if someone were to die as a result, it’s still necessary. I think that applies to possibly contracting your spouse with HIV.

I asked my husband this morning if he’d refuse to make love to me for the rest of our lives if I got raped and contracted HIV. He laughed at me and said “of course not, baby.”

 

[Cristiano]

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.

You should read or re-read the theology of the body (not the Christopher West stuff) to understand that out relationship with our spouses is not mainly about the importance of marital love making and that such important action is still less important than our covenant with God. What about the teachings from “Love and Responsibility” by the same author? That book came out quite a bit before “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body”. Do those teachings take second place to the act of marital lovemaking?

Would you discourage people with highly infections diseases to receive communion from the chalice during Mass even if it were the only way for them to receive communion? Would you receive from the same chalice after them?

 

[Cristiano]

I know, right? The pill can cause abortions, and yet the Church STILL sees marital lovemaking as SO important that even if someone were to die as a result, it’s still necessary. I think that applies to possibly contracting your spouse with HIV.

I asked my husband this morning if he’d refuse to make love to me for the rest of our lives if I got raped and contracted HIV. He laughed at me and said “of course not, baby.”

Would he do that without using any form of protection?

 

[John_of_Woking]

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.

My wife would not be want to even risk passing on the infection to me anyway. It would be selfish and irresponsible - who would look after my child if we both died? Anyway from what I have read the Catholic CHurch does not approve the use of condoms in such a situation…and what Mother (the church) says goes!

 

[Debora123]

You should read or re-read the theology of the body (not the Christopher West stuff) to understand that out relationship with our spouses is not mainly about the importance of marital love making and that such important action is still less important than our covenant with God. What about the teachings from “Love and Responsibility” by the same author? That book came out quite a bit before “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body”. Do those teachings take second place to the act of marital lovemaking?

Would you discourage people with highly infections diseases to receive communion from the chalice during Mass even if it were the only way for them to receive communion? Would you receive from the same chalice after them?

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I think lovemaking is less important than our covenant with God. This whole time I’ve been talking about how making love to our spouse IS a way of praising God and doing God’s will. I never said anything along the lines of anything being more important than God. Having sex while on the pill (which is even abortifacient) for reasons other than contraception is ok, and so I came to the educated opinion that using a condom for reasons other than contraception is ok. You don’t have to agree if you don’t want, it is after all my opinion of the truth, but I don’t think it’s right for you to accuse me of thinking our covenant with God is less important than anything.

And I think the examples you use to symbolize sex are way off base. First you compared sex to driving drunk, and now you’re comparing it to receiving communion. Doing that isn’t getting the discussion anywhere, because those things aren’t the same thing as having sex. But just to entertain you, I will answer your question - NO, I wouldn’t drink from the same chalice that a sick person drank from. But I absolutely would make love to my sick husband. Don’t see how you can compare the 2 as if it’s the same thing.

 

[SummerSmiles]

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.

It’s only grounds for annulment if a person is absolutely not physically capable of having sex, prior to taking the marriage vows. If something happens years later, that is a different case.

Yes, sex with your spouse is a good, holy, spiritual thing, but only if the way that it occurs reflects that. In the case of the condom, spouses cannot physically give themselves completely to each other; there is a barrier in the way. It cannot be a true renewal of the marital bond. Yes, sex is a much deeper spiritual thing than just the physical pleasure of it, but it must be respected as such. The condom allows people to experience the physical pleasure of sex, but it does not allow them to completely give of themselves and receive each other.

If I were in that situation, being the sick spouse, there is NO WAY that I would want to endanger my husband in that way. Having sex with him at all is putting his life in danger. Condoms are not 100% and I simply wouldn’t risk it. I love my children too much to knowingly put their father in a potentially life-threatening situation, and possibly leave them without both their father and mother. Just my two cents.

 

[SummerSmiles]

And I think the examples you use to symbolize sex are way off base. First you compared sex to driving drunk, and now you’re comparing it to receiving communion. Doing that isn’t getting the discussion anywhere, because those things aren’t the same thing as having sex. But just to entertain you, I will answer your question - NO, I wouldn’t drink from the same chalice that a sick person drank from. But I absolutely would make love to my sick husband. Don’t see how you can compare the 2 as if it’s the same thing.

I would have to disagree. Yes, they’re all completely different things, but I think that we should consider the bigger picture here. We’re not just talking about sex. We’re talking about sex when it’s potentially life threatening. That doesn’t mean that having sex in this situation would definitely lead to a partner’s death, just that it’s a possibility. Just as accepting a ride with a drunk driver doesn’t guarantee that we’ll be involved in a fatal accident, but it’s a possibility. Playing Russian roulette doesn’t guarantee death either, but it’s likely to happen. In the end, it’s all reckless behavior.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I think lovemaking is less important than our covenant with God. This whole time I’ve been talking about how making love to our spouse IS a way of praising God and doing God’s will. I never said anything along the lines of anything being more important than God. Having sex while on the pill (which is even abortifacient) for reasons other than contraception is ok, and so I came to the educated opinion that using a condom for reasons other than contraception is ok. You don’t have to agree if you don’t want, it is after all my opinion of the truth, but I don’t think it’s right for you to accuse me of thinking our covenant with God is less important than anything.

And I think the examples you use to symbolize sex are way off base. First you compared sex to driving drunk, and now you’re comparing it to receiving communion. Doing that isn’t getting the discussion anywhere, because those things aren’t the same thing as having sex. But just to entertain you, I will answer your question - NO, I wouldn’t drink from the same chalice that a sick person drank from. But I absolutely would make love to my sick husband. Don’t see how you can compare the 2 as if it’s the same thing.

Much like a white lie, you might be able to try and say that your ends justified the means, but it is still a sin. IMHO if you have a child your actions would be inherently sinful, as well as extremely selfish, for both of you.

 

[Debora123]

IMHO if you have a child your actions would be inherently sinful, as well as extremely selfish, for both of you.

Wow, thank you so much. What a nice thing to say to me.

 

[Debora123]

We’re not just talking about sex. We’re talking about sex when it’s potentially life threatening.

…Likewise, having sex while on the pill (for health reasons) puts a newly conceived baby’s life at risk. Not only at risk, but a guaranteed death. Yet the Church still says that women on the pill should have sex with their husbands, even though it will definitely take away the life of a baby if one happens to conceive. I wonder why? Oh, maybe because marital lovemaking really IS extremely important in a marriage. More so than some people here are making it out to be.

 

[JayLynn]

Suppose the raped woman did not get HIV, but an STD like HPV instead. This way it is not life threatening, but is still incurable.

This way she is not putting her husbands life at risk by having intercourse, but the condom will still help prevent the spread of the disease.

Is it still suggested that she once be a victim of horrendous trauma and then victimized again, by a husband who says that to be intimate with her again would be immoral? A person at their most vulnerable state, who most needs the reassurance and touch of the one man she loves and trusts, to instead be forced into a life of celibacy because of the selfish act of another person.

How can this option be seen as compassionate in any way? To tell this woman that she is being sinful because she wants affection from her husband hardly seems fair. It’s not as though she’d be using the condom to live a life of promiscuity.

 

[Debora123]

It seems like a lot of CAF people love to use martial abstinence as a solution to pretty much everything.

Your car breaks down - YOU MUST ABSTAIN FROM SEX!

Your house gets broken into - YOU MUST ABSTAIN FROM SEX!

Your kid is failing in school - YOU MUST ABSTAIN FROM SEX!

A relative dies - YOU MUST ABSTAIN FROM SEX!

Your dog is sick - YOU MUST ABSTAIN FROM SEX!

Hahaha!!!

Seriously though. People need to understand just how important sex is in a marriage. Taking it away completely would be borderline destructive - emotionally and psychologically.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Wow, thank you so much. What a nice thing to say to me.

Deborah you are very welcome. I humbly point out the teachings of the church because we are told to do so.

CCC 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, ***we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others ***when we cooperate in them:
*by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
*** by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
by protecting evil-doers.

CCC 1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. ***“Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. ***In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144
144 John Paul II, RP 16.

CCC 1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Suppose the raped woman did not get HIV, but an STD like HPV instead. This way it is not life threatening, but is still incurable.

This way she is not putting her husbands life at risk by having intercourse, but the condom will still help prevent the spread of the disease.

Is it still suggested that she once be a victim of horrendous trauma and then victimized again, by a husband who says that to be intimate with her again would be immoral? A person at their most vulnerable state, who most needs the reassurance and touch of the one man she loves and trusts, to instead be forced into a life of celibacy because of the selfish act of another person.

How can this option be seen as compassionate in any way? To tell this woman that she is being sinful because she wants affection from her husband hardly seems fair. It’s not as though she’d be using the condom to live a life of promiscuity.

Each person must answer for their own sins, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear on these points you just need to open it up and read. I know that many “Catholics” believe that they can pick and choose the teachings that they want to follow and call themselves Catholics, but I would again say “A person that wants to call themselves a vegetarian but eats steak is really not a vegetarian”. That being said I would offer the following?

Does the couple intend on ever having Children? If the answer is yes then why wear a condom? If they intend on getting pregnant through IVF then they are why outside of the bounds of Church teaching and it is a mortal sin. If they are going to get pregnant per church teaching then what does it matter when the spouse will catch the lifelong virus? They can share this cross as in “Sickness and health”. If the answer is that they do not intend on having any children, or basically are not going to be open to life, then they really have no marriage and I guess it does not really matter what they are using. I guess from my perspective I would ask what is the difference between using stimulation instead of sex with a condemn? To me it would seem that a married couple using condoms with no intent to ever have children are both basically just helping each other perform a form of masturbation with each spouse being USED as the instrument of gratification for the other.

This site offers many hours of Catholic Answers live that can be downloaded, as well as many publications in the form of books and apologetics that can be read that will point you in the direction of the Catholic Churches answers for these questions and the teaching on Magisterial authority. In the end many questions on this board that are offered by Catholics are readily answered by the CCC, but I think that many Catholics just don’t like to hear the answers, much like my children when I am not letting them do something, that although may be pleasurable or fun, are harmful and or sinful.

 

[Cristiano]

The more I read this thread the more I start to think that the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph sinned because they did not had physical marital relations. Maybe they did not have a good understanding of what marriage is.

 

[Debora123]

The more I read this thread the more I start to think that the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph sinned because they did not had physical marital relations. Maybe they did not have a good understanding of what marriage is.

Are you serious???

You can’t compare the marriage of Saint Joseph and The Virgin to any other marriage out there. That marriage happened as a result of a miracle form God. God made them married without them having to consummate the marriage, just like God made Mary pregnant without her having to have sex.

That was a MIRACLE, it was an extra-ordinary case.

The ONLY person that God has impregnated w/o having had sex, and the ONLY person God has married without having to have sex is Mary.

This doesn’t apply to the rest of us. The rest of us NEED to have sex to get pregnant. The rest of us NEED to have sex to consummate a marriage. You can’t compare their situation to anyone else’s. Their situation was a miracle.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Are you serious???

You can’t compare the marriage of Saint Joseph and The Virgin to any other marriage out there. That marriage happened as a result of a miracle form God. God made them married without them having to consummate the marriage, just like God made Mary pregnant without her having to have sex.

That was a MIRACLE, it was an extra-ordinary case.

The ONLY person that God has impregnated w/o having had sex, and the ONLY person God has married without having to have sex is Mary.

This doesn’t apply to the rest of us. The rest of us NEED to have sex to get pregnant. The rest of us NEED to have sex to consummate a marriage. You can’t compare their situation to anyone else’s. Their situation was a miracle.

Agree 100% …

 

[John_of_Woking]

I appreciate the unitive aspect of marital relations as much as anyone. It is a means of living out our vocation in a covenant of love. However sex is not the only means of following our vocation and in the case of HIV we would follow church teaching and abstain. WIth the grace of God this would be possible but hard. A heroic sacrifice if you like

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I appreciate the unitive aspect of marital relations as much as anyone. It is a means of living out our vocation in a covenant of love. However sex is not the only means of following our vocation and in the case of HIV we would follow church teaching and abstain. WIth the grace of God this would be possible but hard. A heroic sacrifice if you like

Agree 100% …

 

[Ron_Conte]

Janet Smith just published an article in OSV on the subject of contraception. She mentions her position on the question as to whether or not a married couple can use condoms to prevent disease transmission.

“Let me contest the claim the spouses can use a condom and not be contracepting. I believe it to be true and I believe that it is consistent with traditional Thomistic analysis of the moral act to say that the intention of the agent is not the sole or chief determinant of the object of an act… Some “objects” have a per se nature and thus when an agent chooses that act, he chooses all that is included in the nature of that act.”

“An HIV-infected husband using a condom is performing an act that has the per se consequence of preventing conception. He is attempting to prevent semen from entering the vagina: That is by its very nature a conception-preventing action. The means the husband chooses to prevent transmission of the HIV is essentially a means that directly involves an act contraceptive by its nature. One cannot choose a bad means to a good end. The husband has a good end: that of wanting to reduce risk of transmission of a lethal disease, but he is using a means that necessarily has a contraceptive effect. He must intend and therefore must choose that consequence, a consequence that violates the very purpose of the sexual act. Although the husband may not want to violate the procreative purpose of the act he must in fact desire and intend that semen not enter the vagina and that is per se contraceptive. Thus it is immoral to participate in such an action.”

osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7298/A-response-to-Father-Rhonheimer-on-condoms.aspx