Condoms OK sometimes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LausDeo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LausDeo

Guest
In an article (asia.news.yahoo.com/051130/3/2bmid.html) about the Catholic Church and AIDS the following was said:

“One exception sometimes cited by Church experts as an example is that of allowing the use of condoms in the case where a man with HIV/AIDS insists on having sex with his wife.”

Is this correct? Does the Church actually make an exception that allows condom use? I thought this would go totally against what the Church teaches about sex.
 
Emphasis added:

LausDeo said:
“One exception sometimes cited by Church experts as an example is that of allowing the use of condoms in the case where a man with HIV/AIDS insists on having sex with his wife.”
Click to expand...

The underlined portion sounds more like the attitude of a rapist than a husband. Regardless, the “Church experts” sometimes cited (as above) are incorrect. The virtuous thing is for the man to not insist on threatening the life of his wife by his actions.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
The Church says that it is ok for a woman to have sex with a man who insists on using contraception. However, she must do all she can to dissuade him from using them.

As Catholics, we are NEVER permitted the use of contraception.

The church allows mixed marriages where one party uses contraception to continue to have sex, but as said above, the other half must do everything possible to change this (within reason).

In Christ.

Andre.
 
There is also the fact that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV.
 
40.png
LausDeo:
In an article (asia.news.yahoo.com/051130/3/2bmid.html) about the Catholic Church and AIDS the following was said:

“One exception sometimes cited by Church experts as an example is that of allowing the use of condoms in the case where a man with HIV/AIDS insists on having sex with his wife.”

Is this correct? Does the Church actually make an exception that allows condom use? I thought this would go totally against what the Church teaches about sex.
Click to expand...
No.

“Church experts” could be anyone standing on the streetcorner who will give an opinion. “Church experts” are often dissenters who are not representing actual church teaching, but rather their own opinion.
 
Yes. I believe that condoms are effective and permitted when combined with abstinence.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Can you proove it?
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not the negative.

Regardless, the proof or lack thereof is irrelevant. Condoms could cure HIV/AIDs, and their use would still be immoral.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
BayCityRickL:
Yes. I believe that condoms are effective and permitted when combined with abstinence.
Click to expand...
How can anyone combine the use of condoms and abstinence?
 
40.png
mlchance:
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not the negative.

Regardless, the proof or lack thereof is irrelevant. Condoms could cure HIV/AIDs, and their use would still be immoral.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing the point, just interested in some further reading on the subject…
 
If you knew how much God hated contraception, you would stop. It is defiling the sacred act of sex.
 
40.png
Magicsilence:
The Church says that it is ok for a woman to have sex with a man who insists on using contraception. However, she must do all she can to dissuade him from using them.

As Catholics, we are NEVER permitted the use of contraception.

The church allows mixed marriages where one party uses contraception to continue to have sex, but as said above, the other half must do everything possible to change this (within reason).

In Christ.

Andre.
Click to expand...
The man, in this example, would be a non-Catholic though, since for him, it would not be considered a sin, at least that’s how I understood it.

I don’t see how the Church would allow a Catholic man to insist on using contraception and impose that on his wife…I could be wrong, though.
 
40.png
Bella3502:
That is simply not true.
Click to expand...
I have to agree and disagree with this… Condoms work well to prevent the spread of HIV but they will never prevent the spread. 2 reasons. 1) They aren’t 100%. 2) People are definitely not going to use them 100% right 100% of the time, so sexual activity with an HIV infected partner, will most likely spread to others.

From Aids.org
“Condoms prevent HIV transmission very well if they are used correctly every time you have sex.”

I don’t like those words “very well”… I’d rather abstain and live

aids.org/factSheets/153-Condoms.html
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
The man, in this example, would be a non-Catholic though, since for him, it would not be considered a sin, at least that’s how I understood it.
Click to expand...
A violation of natural law is a sin regardless of one’s religion (or lack thereof). Culpability for the sin may be lessened due to one’s particular circumstances, but the act itself remains wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
A violation of natural law is a sin regardless of one’s religion (or lack thereof). Culpability for the sin may be lessened due to one’s particular circumstances, but the act itself remains wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
We were talking about the Catholic wife of this man, though, and her being free from his sin by fulfilling her marital vows with a contrite heart even though the husband is using a condom.

I was just clarifying that that particular exception for the woman holds because it is the non-Catholic husband insisting upon and using the ABC, not her.
 
On a microscopic level- the size of the AIDS virus is many times smaller than the microscopic holes in the latex. The sperm are too big to pass through, but the AIDS virus can. One more point- the condoms they try to send to the 3rd world company are the eqivelent of “2nd quality”. They cannot be sold in the US for this reason, therefore, they are even LESS effective.

One more thing no one in the 1st world contries wants to consider, to the average African man, using a condom is a blow to his manly mandood self-image. This leads to very inconsistant use, but the detremantal psycological effect of further saturating the country in sex still takes place. The same as condom distribution programs in schools actually INCREASES the amount of sex by the students, as well as increases the pregnancy rate.

The only African country that has REDUCED the # of AIDS patients is Uganda, which has had a country wide abstenance and monogamy campaign going on for quite some time. This has made PP and the like FURIOUS, and they are pushing HARD to get condoms in there. Uganda also has a reasonably high percentage of Catholics (for an African nation) and I think that the “key” to getting PP’s condoms into Africa is to convince the African bishops it’s ok for AIDS prevention. -There goes the abstenence program in Uganda. PP wins, at the cost of millions more AIDS cases.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
We were talking about the Catholic wife of this man, though, and her being free from his sin by fulfilling her marital vows with a contrite heart even though the husband is using a condom.

I was just clarifying that that particular exception for the woman holds because it is the non-Catholic husband insisting upon and using the ABC, not her.
Click to expand...
But I wonder…I understand it was ‘ok’ for her to have relations with her husband (because of the marital obligation for that), but does “ok” mean she is not sinning or does she have to go to confession afterwards in order to receive communion???
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
But I wonder…I understand it was ‘ok’ for her to have relations with her husband (because of the marital obligation for that), but does “ok” mean she is not sinning or does she have to go to confession afterwards in order to receive communion???
Click to expand...
She is not sinning.

This is from the** Pontifical Council for the Family**. The document is titled "Vademecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life" and was issued Feb. 12, 1997.

You can read the entire document here:

cin.org/vatcong/vademec.html
This is the pertinent section-

"13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of co-operation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish co-operation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.[46] This co-operation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:
  1. when the action of the co-operating spouse is not already illicit in itself;[47]
  2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
  3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
  1. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of co-operation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.[48] "
 
40.png
Bella3502:
That is simply not true.
Click to expand...
Peace be with you!

Yes it is. See Siena’s post…that was the same thing I was going to say.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top