Condoms, STDs, and abstinence

[billcu1]

Yes the information garnered thru NFP can be used to achieve or avoid.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

On another note. If one was strictly against having children and wasn’t interested in them; would the church marry that couple? If that couple received a civil marriage. Would the church recognize or sanction it? And lastly. Would that couple who was married civilly be denied the sacraments?

Bill

 

[CaliLobo]

That is correct, because the high risk would be there with every marital act.

Condoms reduce, but do not eliminate, the chance of infection.

Imagine that I gave you a revolver with a 100 round capacity. Then I put 2 bullets in it and spun the wheel.

What is the likelihood that you would point it at your spouse and pulled the trigger. Hopefully zero.

But what would you think of a person who spun that wheel, aimed it their spouse and pulled the trigger a few times a week.

Sure it’s ‘safer’ than having all the cylinders filled with bullets, but is still a level of danger that most would not (or should not want)… no matter how good it felt to pull that trigger

If you really loved someone, by definition, you would not want to expose them to the risk at all.

I understand your feelings behind this statement. But your assumption is incorrect–condoms do eliminate the risk of HIV infection.

Condoms, however, do not completely eliminate the risk of herpes and HPV infection.

Maybe you are correct, and those with HIV should not be having sex because it is too dangerous of a risk to others. However, if condoms can eliminate the risk, why can’t we allow Catholics with HIV to have sex with condoms? Isn’t sexual intimacy a basic human need?

As a corollary, herpes and HPV are seen as much less dangerous, and not even a big deal for medical professionals. (Of course they are a big deal to the patients. But as a lawyer I imagine it must be like saying that a reckless driving case is not a big deal, although it is to the client.)

Anyways, if herpes and HPV are seen as not that big of a deal, and sexual intimacy remains a basic human need, should Catholics with these diseases also abstain completely? Shouldn’t we allow them to have sex with condoms within their marriages, and take off the condom when it’s time to have a baby?

Isn’t that the more responsible stance to take from a public health perspective? Herpes and HPV are extremely common.

Exactly where is the mandate against contraception in Catholic teaching?

Is it time for a rethinking of this teaching?

 

[on_the_hill]

On another note. If one was strictly against having children and wasn’t interested in them; would the church marry that couple?
Bill

Similar to my question: If a person has AIDS/HIV and therefore cannot have sex, can that person be married in the Church? From what I understand, strictly speaking the Church will not marry two people who know they are unable to have children together.

 

[CaliLobo]

Furthermore, if the Church allows use of the pill for unrelated medical reasons, isn’t there room for the Church to allow use of condoms for “unrelated medical reasons?”

 

[CaliLobo]

Similar to my question: If a person has AIDS/HIV and therefore cannot have sex, can that person be married in the Church? From what I understand, strictly speaking the Church will not marry two people who know they are unable to have children together.

Corollary question: Is this loving and merciful on the part of the Church, if the Church really takes such a stance?

 

[on_the_hill]

Furthermore, if the Church allows use of the pill for unrelated medical reasons, isn’t there room for the Church to allow use of condoms for “unrelated medical reasons?”

My guess is ‘No.’ The Pill can function as a medication to help the person who is taking it. There is no medical benefit to using a condom. In other words, the Pill can regulate hormonal changes, but the condom doesn’t do anything.

In a far-fetched example, maybe if a man somehow had an allergy and condoms protected him from it, or…I don’t know what.

 

[Scottgun]

Corollary question: Is this loving and merciful on the part of the Church, if the Church really takes such a stance?

It hasn’t been established that the Church takes such a stance. Since a man and a women are capable of intercourse and are still ordered toward procreation, it may be possible for them to have a valid marriage.

Rember that Love and Mercy are not really either if they dispose of Truth.

 

[on_the_hill]

Corollary question: Is this loving and merciful on the part of the Church, if the Church really takes such a stance?

This is probably a point where our ‘temporal’ interpretation of loving and merciful departs from a ‘spiritual(?)’ interpretation.

In other words, better to serve the full intent of the Lord–man and wife join together for sexual relations that are uniative and open to the possibility of life; if a man and woman cannot share that intimacy then they are impelled to follow a single, celibate earthly life in preparation for eternal life.

Encouraging and facilitating that life is, in that regard, more loving and merciful than it is to allow them to stray from God’s intentions for them as individuals.

 

[on_the_hill]

It hasn’t been established that the Church takes such a stance. Since a man and a women are capable of intercourse and are still ordered toward procreation, it may be possible for them to have a valid marriage.

Rember that Love and Mercy are not really either if they dispose of Truth.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought I had read elsewhere on CAF that a man who is physically incapable of sex cannot marry in the Church. I mean, in situations where an injury or birth defect would have left him without working parts; not where there’s a chance of divine intervention that would miraculously increase his sperm count, or cure impotence.

 

[CaliLobo]

Could you guys reply to post #22? Do you believe those with herpes and HPV should abstain? Or is there room for condom use within marriage, until it’s time to have a baby? Herpes and HPV are very common conditions, and the risk of contracting them is lessened with condoms. Isn’t promoting condom use for these people the medically responsible thing to do?

 

[on_the_hill]

Condoms won’t do much to protect against HPV because it is spread in many ways that don’t involve intercourse. HPV is a big family of viruses (including everything from garden variety warts on your fingers to the kind that cause cervical cancer) that are spread by skin to skin contact.

So using a condom in marital sex won’t help with HPV. Plus, most people have already been exposed to it anyway. Also, regular gyno exams with Pap tests will diagnose pre-cancerous HPV infections before they lead to cervical cancer.

As for HIV—I have no idea. My own personal opinion is that I’d be worried about HIV even with a condom.

 

[1ke]

On another note. If one was strictly against having children and wasn’t interested in them; would the church marry that couple? If that couple received a civil marriage. Would the church recognize or sanction it? And lastly. Would that couple who was married civilly be denied the sacraments?

Bill

A permanent intention against children is an impediment to valid marriage so it is not possible for the church to marry such a couple. If the couple married civilly, they would be in an invalid marriage.

To receive the sacraments one must be in a state of grace. The civilly married couple could be in a state of grace if they went to confession and abstained from conjugal relations under direction of their pastor, if they had a change of heart regarding children and were able to convalidate the marriage, or if they ceased common life.

 

[Rau]

… Or is there room for condom use within marriage, until it’s time to have a baby? Herpes and HPV are very common conditions, and the risk of contracting them is lessened with condoms. Isn’t promoting condom use for these people the medically responsible thing to do?

Cali - what does the Catechism say? Start there instead of a blank sheet of paper.

BTW - are herpes and HPV treatable?

 

[billcu1]

A permanent intention against children is an impediment to valid marriage so it is not possible for the church to marry such a couple. If the couple married civilly, they would be in an invalid marriage.

To receive the sacraments one must be in a state of grace. The civilly married couple could be in a state of grace if they went to confession and abstained from conjugal relations under direction of their pastor, if they had a change of heart regarding children and were able to convalidate the marriage, or if they ceased common life.

What does “ceased common life” mean?

Bill

 

[pensmama87]

I don’t know for certain that such places exist, but I have heard that there are dating services/websites specifically for people with STDs (typically HIV). I know there are different strains so I don’t know precisely how it works, but I would think that it would be possible to get married and have a normal conjugal life with a person who had the same disease as you (and there are ways now to minimize exposure and the risk of transmission to children).

I don’t think it’s the kind of thing to be done lightly as if it were no big deal, but that might present a moral option for a person. Sadly, the reality is that we have to live with the consequences of our (and frequently others’) sins. Our choices may be limited.

 

[1ke]

What does “ceased common life” mean?

Bill

No longer live together, separate or divorce civilly.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

I understand your feelings behind this statement. But your assumption is incorrect–condoms do eliminate the risk of HIV infection.

Condoms, however, do not completely eliminate the risk of herpes and HPV infection.

Maybe you are correct, and those with HIV should not be having sex because it is too dangerous of a risk to others. However, if condoms can eliminate the risk, why can’t we allow Catholics with HIV to have sex with condoms? Isn’t sexual intimacy a basic human need?

As a corollary, herpes and HPV are seen as much less dangerous, and not even a big deal for medical professionals. (Of course they are a big deal to the patients. But as a lawyer I imagine it must be like saying that a reckless driving case is not a big deal, although it is to the client.)

Anyways, if herpes and HPV are seen as not that big of a deal, and sexual intimacy remains a basic human need, should Catholics with these diseases also abstain completely? Shouldn’t we allow them to have sex with condoms within their marriages, and take off the condom when it’s time to have a baby?

Isn’t that the more responsible stance to take from a public health perspective? Herpes and HPV are extremely common.

Exactly where is the mandate against contraception in Catholic teaching?

Is it time for a rethinking of this teaching?

You are incorrect. Condoms do not completely eliminate the risk of HIV infection.

 

[MJJean]

You are incorrect. Condoms do not completely eliminate the risk of HIV infection.

I was also going to say this. Condom use reduces the risk of transmission, but do not eliminate it entirely. User error plays a very large part in this as does the type of condom. Laboratory studies give condoms about a 99.9% effective rate where real world use gives them about an 86% effective rate.

Whoever was talking about HIV being treatable has obviously never been close to an HIV patient. I have. He died a couple years ago in his early 40’s. His name was Jim. His infection came from his ex-wife, who also died of complications due to HIV/AIDS. Jim suffered greatly despite excellent medical care, regular doctors visits, and following his doctors’ advice regarding medications and diet. His entire life was consumed with trying to maintain his weight and health, keeping his T-cell count as low as possible, and with multiple medications, multiple medication changes, and the side effects of said medications. Some days he was so physically weak he could barely function. He did attempt to date on websites for those with STD’s, but never found that special someone. He used to cry regularly because he was so desperately lonely. He died alone in the hospital while battling a common lung infection, something extremely dangerous for those with compromised immune systems. It was heartbreaking.

I certainly wouldn’t wish his fate on my worst enemy, much less take even a small chance of dooming someone I like.love to that same fate.

 

[CaliLobo]

"Rau:

Cali - what does the Catechism say? Start there instead of a blank sheet of paper.

BTW - are herpes and HPV treatable?

I was also going to say this. Condom use reduces the risk of transmission, but do not eliminate it entirely. User error plays a very large part in this as does the type of condom. Laboratory studies give condoms about a 99.9% effective rate where real world use gives them about an 86% effective rate.

Whoever was talking about HIV being treatable has obviously never been close to an HIV patient. I have. He died a couple years ago in his early 40’s…

This is heartbreaking to hear about Jim. I am sorry.

Okay, it looks like we have concluded that perhaps marriage is not in the future for someone with HIV, because love would require that one not put another at such grave risk, and sex in Catholicism must be procreative and unitive, which bars condoms.

But I see the waters muddied with HPV and herpes. These are not dangerous diseases, but they are loathsome enough, requiring a lifetime of medication and safety measures. The social stigma alone is devastating.

However, they are not devastating enough. They are mild enough such that people with these diseases still marry and have children. And many people with these diseases don’t have symptoms.

They are mild enough such that marriage and children are possible. Yet, Catholicism provides no easy answers, because condoms are barred! However, since they are still devastating enough, shouldn’t those with HPV and herpes not put others at risk, out of love for another?

Rau, I understand the Catechism bars contraception. MJJean, I understand that condoms do not protect fully against STDs. But condoms still help. And I wonder if HPV and herpes are situations in which we will need condoms within marriage, because sex with a condom is the medically responsible thing to do.

Protestantism has had the chance to correct itself since 1930, and it still has not. Could it be because the Bible does not fully have anything to say on point regarding this issue, though we may have thought so in previous centuries?

 

[jmcrae]

They why bother with using NFP? That’s supposed to be used as a form of natural “birth control”. Isn’t it?

Bill

NFP is about spacing your children, and knowing when you can get pregnant. It’s much more holistic than any kind of birth control.