Condoms, STDs, and abstinence

[CaliLobo]

This is an intense post, please excuse me. But I feel the need to share.

Today I have reprioritized and recalculated. I’ve decided to swear off my sexual desires until marriage.

Because of my sexual mistakes from a past life, and because I read something online that started the spiral of anxiety in me, I have decided to get tested.

I’ve prayed to God that I regret what I have done. I prayed for his favor. Thankfully it was negative.

But the anxiety was debilitating. The constant checking, the psychosomatic “symptoms” that are probably nothing, but what if? And the analysis paralysis. It felt like, why bother achieving anything anymore in life if I will have to suffer from an incurable illness. And who would marry me if I was positive for something?

Thankfully it was negative and I can move on. And at age 34 I am ready to say that I want my next sexual relationship to be with my wife. But I have a side question related to Catholicism.

If someone has an STD, how does he reconcile the prohibition against condoms with the medical imperative to not spread his disease to another? I’m talking within marriage here, not “society in general” or casual sex.

 

[Nelka]

Probably to abstain until treatment has finished.

 

[OurLadysServant]

Read the 1992 Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated under Saint Pope John Paul II.

Intercourse is only to be between a married husband and wife for the creation of children.
It must be open to the creation of children. So condoms are a grave matter, if used deliberately, in free will and free knowledge are a mortal sin. Intercourse is only permitted with the openness of children being conceived through that action.

Natural family planning is the only thing permitted by the church- meaning intercourse at certain menstrual cycles where it would be less likely conception would occur . (But does not block that outcome at all).

On a side note:
Private revelation such as the following is useful just in that it illustrates the above church teaching of the catholic catechism (which was promulgated under Pope John Paul II in 1992)
Gloria Polo a catholic who has written a book had a near death experience when she was hit by lightning. She used to wear something to prevent conceiving children while still being intimate with her husband. When she went before the Lord’s judgement, he showed her her womb was a slaughterhouse.
It was a mortal sin before The Lord.

So:
You cannot use condoms.

 

[CaliLobo]

So people with HIV must either abstain completely or put others at huge risk? Are single people with HIV not to get married unless they find a partner who will take a huge risk with them?

 

[OurLadysServant]

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
Yes abstainance.
Because intercourse is only permitted by God to create children within marriage. That’s it’s purpose. For a mum and dad to create children. Contraceptives block this and are a mortal sin iunder the conditions of being done in free will, full knowledge and deliberately.

I am not sure if the church teaches it’s ok for HIV person putting another person at risk of picking up the disease,
But 100% the church teaches no condoms permitted,

---

I’ll include you in the prayers friend!
Why not ask a catholic apologist on this website about whether it’s permitted to put the other person at risk rather than abstinence? Because 100% condoms are forbidden.
With condoms is forbidden. Without and put the other at risk? I do not know church teaching on

Abstainance might be the only option.

So people with HIV must either abstain completely or put others at huge risk? Are single people with HIV not to get married unless they find a partner who will take a huge risk with them?

 

[Miss_Felicity]

So people with HIV must either abstain completely or put others at huge risk? Are single people with HIV not to get married unless they find a partner who will take a huge risk with them?

New medical advances have made it possible for people who are HIV+ to not only live long healthy lives (many are dying of advanced age or other non related illnesses) but HIV+ people can marry without it being a death or illness sentence for their spouse or children. I do not have all of the research but I suggest you look into it. While HIV is a serious illness it is no longer the certain death it once was. With support, a dedicated health team and perseverance it can be managed.

 

[1ke]

So people with HIV must either abstain completely or put others at huge risk? Are single people with HIV not to get married unless they find a partner who will take a huge risk with them?

Our choices have consequences. The choices of others sometimes have consequences for us. And in our fallen world, sometimes consequences are forced onto the innocent through no fault of their own.

There are times when prudence and charity call us to forego marriage for our own good or the good of another.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

Our choices have consequences. The choices of others sometimes have consequences for us. And in our fallen world, sometimes consequences are forced onto the innocent through no fault of their own.

There are times when prudence and charity call us to forego marriage for our own good or the good of another.

I’m light of this being a manageable disease now? Is this cut and dry advice still the most accurate?

 

[CaliLobo]

New medical advances have made it possible for people who are HIV+ to not only live long healthy lives (many are dying of advanced age or other non related illnesses) but HIV+ people can marry without it being a death or illness sentence for their spouse or children. I do not have all of the research but I suggest you look into it. While HIV is a serious illness it is no longer the certain death it once was. With support, a dedicated health team and perseverance it can be managed.

As long as the drugs keep working. I had an HIV+ client before. He didn’t seem at peace with it despite it being “manageable.” I doubt anyone in this world takes HIV lightly because it’s “manageable.”

Personally I’m sick of the euphemisms. These are dangerous diseases. I’m tired of the “management” model of diseases. We need to research cures and stop filling up the pockets of Big Pharma.

We also need to reevaluate what is truly healthy for us. We need to reevaluate our culture of sex. If the anxiety I went through is the cost of casual sex (and I haven’t done much of it), are we really servicing ourselves by saying that sex is such a basic human need and that we shouldn’t worry so much because after all, skin-to-skin contact is bound to happen in life?

The anxiety caught up to me after one and a half years.

I don’t care how manageable herpes is. It’s an awful disease to have. Hell, so are stomach conditions, sports injuries, depression and anxiety, and even common things like high BP and myopia. No one in this world takes any of these conditions lightly because they are manageable.

But back to the main topic. Are we stumped here? Does the Catholic Church have limited answers for those with HIV?

 

[Miss_Felicity]

As long as the drugs keep working. I had an HIV+ client before. He didn’t seem at peace with it despite it being “manageable.” I doubt anyone in this world takes HIV lightly because it’s “manageable.”

Personally I’m sick of the euphemisms. These are dangerous diseases. I’m tired of the “management” model of diseases. We need to research cures and stop filling up the pockets of Big Pharma.

We also need to reevaluate what is truly healthy for us. We need to reevaluate our culture of sex. If the anxiety I went through is the cost of casual sex (and I haven’t done much of it), are we really servicing ourselves by saying that sex is such a basic human need and that we shouldn’t worry so much because after all, skin-to-skin contact is bound to happen in life?

The anxiety caught up to me after one and a half years.

I don’t care how manageable herpes is. It’s an awful disease to have. Hell, so are stomach conditions, sports injuries, depression and anxiety, and even common things like high BP and myopia. No one in this world takes any of these conditions lightly because they are manageable.

But back to the main topic. Are we stumped here? Does the Catholic Church have limited answers for those with HIV?

I don’t disagree with you. I have my issues with big pharma. Both of my parents and my partner are all diabetic. I do get it.

I never said that sex was a basic need although I think it is beautiful and made by God and people become too uptight about it. In any case my point was more along the lines of I think we need to stop evaluating HIV by the same standards we did in the 80’s and early 90’s, much has changed since then.

 

[KCT]

So people with HIV must either abstain completely or put others at huge risk? Are single people with HIV not to get married unless they find a partner who will take a huge risk with them?

If you love someone, why would you put her at risk?

 

[billcu1]

Read the 1992 Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated under Saint Pope John Paul II.

Intercourse is only to be between a married husband and wife for the creation of children.
It must be open to the creation of children. So condoms are a grave matter, if used deliberately, in free will and free knowledge are a mortal sin. Intercourse is only permitted with the openness of children being conceived through that action.

Natural family planning is the only thing permitted by the church- meaning intercourse at certain menstrual cycles where it would be less likely conception would occur . (But does not block that outcome at all).

On a side note:
Private revelation such as the following is useful just in that it illustrates the above church teaching of the catholic catechism (which was promulgated under Pope John Paul II in 1992)
Gloria Polo a catholic who has written a book had a near death experience when she was hit by lightning. She used to wear something to prevent conceiving children while still being intimate with her husband. When she went before the Lord’s judgement, he showed her her womb was a slaughterhouse.
It was a mortal sin before The Lord.

So:
You cannot use condoms.

Ok so wait a minute here. I am glad our friend has decided to control his desire. But isn’t sex in the marriage for procreation AND unification? That’s what I’ve always heard. I’m not a dating man but if I was into that the woman I was around would have to dress right. These girls nowadays are a constant distraction and try to keep you with impure thoughts. But anyway sex in marriage is for Two reasons I have always heard.

Bill

 

[1ke]

Ok so wait a minute here. I am glad our friend has decided to control his desire. But isn’t sex in the marriage for procreation AND unification? That’s what I’ve always heard. I’m not a dating man but if I was into that the woman I was around would have to dress right. These girls nowadays are a constant distraction and try to keep you with impure thoughts. But anyway sex in marriage is for Two reasons I have always heard.

Bill

The two ends cannot be separated.

 

[billcu1]

The two ends cannot be separated.

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

Bill

 

[1ke]

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

Bill

The two ends are not separated when couples use the information obtained through observing their cycle to make the choice to either have intercourse or to abstain from intercourse at that time.

If they abstain, there is no intercourse and therefore no disordered action. If they have intercourse it is unaltered and therefore also properly ordered. What they may not do is have intercourse and purposely separate the two ends via contraception.

 

[billcu1]

The two ends are not separated when couples use the information obtained through observing their cycle to make the choice to either have intercourse or to abstain from intercourse at that time.

If they abstain, there is no intercourse and therefore no disordered action. If they have intercourse it is unaltered and therefore also properly ordered. What they may not do is have intercourse and purposely separate the two ends via contraception.

So it is permissible for a couple to use NFP to find whether or not there are fertile to have children; or not fertile to not have children? Is that what you’re saying?

Bill

 

[Scottgun]

I wrote this awhile back and just paste when this subject comes up:

You can set your watch to it. One says something like, “Natural Familiy Planning (NFP) doesn’t work.”. The NFP defender replies that it is every bit as effective as artificial birth control (ABC). On cue, the naysayer goes, “Aha! Then they are the same thing!” Now the defender has the unenviable task of explaining moral reasoning like explaining vector calculus to a gorilla. I got so tired of rehashing it that I typed up this Moral Evaluations 101 cheat-sheet a few years ago and just pasted it when the issue came up. It probably needs serious tweaking, but here it is. (I’m lifting and paraphrasing most of this from CCC 1749-1761):

The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)

1. The subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to trick people into thinking you are pious).

1. The relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent.

By the way, the techniques of NFP are not really an act, it’s information gathering. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. The objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent (not doing something is never wrong unless there is a duty to do something). Putting barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. (Doing something and deliberately thwarting the proper, natural and good consequences of that act.) NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down as morally unacceptable up front. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet ’till we get to:

1. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to judge others, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard. See my other entry: Pius XII and Birth Regulation.)

1. The relative–and here is the cause of much of the contentiousness regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread mental blindness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent. T’ain’t so.

So while one can lodge all kinds of complaints against the Church’s teaching on contraception, logical inconsistency or “distinction without a difference” with ABC should not be among them.

 

[vsedriver]

So people with HIV must either abstain completely or put others at huge risk? Are single people with HIV not to get married unless they find a partner who will take a huge risk with them?

would you seek a partner to love, have them love you and then ask them to risk their life for you? Is that the act of a loving person?

The world doesn’t end if a person lives a chaste, single life. There are many people who live, happy, productive lives and never marry.

 

[1ke]

So it is permissible for a couple to use NFP to find whether or not there are fertile to have children; or not fertile to not have children? Is that what you’re saying?

Bill

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

 

[Brendan]

So people with HIV must either abstain completely or put others at huge risk? Are single people with HIV not to get married unless they find a partner who will take a huge risk with them?

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.