Condoms to prevent HIV infection during rape

[Sunflower15]

Evidently, if a woman is about to be raped, she has no say in regards to whether or not the rapist wears a condom.

If he does, she doesn’t sin. If he doesn’t, she doesn’t sin.
I imagine rapists seldom wear condoms when committing a violent crime…but, who knows?

My take on pregnancies resulting from any sinful sexual relations [whether it is HER sin or not, as in the case of rape] is that since the Evil one cannot create…the HS intervened in that instance with mercy.

Yep, mercy… Actually, MERCY!!!

The Evil One can cause ALL kinds of mischief, and encourage sin, but he CANNOT CREATE LIFE!
Not only does he seldom WANT TO bring more humans into LIFE, since he hates humans, and if anything, he is ALWAYS trying to kill as many as possible, but he CANNOT cause life to come into existence!

IF a LIFE results…it wasn’t HIM! WHO was it, then?

The sexual act does not always produce a baby…as so many infertile couples who try and try again know. So, it’s not a matter of saying, ALL you have to do is have intercourse and your body will ALWAYS get pregnant…not the case at all. In other words…
It’s NOT like saying, throw water upon yourself and you will ALWAYS get wet. Right?

Therefore, when a baby IS produced, then it is ALWAYS the WILL of the Lord --the Giver of Life-- the Holy Spirit.
**It’s what HE does, HE creates LIFE. **
[Maybe that’s why the Evil One tries so hard to convince us that human LIFE is unworthy…to discredit HIM, WHO is our source?]

So, it follows that regardless of the circumstances [maybe *especially because of the circumstances, though our culture does not see it that way at all!],
IF there is a pregnancy by necessity it is ALWAYS by the agency of the HS! ALWAYS! There is NO other source of LIFE!

And, we know that the HS is the Love of the Father and the Son, and pours His Love over us as a sign of MERCY, NOT as punishment or for some morbid reason!

Is it possible that the HS means such pregnancies as a consolation or as a sign of hope, or as a blessing? Why can’t WE see it that way?

Because we are SO incredibly immersed in a culture of DEATH! Death seems more merciful, humane, and desirable to us!
How sick is that?!

 

[Sunflower15]

Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t seem likely that this rapist would stop to put a condom on just to favor his victim.

I’m with you on this one…AND,
presumably, a person with HIV who is raping someone else probably wants to spread the disease, no?
[maybe I have a sick mind, but I think this guy’s would definitely have to be worse than mine!]
I just cannot imagine the “thoughtful” -type rapist…
I also complicated the issue a little on another post by adding a pregnancy…heck, since we are at it…let’s analyze this hypothetical case…

 

[PhilTeach]

You cannot find such a Church document because it does not exist.
Apart from the perforated condom to collect a sample of semen for sperm testing the Church does NOT permit the use of condoms for anything else, not for contraception, not against rape, and not against disease.

Early on in his papacy, Pope Benedict requested that the issue of condom use for couples in which a member may have HIV, be studied. Dose anyone know if such a study ever occurred? Is it still in process?

 

[thistle]

Early on in his papacy, Pope Benedict requested that the issue of condom use for couples in which a member may have HIV, be studied. Dose anyone know if such a study ever occurred? Is it still in process?

Abstinence is the only answer. By the way condoms are not 100% effective so why would a husband or wife deliberately risk the life of the other by having sexual intercourse if one of them has HIV. That is certainly not love.

 

[centurionguard]

Thank you, centurion guard, for that sobering personal testimony.

Correct me if I’m wrong and I apologize before hand but am I misinterpreting your statement here as implying sarcasm ?

 

[Middleman]

Correct me if I’m wrong and I apologize before hand but am I misinterpreting your statement here as implying sarcasm ?

It sounds like your must be reading something into what I said that wasn’t there. I thought your account was very sobering and personal. People need to hear that.

 

[PhilTeach]

Abstinence is the only answer. By the way condoms are not 100% effective so why would a husband or wife deliberately risk the life of the other by having sexual intercourse if one of them has HIV. That is certainly not love.

You bring up an interesting point. However, I am not sure if you answered my original question. Do we know of what has come from the Holy Father’s request that a study be done.

 

[Jermosh]

Actually rapists do not regularly use condoms to protect themselves.

Not true.
nytimes.com/1994/08/22/nyregion/rapists-and-condoms-is-use-a-cavalier-act-or-a-way-to-avoid-disease-and-arrest.html

It removes DNA evidense and is becoming more and more prevelant.

A woman is allowed to use ABCs to prevent conception from a rape.
Official US Bishops:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml
Moral theolgian and African Bishops allowing ABCs:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_16_37/ai_71250738/

 

[Jermosh]

Abstinence is the only answer. By the way condoms are not 100% effective so why would a husband or wife deliberately risk the life of the other by having sexual intercourse if one of them has HIV. That is certainly not love.

In essence they are if used correctly it is 99% effective. Contracting HIV is actually hard to do if you follow certain techniques, and stay healthy.

 

[thistle]

In essence they are if used correctly it is 99% effective. Contracting HIV is actually hard to do if you follow certain techniques, and stay healthy.

Experts disagree on the percentage effectiveness but none of them say it is 99% effective.
The consensus range of effectiveness is 90% - 97%.

I repeat why would an infected husband or wife endanger the life of the other. That is not love.

 

[thistle]

Not true.
nytimes.com/1994/08/22/nyregion/rapists-and-condoms-is-use-a-cavalier-act-or-a-way-to-avoid-disease-and-arrest.html

It removes DNA evidense and is becoming more and more prevelant.

A woman is allowed to use ABCs to prevent conception from a rape.
Official US Bishops:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml
Moral theolgian and African Bishops allowing ABCs:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_16_37/ai_71250738/

The US bishops do not say that. Condoms are not even mentioned and the article is about what may be done AFTER the rape has happened.

 

[thistle]

Early on in his papacy, Pope Benedict requested that the issue of condom use for couples in which a member may have HIV, be studied. Dose anyone know if such a study ever occurred? Is it still in process?

Can’t find the Vatican document but here is an extract from The Times newspaper about the study.

"Two years ago there was speculation that the Vatican might amend its ban on condoms after Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan, said that in couples where one partner had HIV/Aids, the use of condoms was “a lesser evil”.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan of Mexico, the Vatican Health Minister, also said condoms could sometimes be exceptionally condoned, for example when a married woman was unable to refuse her HIV-positive husband’s sexual advances.

“You can defend yourself with any means,” he said.

A subsequent Vatican study of the issue reiterated the blanket ban on condoms, however."

 

[Jermosh]

Experts disagree on the percentage effectiveness but none of them say it is 99% effective.
The consensus range of effectiveness is 90% - 97%.

I repeat why would an infected husband or wife endanger the life of the other. That is not love.

Nope, most experts suggest higher in healthy adult couples. I personnally know people that have been HIV+ since the 80s and they are quite healthy and their partners are HIV free. So why indanger your marriage? Do I have to quote St Paul on marriage again?

 

[Jermosh]

The US bishops do not say that. Condoms are not even mentioned and the article is about what may be done AFTER the rape has happened.

“A woman who has been raped should be able to **defend **herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”
The timeline does not matter, she is allowed to defend herself before, after, or during such a act. That is the exact description of how a condom works BTW.

 

[thistle]

“A woman who has been raped should be able to **defend **herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”
The timeline does not matter, she is allowed to defend herself before, after, or during such a act. That is the exact description of how a condom works BTW.

“receive treatment to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm”

You only receive treatment after an event has happened.

 

[thistle]

Nope, most experts suggest higher in healthy adult couples. I personnally know people that have been HIV+ since the 80s and they are quite healthy and their partners are HIV free. So why indanger your marriage? Do I have to quote St Paul on marriage again?

No. Most experts agree it is LESS than 99% effective.
However, the degree is not so important because it is less than 100% which means an infected spouse is still risking killing his/her spouse. That is not love.
St Paul did not say its okay for a spouse with HIV/AIDS to risk infecting the other spouse and killing them!!

 

[BiologyBrain]

Here’s a list I’ve compiled about condoms, abstinence, and the success rates of contraceptives…

AIDS victims in 1987: Philippines 135 / Thailand 112

In 1991 the WHO predicted the Philippines would have 80,000 to 90,000 cases and Thailand 60,000 to 80,000 AIDS victims.

Thailand promoted the use of condoms in massive campaigns where Catholic Philippines promoted ‘Abstinence’ and ‘Be faithful’.

The prognosis of the WHO was wrong for both countries:1999: Philippines 1,005 / Thailand 755,000 AIDS victims Source: British Medical Journal, volume 328, April 10th 2004

“Increased condom use will increase the number of [HIV/AIDS] transmissions that result from condom failure” and “a vigorous condom promotion policy could increase rather than decrease unprotected sexual exposure if it has the unintended effect of encouraging a greater overall level of sexual activity.” “Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons” The Lancet, 29 Jan 2000

In one test, 33% of latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. vol.19. 1992

Ontario Ministry of Health campaign to promote condoms by means of televised AIDS messages made respondents more inclined to use condoms but less inclined to avoid casual sexual partners. Wilde, Target Risk, PDE Publications, 1994.

IPPF indicates that the risk of contracting AIDS during so-called “protected sex” approaches 100 percent as the number of episodes of sexual intercourse increases. Cates Medical Bulletin, IPPF 1997.

The only sure ways to avoid sexual transmission of diseases (including AIDS, chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis) are not to have sex at all or to limit sex to one uninfected partner who is also monogamous. Food and Drug Administrationc (USA) Consumer Magazine Sep 1990.

abstinence.net/pdf/contentmgmt/IREevidencepaperAnotherLook3609.pdf

americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/abstinence.html

12 February, 2009, The Medical Institute Responds to the Virginity Pledge Report, www.medinstitute.org

Sexually active females are 5 times more likely to be victimized by dating violence than girls who are not sexually active. (www.webmd.com, 8/2/04; Pediatrics, 8/04)

Young women who have abortions experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety and other mental health problems. (“The Duty to Screen: Clinical, Legal and Ethical Implications of Predictive Risk Factors of Post-Abortion Maladjustment.” The Journal of Contemporary Health and Law and Policy, 2003 Winter; 20(1): 33-114)

righto.com/theories/condoms1.html

Its pretty clear by reading through these well-documented & researched articles that condoms are not even 99% effective at preventing HIV/AIDS infection. Actually, most of the articles clearly state that condoms are at best about 87% effective and at worst 69% effective at preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. The sero-variant couples are an extreme case b/c they absolutely KNOW the other has AIDS. That’s VASTLY different from a rape victim. You can’t even compare the experiences of the two groups w/o realizing that!

 

[BiologyBrain]

It removes DNA evidense and is becoming more and more prevelant.

“15 to 20 percent of her cases involve condom rape.” From your article

15-20% is not most rapists… That leaves 80-85% of rapists that DO NOT use condoms. My statement is still true - most rapists DO NOT use condoms. Most rapists WILL NOT put a condom on at the request of their victim (I’d like someone to find an instance of that).

Also forensically speaking, we are able to detect latex fragments, lubricants, and what makes it through the condom (quite a frequent occurance let me tell you) in order to find a suspect. They (the rapists) are also generally not quite bright enough to bring the condom w/ them when they leave their victim. Condoms are routinely found very near the crime scene when one was used. Another key factor is that most of the time, even in consensual situations, the male doesn’t put the condom on until he’s already ‘excited’. That means that pre-ejaculate (which contains sperm cells as well as any STDs) is already present on the scene. I routinely detect pre-ejaculate and the DNA analysts can quite easily get full profiles from it. Another key factor is that the rapist isn’t necessarily going to use the condom properly which will increase the likelihood of failure.

I’m a forensic biologist - this is WHAT I DO for a living. Most of my rape cases (about 80% of my total cases a year) do not involve condoms. Those that do still probably have a 50-50 shot of containing biological evidence of the rapist (semen, hair, blood, etc). Those that don’t can still be further analyzed by Trace analysts for the latex, lubricants, etc that are left by the condom. The Trace analysts can often-times narrow down the field to a particular brand and sometimes even lot/batch number.

Remember this statement b/c its definitely TRUE Marjorie Fisher, chief of the Special Victims Bureau of the Queens District Attorney’s office. **“Rapists are violent and selfish people looking out for themselves. They don’t give a damn about the victim.” **(from the NY article)

 

[pseudoanselm]

First, can you provide some reference for the absolute Church ban on condoms?

Second, the purpose of sex is the union of spouses and procreation. Openness to procreation is not an end in itself. If it were an end in itself, then in vitro and polygamy would be OK. But, procreation by ANY means is not morally right.

Rather, procreation is a means to spousal union. Unless you’re open to procreation, you can’t truly be “one flesh” with your spouse.

You and others I think are operating under a questionable premise that the procreative purpose and the unitive purpose can act seperately from one another. But, morally speaking, they can not.

Why not?

Becaise God intends the purposes of sexuality, union and procreation, to be present at the same time.

In rape, there is no union. Because there is no union, the means by which procreation happens is evil. The circumstances of procreation are evil in rape just as they are in IVF. “Openness to procreation” has no meaning in the context of rape, either for the rapist or the one being raped.

A rape is already contra-ceptive in the mind of the rapist because it is contra-union.

How can he be “open to procreation” in any morally dignified sense when he’s raping a woman? I think it mocks faith and reason to suggest otherwise.

Yes, God’s permissive will may allow a conception to take place via rape, but it is NOT his active will for conception to take place via rape. God wants children to be born to loving parents, who care for each other rather than to parents in an abusive relationship.

He doesn’t actively will children to be born of rape.

So, I would argue that it is morally licit to prevent conception via barrier methods in the case of rape if possible. What a woman would be doing is NOT preventing conception qua conception. Rather, she would be attempting to prevent conception from happening in an EVIL circumstance. That would be a good action.

Obviously, once conception results then we must accept that child since God permitted it to be conceived.

 

[Annn]

Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t seem likely that this rapist would stop to put a condom on just to favor his victim.

Most rapists now use condoms to begin with because of DNA evidence.