Condoms used to prevent STD's?

[TeenageConvert]

I’m taking a health science class in school, and we’re focusing on infection control currently. STD’s have been a topic discussed a lot this past week, and I’ve been wondering if it is morally wrong to use a condom if one spouce is HIV positive, or has AIDS, or genital herpes or anything else.
And if a woman is HIV positive, it’s possible to pass the virus on to the baby…are condoms still condemned in this circumstance?

 

[bearer]

All condom use disrupts the natural procreative function of intercourse and is sinful, and thus immoral.

Pope Benedict XVI recently wrote that it is a less grave sin to use condoms to prevent transmission of STDs than for purposes of preventing natural pregnancy, but still a sin nonetheless.

Regarding the rest of your post, remember that condoms are not that effective against several types of STDs, herpes and HPV in particular. According to research by the CDC, they are only about 70% effective against these two infections. Have sex four times and you have a very good chance of passing or receiving the disease. It’s no wonder that nearly three quarters of teenage girls in the US have one form of HPV or another. Condoms give many feel a false sense of security against STDs.

Also, condoms do not prevent HIV-infected mothers from passing the disease to their children in utero or during the birthing process.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Russian Roulette

5 out 6 times nothing will happen (about 83.3% of the time). 1 out of 6 something does happen (about 16.7% of the time). The CDC lists (or listed at one time) the effectiveness of condoms when all other conditions are controlled for (basically, you’re doing everything right and following all the precautions) as 85%. Not good odds.

 

[TeenageConvert]

All condom use disrupts the natural procreative function of intercourse and is sinful, and thus immoral.

Pope Benedict XVI recently wrote that it is a less grave sin to use condoms to prevent transmission of STDs than for purposes of preventing natural pregnancy, but still a sin nonetheless.

Regarding the rest of your post, remember that condoms are not that effective against several types of STDs, herpes and HPV in particular. According to research by the CDC, they are only about 70% effective against these two infections. Have sex four times and you have a very good chance of passing or receiving the disease. It’s no wonder that nearly three quarters of teenage girls in the US have one form of HPV or another. Condoms give many feel a false sense of security against STDs.

Also, condoms do not prevent HIV-infected mothers from passing the disease to their children in utero or during the birthing process.

So STD infected people should remain celibate?

 

[bearer]

So STD infected people should remain celibate?

That’s not for us to determine. I will say that anyone who’s not married should remain celibate.

 

[LJN21]

So STD infected people should remain celibate?

Well, had they been chaste to start with this wouldn’t be an issue now would it?

Your missing the larger point anyway. Condoms do not offer complete protection of STD’s to begin with. Over time the failure rate is ineradicably high. If you don’t want a STD, or don’t want to spread an STD, or don’t want to get pregnant, you really only have complete abstinence as a choice. Other wise your just putting your self or your partner at risk. Even though people like to present Condoms as the ‘responsible’ choice, they are not, they will at some point fail. There is really no such thing is ‘safe’ sex.

 

[TeenageConvert]

That’s not for us to determine. I will say that anyone who’s not married should remain celibate.

The question wasn’t about people who weren’t married

 

[Allegra]

And if a woman is HIV positive, it’s possible to pass the virus on to the baby…are condoms still condemned in this circumstance?

If a woman doesn’t intend to have any children, then she isn’t in a valid marriage according to Church teaching. If a person is HIV positive, they should not get married and they should not have sexual contact with anyone. Even with a condom, the chances of passing the deadly disease is too great. It’s not loving to risk spreading such a horrible, painful death sentence to your spouse.

 

[billcu1]

All condom use disrupts the natural procreative function of intercourse and is sinful, and thus immoral.

Pope Benedict XVI recently wrote that it is a less grave sin to use condoms to prevent transmission of STDs than for purposes of preventing natural pregnancy, but still a sin nonetheless.

Regarding the rest of your post, remember that condoms are not that effective against several types of STDs, herpes and HPV in particular. According to research by the CDC, they are only about 70% effective against these two infections. Have sex four times and you have a very good chance of passing or receiving the disease. It’s no wonder that nearly three quarters of teenage girls in the US have one form of HPV or another. Condoms give many feel a false sense of security against STDs.

Also, condoms do not prevent HIV-infected mothers from passing the disease to their children in utero or during the birthing process.

I have heard they are carcinagenic too. I had my sex and it was unprotected before baptism. I don’t care if I ever have it again and I’m 42. I was not in the church at the time. They used to use lamb skin as condoms but I would think that would be sinful too. Where in the gospels does Jesus say birth control is wrong? I know the church teaches it.

Bill

 

[billcu1]

If a woman doesn’t intend to have any children, then she isn’t in a valid marriage according to Church teaching.

Wow I didn’t know that. If you plan to get married you have to plan on children?

If a person is HIV positive, they should not get married and they should not have sexual contact with anyone. Even with a condom, the chances of passing the deadly disease is too great. It’s not loving to risk spreading such a horrible, painful death sentence to your spouse.

 

[KCT]

The question wasn’t about people who weren’t married

So, you’re asking if a married couple should (or could?) use condoms to protect the uninfected spouse?

How much does the infected person love his/ her spouse? Enough to a) somewhat protect him/ her or b) enough to not risk passing on the disease at all?

I hope my spouse loves me enough to choose option b.

Why is having sex more important than loving someone enough not to put them at risk at all?

 

[SgtSchultz]

Pope Benedict XVI recently wrote that it is a less grave sin to use condoms to prevent transmission of STDs than for purposes of preventing natural pregnancy, but still a sin nonetheless.

He said no such thing. What he said was that male prostitutes with AIDS in Africa who used condoms because they were worried about spreading the disease to others were perhaps showing a sign that they’re beginning to have their immoral ways changed and that there is now a glimmer of hope in their lives. But with the issue of male prostitutes, the sin is not in condom use, but in: a) prostitution; endangering lives by having sex with someone when you have a deadly STD; c) engaging in homosexual relations. This last part is important, because homosexual prostitution is not made more or less of a grave mortal sin through condom use, with or without the presence of disease.

The Pope’s teaching and position, both in public and private, have not deviated from the existing Church position that’s been around for the longest time. It’s understandable that you may have been misled, as this disinformation has been peddled about my the media in an attempt to discredit the Church’s moral teaching by trying to show that it lacks fortitude, consistency, and principal. It’s a cowardly attempt to paint the Church as yet another fallen institution infected with moral and cultural relativism.

So STD infected people should remain celibate?

I suppose of both married partners had the same low-level disease, such as herpes, then it wouldn’t be a big issue. But I could be wrong, as I’m not sure of Church teaching on this particular issue.

Where in the gospels does Jesus say birth control is wrong? I know the church teaches it.

Is this line of thinking an attempt to discredit Church teaching on contraception, or are you trying to learn more? If it’s the former, then I’d ask you where Jesus teaches that rape, paedophilia, or torture are wrong. Jesus didn’t enumerate in exacting detail everything that one must and must not do for the remainder of time. Contraception, including coitus interruptus, were already part of the Old Testament Moral Law. Besides, as a Catholic, I’m sure you know that the Bible is but one source of Law and teaching.

 

[bearer]

He said no such thing. What he said was that male prostitutes with AIDS in Africa who used condoms because they were worried about spreading the disease to others were perhaps showing a sign that they’re beginning to have their immoral ways changed and that there is now a glimmer of hope in their lives. But with the issue of male prostitutes, the sin is not in condom use, but in: a) prostitution; endangering lives by having sex with someone when you have a deadly STD; c) engaging in homosexual relations. This last part is important, because homosexual prostitution is not made more or less of a grave mortal sin through condom use, with or without the presence of disease.

The Pope’s teaching and position, both in public and private, have not deviated from the existing Church position that’s been around for the longest time. It’s understandable that you may have been misled, as this disinformation has been peddled about my the media in an attempt to discredit the Church’s moral teaching by trying to show that it lacks fortitude, consistency, and principal. It’s a cowardly attempt to paint the Church as yet another fallen institution infected with moral and cultural relativism.

Note I wrote “less grave” and not “not grave”. The fornication or adultery associated with prostitution and homosexual acts are separate sins in addition to condom use.

 

[billcu1]

Is this line of thinking an attempt to discredit Church teaching on contraception, or are you trying to learn more? If it’s the former, then I’d ask you where Jesus teaches that rape, paedophilia, or torture are wrong. Jesus didn’t enumerate in exacting detail everything that one must and must not do for the remainder of time. Contraception, including coitus interruptus, were already part of the Old Testament Moral Law. Besides, as a Catholic, I’m sure you know that the Bible is but one source of Law and teaching.

No I’m not trying to discredit the church. The moral law of the OT was corrupt as I’ve read. Adultry was if a woman cheated on a man but not vice versa. The talmud teaches that it’s ok to have sex with a woman under the age of nine because she has no say. Is this tradition then or the magisterium?

Bill

 

[bearer]

Is this line of thinking an attempt to discredit Church teaching on contraception, or are you trying to learn more? If it’s the former, then I’d ask you where Jesus teaches that rape, paedophilia, or torture are wrong. Jesus didn’t enumerate in exacting detail everything that one must and must not do for the remainder of time. Contraception, including coitus interruptus, were already part of the Old Testament Moral Law. Besides, as a Catholic, I’m sure you know that the Bible is but one source of Law and teaching.

We all know what happened to Onan when he tried to avoid the procreative aspect of sex.

 

[Jimdandy]

No I’m not trying to discredit the church. The moral law of the OT was corrupt as I’ve read. Adultry was if a woman cheated on a man but not vice versa. The talmud teaches that it’s ok to have sex with a woman under the age of nine because she has no say. Is this tradition then or the magisterium?

Bill

?Valid Source, please. Thanks

 

[_Abyssinia]

Condoms have a 15% failure rate. Some argue condoms are the solution to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, or HIV/AIDS or STDS. 150000 women could get pregnant among 1 million women in the first year of using a condom. And what about STD or HIV/AIDS risk from the failure of condoms?

FDA said 1 in 50 condoms fail leakage tests

articles.latimes.com/1987-08-18/news/vw-2139_1_lambskin-condoms

South Africa recalled 1.5 million condoms after complaints of them breaking. Imagine the lives that could of been put at risk because felt they were safe because the using a condom

US donated 800 million condoms to the developing world in 1990, there could of been 3.2 million defective condoms within

Thailand and the Philippines AIDS broke out at the same time. Thailand promoted condoms, Philippines promoted abstinence. Twenty years after the outbreak, AIDS in Thailand is 50 times higher than in the Philippines. The population of the Phillipines is over 20 million higher than Thailand, but it still has a lower HIV AIDS rate thanks to abstinence being promoted

German study that tested 32 types of condoms, discovered 29 have cancer causing chemical

 

[_Abyssinia]

Condoms have a 15% failure rate. Some argue condoms are the solution to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, or HIV/AIDS or STDS. 150000 women could get pregnant among 1 million women in the first year of using a condom. And what about STD or HIV/AIDS risk from the failure of condoms?

FDA said 1 in 50 condoms fail leakage tests

articles.latimes.com/1987-08-18/news/vw-2139_1_lambskin-condoms

South Africa recalled 1.5 million condoms after complaints of them breaking. Imagine the lives that could of been put at risk because felt they were safe because the using a condom

US donated 800 million condoms to the developing world in 1990, there could of been 3.2 million defective condoms within

Thailand and the Philippines AIDS broke out at the same time. Thailand promoted condoms, Philippines promoted abstinence. Twenty years after the outbreak, AIDS in Thailand is 50 times higher than in the Philippines. The population of the Phillipines is over 20 million higher than Thailand, but it still has a lower HIV AIDS rate thanks to abstinence being promoted

German study that tested 32 types of condoms, discovered 29 have cancer causing chemical

 

[Ubenedictus]

No I’m not trying to discredit the church. The moral law of the OT was corrupt as I’ve read. Adultry was if a woman cheated on a man but not vice versa. The talmud teaches that it’s ok to have sex with a woman under the age of nine because she has no say. Is this tradition then or the magisterium?

Bill

it seems your source of information and mine are different, this is the first time im reading that the old testament is “corrupt”, i’ve heard the OT describe as transitory, a begining of order for a people without law, but this is the first time i’ve seen the word ‘corrupt’ used to describe the OT. Besides im a catholic christian I dont obey the talmud.
Peace

 

[billcu1]

?Valid Source, please. Thanks

Ok. I can’t seem to find my source and I have been looking at the talmud. This is because it sheds light on the people that Jesus was a part of. Christian scholars must take into account many sources. I take back what I said about the talmud teaching about the nine year olds and I have read there is alot of confusion about the Talmud. I will have to ask a rabbi to clear up my question about things in our lord’s era. But it seems that women were considered adulters and me n not so much.

Bill