Condoms??

[Fashina86]

(poor Eamon, being silly again!)

Well, onto the post, I think that if somebody really loved the other, then the issue of sex wouldn’t be there. What if the spouse was paralyzed, would the marraige end? That is a question of love and dedication. I know that if I love my spouse enough, there is nothing that could stop me from loving him, not even that disease. Sex isn’t everything… there only needs to be love!

God Bless–JMJ
Laura

 

[calchiquita]

So, I wonder… will the Catholic Church allow someone with the AIDS virus to marry someone without the AIDS virus?

 

[Catholig]

Ok, here’s an argument I heard today, speaking with a friend.

If a person has, say, AIDS because their mother had AIDS and they did nothing wrong and gets married, how can they have sex?

I replied that they can’t. Abstain, or go ahead without a condom.

The retort was that the said person didn’t want to give their spouse AIDS.

And so I said, abstinence.

The reply was, but they really, really want to have sex, what then? Would God really do that to a person, make them not have sex? Can’t they just use the condom?

I didn’t know how to reply, can anyone help me? Is there even a reply to this? I know this is a worst-case scenerio, but I’m sure it’s happened somewhere.

Pro-Life_Teen,

My response would be to say that the person wanting to have sex really bad is hardly a justifiable reason, because while we can empathise to some extent, the fact is that the motive is selfish in the first place (I WANT), and that the act, not being open to life, is as well. The fact that one isn’t giving all of his self is seen very clearly in this case because you are trying to block the transmission of the disease. When considering this a great question is posed, IMO, that is while birth control is preventing the spread of disease, does it not have the double purpose of preventing the transmission of life? Would this couple be open to have a child especially considering that it could be afflicted with the same diseases? I don’t think so, and while I fully support life, and reject abortion, I think it would be unwise to even consider that. The only clear option I see that is charitable is chastity, and celibacy. I am positive that marriage is much more than sex.

Also I would also like to add that the chance of pregnancy (not just failure, which’d spread the disease) is 2% with perfect use & 10-18% with normal use according to wikipedia. And I’m unsure to what extent I trust these stats, because I think these are the conservative estimates, and that there are probably others out there that may reflect the situation more truthfully, however I’m not going to look, because 1) It’s tedious 2) you come across so much bad stuff when googling (or prolifesearching) for anything to do with birth control. Maybe you could look it up in Pubmed though.

Catholig

 

[1ke]

The reply was, but they really, really want to have sex, what then? Would God really do that to a person, make them not have sex?

God wouldn’t really do that to someone-- make them blind, would he? What if they really want to be a surgeon?

God wouldn’t really make a person deaf, would he? What if they really want to be a telephone operator.

God wouldn’t really make a person be born with AIDS would he? What if they want to be married.

In all of these cases, the sinful nature of Man has infected creation, causing people to be born with conditions they would not choose. These conditions limit their choices and call them to a life that is in line with the nature they are born with.

A blind man cannot be a surgeon. A deaf person cannot be a telephone operator. A person with HIV/AIDs is not called to be married.

It’s not God who does these things “to” us. Original Sin will continue to infect the world until the end of time. What God does do is give us the grace to live with the limitations, physical and mental, and to be full members of the Body of Christ by virtue of our baptism, and to live out a vocation even though it may not be the one we would have chosen under different circumstances.

Can’t they just use the condom?

No.

 

[KCT]

If they want to have sex, presumably it means they “love” the other person. If you love someone, why would you put them at risk? You wouldn’t - you’d avoid anything that would harm them. Wanting sex really bad, enough to risk infecting someone, isn’t love. It’s selfishness. —KCT

 

[TheApologist]

How about the fact that the Church doesn’t allow marriage that will be known to be non-procreative and unfruitful. The reason for marriage is the gift of life. If there is not chance of the gift of life(i.e. no sex), then the couple should not marry. You don’t marry one another to simply say “I love you.” You do so to say “I love you so much that I want to give myself to you, and in this giving I want to bring life into the world with God in the process.”

 

[changing]

How about the fact that the Church doesn’t allow marriage that will be known to be non-procreative and unfruitful. The reason for marriage is the gift of life. If there is not chance of the gift of life(i.e. no sex), then the couple should not marry. You don’t marry one another to simply say “I love you.” You do so to say “I love you so much that I want to give myself to you, and in this giving I want to bring life into the world with God in the process.”

This statement is incorrect.

A Catholic marriage must be OPEN to life. Physical inability to procreate does not prevent the Church from allowing a marriage.

Think about how hurtful these comments must be to someone who is struggling with infertility!! ok - so… i am unable to conceive, so God does not want me to marry???

Sex has TWO functions in a marriage! Babies. and Bonding. You can not take the position that sex is only for procreation. If that were the case, then sex would be inappropriate if a couple knew themselves to be infertile. Or once a woman was post-menopausal.

Your statement should be corrected to say:
“I love you so much that I want to give myself to you, and in this giving I am open to bringing life into the world if God so chooses to bless us in this way.”

The Church WILL allow a marriage even if the couple is infertile.

 

[TheApologist]

Sex has TWO functions in a marriage! Babies. and Bonding. You can not take the position that sex is only for procreation. If that were the case, then sex would be inappropriate if a couple knew themselves to be infertile. Or once a woman was post-menopausal.

I agree with this completely. BUT the couple must OPEN to life in the sense that it has even a small POSSIBILITY of creating.
Like you said sex if for Babies AND Bonding. If the relationship has no capability of creating babies then it is simply for “bonding.” You cannot take the position that sex can be only for bonding.

EDIT:
I agree, though, that also there are times in the relationship when sex simply for bonding is okay, but the entire relationship should not be based on sex for bonding alone. There should be possibility of life. You cannot be OPEN to life if your door is welded shut.

 

[1ke]

I agree with this completely. BUT the couple must OPEN to life in the sense that it has even a small POSSIBILITY of creating.
Like you said sex if for Babies AND Bonding. If the relationship has no capability of creating babies then it is simply for “bonding.” You cannot take the position that sex can be only for bonding.

EDIT:
I agree, though, that also there are times in the relationship when sex simply for bonding is okay, but the entire relationship should not be based on sex for bonding alone. There should be possibility of life. You cannot be OPEN to life if your door is welded shut.

Apologist,

This may be your personal opinion, but it is not chruch teaching regarding marriage, sex, and infertile couples. Please read the catechism.

Any non-contracepted sex act is unitive AND procreative, whether it subjectively results in conception or not. THAT is church teaching, not what you have proposed above.

Infertility is **not **an impediment to marriage, and both the unitive and procreative elements exist in each marital act.

The only impediment to marriage in this regard is impotence, which is substantively different from infertility.

 

[PLAL]

Do Condoms Protect From AID’s?

Why is this?

Sperm have a diameter of 50 microns. Naturally occurring holes in the wall of a latex condom have a diameter of 1.0 microns. The HIV retrovirus which causes AIDS has a diameter of 0.1 microns. In effect, this would be comparing perhaps an ant crawling on a basketball. AIDS viruses swim freely through the holes in the condom. That is a fact that should be widely publicized. C.M. Roland, Editor, *Rubber Chemistry & Technology, *Washington Times, 4/22/92
http://www.abortionfacts.com/image/lovethemboth/chapter35_1.gif
Furthermore, a woman can only become pregnant for 2 to 4 days out of a 30-day month. She can catch AIDS 30 days out of a 30-day month. In addition, pregnancy only goes one way -AIDS can go both ways. He can infect her, but she can infect him.

abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_35.asp#According%20to%20this,%20condoms%20have%20a%20high%20failure%20rate%20for%20pregnancy.%20How%20effective%20are%20condoms%20in%20preventing%20AIDS?

------------

Also listen to Jason Everts talk online to Catholic High School students. Fast forward to 1 hour into the talk and you will get 12 minutes of unbelievable information on condoms and std’s.

pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3

 

[TheApologist]

Refer me to the Catechism passage which states this please. I’ve always been taught that a couple which knows it cannot be fruitful should not marry. I can’t find anything contradicting this in the Catechism, please refer me to the passage.

 

[Ignatius]

Ok, here’s an argument I heard today, speaking with a friend.

If a person has, say, AIDS because their mother had AIDS and they did nothing wrong and gets married, how can they have sex?

I replied that they can’t. Abstain, or go ahead without a condom.

The retort was that the said person didn’t want to give their spouse AIDS.

And so I said, abstinence.

The reply was, but they really, really want to have sex, what then? Would God really do that to a person, make them not have sex? Can’t they just use the condom?

I didn’t know how to reply, can anyone help me? Is there even a reply to this? I know this is a worst-case scenerio, but I’m sure it’s happened somewhere.

You do know that you can get AIDS even using a condom don’t you? There is no ‘safe’ way of having sex with a person with AIDS!

 

[Pug]

Refer me to the Catechism passage which states this please. I’ve always been taught that a couple which knows it cannot be fruitful should not marry. I can’t find anything contradicting this in the Catechism, please refer me to the passage.

1ke can answer for himself, but I thought you might want to consider if you believe a couple may marry once they are over 50 (and hence sterile). The Church allows older people to marry.

 

[davidv]

Refer me to the Catechism passage which states this please. I’ve always been taught that a couple which knows it cannot be fruitful should not marry. I can’t find anything contradicting this in the Catechism, please refer me to the passage.

Try article 1654"Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice."

 

[TheApologist]

Try article 1654"Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice."

That doesn’t necessarily say that those who cannot bear children can marry, that simply says those who haven’t conceived a child can still bring a different kind of life and happiness into the world.
I’m talking about a couple which has very clear knowledge that one of them cannot produce children. I don’t think those who know that they aren’t capable of children should be married. What passage from the Catechism/Bible says this is okay?

 

[Leeta]

Amen to the previous poster.

If someone got AIDS from their mother (as a baby I presume), how are they still alive to marry after 20 years?

Or is AIDS not the fatal disease its made out to be?

 

[Pug]

I don’t think those who know that they aren’t capable of children should be married.

The Church will marry such people if the problem is mere sterility. I will repost my quote from the canon law (see my *way *earlier post). Read the bold.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

 

[cialovesyou]

The reply was, but they really, really want to have sex, what then? Would God really do that to a person, make them not have sex? Can’t they just use the condom?

I discussed this very issue with a Medical Ethicist. The problem is this…
The infection rate of AIDS from one of the couple unto the other after 2 years of relations, even when using condoms is…wait for it…100%.
You have sex with condoms for 2 years, and you will get AIDS!
So, the argument that you could use condoms under the principle of double effect falls away, because it breaks it on the grounds of “sufficiently grave reason”. Really really wanting sex is not sufficiently grave reason to give you partner AIDS, which is a deadly desease.

Sex is an expression of love. Endangering your wife’s life is not driven by love, but by selfishness.

 

[Pug]

I discussed this very issue with a Medical Ethicist. The problem is this…
The infection rate of AIDS from one of the couple unto the other after 2 years of relations, even when using condoms is…wait for it…100%.

I do not accept this. I need to see the statistics. Even with no condom use at all, in 2 years the rate of the person getting it is not 100%. It is nowhere near, so far as I know. The condom is not making them more likely to get it.

If the man has HIV and the woman doesn’t, according to wikipedia, which I know is lame, but it is easy, then for each time they have standard relations without a condom, she has a 10 out of 10,000 chance of getting HIV. If you assume they have sex 100 times per year, then at the end of 2 years, there is an 18% chance she will have it from him via sex without a condom.

1-.001 = .999

(.999)^200 = approx 82%

100-82 = 18

 

[Ignatius]

I discussed this very issue with a Medical Ethicist. The problem is this…
The infection rate of AIDS from one of the couple unto the other after 2 years of relations, even when using condoms is…wait for it…100%.
You have sex with condoms for 2 years, and you will get AIDS!
So, the argument that you could use condoms under the principle of double effect falls away, because it breaks it on the grounds of “sufficiently grave reason”. Really really wanting sex is not sufficiently grave reason to give you partner AIDS, which is a deadly desease.

Sex is an expression of love. Endangering your wife’s life is not driven by love, but by selfishness.

Well done. Perhaps the reality of this will wake up those who like to fabricate make believe scnerios. But in reality they are likely so attached to their erroneous opinions that even this will not open their eyes.

God Bless