Disease and Marriage

[anonymous999]

Consider this situation:

A man is dating a woman in a very Catholic relationship. They plan to marry within a few years. However, that man had a single sexual encounter 3-4 years ago with a woman that he no longer has contact with. That women could have given him a disease, but he cannot be sure whether he has it or not since a.) there have been no symptoms within the past 3 years, b.) certain diseases do not reveal symptoms for years (even decades) and are not detectable by blood tests when not active.

Should the couple still marry? Or has that beautiful life been ruined by a night of stupidity?

Thank you.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I am confused as to which dieseases are : 1) Not detectable for years and 2) Contagious while being undetectable.

If there is a chance that he could cause harm to her then they could either 1: Risk it, 2: Abstain from marital relations until he is “clean”, or 3) call it off.

 

[anonymous999]

AIDS, for example, is undectable when not active (which can be for up to 10 years), yet is transferrable nonetheless.

I don’t think your response “Risk it” is very well though out. Please suggest some moral grounds behind that suggestion.

And of course if he does have the disease, he will harm anyone that he has any sexual contact with.

 

[Pug]

Should the couple still marry? Or has that beautiful life been ruined by a night of stupidity?

Thank you.

If a man wants to know if he has a disease, why not get tested for it?

A man can lose both his legs in a night of stupidity. Life works that way. But I would not call the life thus ruined. All life can be lived in praise of God. The ruin would be to refuse to do that.

 

[anonymous999]

As I said before, a test will only reveal certain diseases. Other diseases can be hidden away for many years and are undetectable.

In regards to the life being ruined: I suppose what I meant to say is that life is struck with a very tragic blow. I’m sure you understand how difficult it must be to end a beautiful relationship of loyalty and faithfulness.

 

[Pug]

I see. You are asking about what if you have a disease even after the available tests give you a clean bill of health. The risk is likely small here. Say it is equal to the chance that you will develop a brain tumor and begin abusing your wife or that you have a disease you caught from a toilet seat in a foreign country. You would naturally run that risk in any marriage, so what is different here: that you are responsible for the risk, or that the risk is much larger? Which aspect is it that bothers you?

 

[Pug]

In regards to the life being ruined: I suppose what I meant to say is that life is struck with a very tragic blow. I’m sure you understand how difficult it must be to end a beautiful relationship of loyalty and faithfulness.

I replied before this portion posted up, so I didn’t see it.

I do realize that it would be very hard to break off a genuine relationship like you are talking about. Somehow I was treating this as a hypothetical, and not close to home for anyone. I tend to do that. More close to home, I have wondered about this very type of question, just when I was younger. I totally see why it might cross a person’s mind.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Consider this situation:

A man is dating a woman in a very Catholic relationship. They plan to marry within a few years. However, that man had a single sexual encounter 3-4 years ago with a woman that he no longer has contact with. That women could have given him a disease, but he cannot be sure whether he has it or not since a.) there have been no symptoms within the past 3 years, b.) certain diseases do not reveal symptoms for years (even decades) and are not detectable by blood tests when not active.

Should the couple still marry? Or has that beautiful life been ruined by a night of stupidity?

Thank you.

This would really be a medically guided decision.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

AIDS, for example, is undectable when not active (which can be for up to 10 years), yet is transferrable nonetheless.

I don’t think your response “Risk it” is very well though out. Please suggest some moral grounds behind that suggestion.

And of course if he does have the disease, he will harm anyone that he has any sexual contact with.

I understand that HIV is detectable within 6 months to a year after exposure?

 

[JMJDevotee]

This would really be a medically guided decision.

Br. Rich,
What if one of the people involved in the couple does have an STD and they do get married? How would this impact the teaching of the use of condoms in the marrital relationship? Would this situation make it ok to use condoms? Why or why not?

Thanks.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Br. Rich,
What if one of the people involved in the couple does have an STD and they do get married? How would this impact the teaching of the use of condoms in the marrital relationship? Would this situation make it ok to use condoms? Why or why not?

Thanks.

No, The use of condoms would still be immoral and a serious sin.

 

[JMJDevotee]

No, The use of condoms would still be immoral and a serious sin.

Ok but can you explain why? I have an anti-Catholic person asking me and the best I can come up with is the condom prevents life. Is that right?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

AIDS, for example, is undectable when not active (which can be for up to 10 years), yet is transferrable nonetheless.

HIV may be undetectable to the eye because people may show no symptoms. Someone with full blown AIDS however is another story. Futhermore tests can determine whether or not someone has contracted the HIV virus. This is from the Britannica Encyclopedia:

A blood test can be used to detect HIV infection before the symptoms begin to manifest themselves, and all individuals who may be at even the slightest risk of infection are encouraged to be tested in order to prevent the unknowing spread of HIV to others.

search.eb.com/eb/article-29365

So back to the opriginal question

That women could have given him a disease

Then that man should be tested so he is not endangering the woman he loves and plans on marrying.

but he cannot be sure whether he has it or not since a.) there have been no symptoms within the past 3 years, b.) certain diseases do not reveal symptoms for years (even decades) and are not detectable by blood tests when not active.

Showing no symptoms and not showing up on a blood test are two different things. My recommendation for this situation would be to get tested. Most STD’s are known and have effective drug cures (HIV/AIDS being an obvious exception).

God bless

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Ok but can you explain why? I have an anti-Catholic person asking me and the best I can come up with is the condom prevents life. Is that right?

Well for two reasons. It creates an artificial barrier between the husband and wife. It nearly eliminates the possibility of conception. I say nearly because they are only 60% effective in preventing pregnancy and even less effective in preventing some STD’s. Using one creates a false sense of protection and can cause a person to act in a reckless manner.

 

[anonymous999]

I am sorry for misleading some of you. My research was wrong. HIV can be detected 3-6 months after receiving the diseases, but it can take 10 or more years to show symptoms. Therefore, this hypothetical man would be able to get tested.

Now, if he does get tested positive for a fatal disease such as HIV, and he knows that he will die within the next 15 years and cannot have sexual intercourse with his wife, then I suppose he should not marry.

**However, the more difficult question is this: if the man has a disease that is incurable, contagious, but not fatal, can he marry? Of course, there is a chance of his wife receiving the (treatable but not curable) disease. **

 

[Pug]

However, the more difficult question is this: if the man has a disease that is incurable, contagious, but not fatal, can he marry? Of course, there is a chance of his wife receiving the (treatable but not curable) disease.

This is like, what if a man has cold sores in his mouth (herpes). Can he marry? I say sure. It is a side-effect that he will likely give the cold sores to his wife. Marriage is a great enough good to pursue in the face of some obstacles.

BTW, some 80% of the population is infected, I think. Usually it is caught as a small child from an infected adult.