Engaged couple, one having AIDS

[Seatuck]

You both don’t understand that the ABC’s and STD treatments are for women who were the victims of violent non conjugal acts. This thread is about being allowed to use a condom for conjugal acts This can’t be allowed . Rape has no unitive or procreative theological meaning and does not represent the gift of the Eucharist. Again Condomistic sex violates both the unitive and the procreative meaning. It consummates nothing. It makes the conjugal act a lie. There is no renewal of vows as there is no free,potentially fruitful, faithtful or total gift. The couple is holding back part of themselves. Rape is not free, there is no intent to be fruitful, faithful or a gift to renew marriage vows.

You need to look into the theological and spiritual meaning of the conjugal act which seems to be lacking in both your discussion. I gave good links which show that condoms cannot be used in marriage because they violate the first condition in the principle of double effect area and I gave you an audio to Marriage and the Eucharist.Marriage is a reflection of the Trinity and of the Eucharist , especially in the conjugal act.

 

[Jermosh]

You both don’t understand that the ABC’s and STD treatments are for women who were the victims of violent non conjugal acts. This thread is about being allowed to use a condom for conjugal acts This can’t be allowed . Rape has no unitive or procreative theological meaning and does not represent the gift of the Eucharist. Again Condomistic sex violates both the unitive and the procreative meaning. It consummates nothing. It makes the conjugal act a lie. There is no renewal of vows as there is no free,potentially fruitful, faithtful or total gift. The couple is holding back part of themselves. Rape is not free, there is no intent to be fruitful, faithful or a gift to renew marriage vows.

You need to look into the theological and spiritual meaning of the conjugal act which seems to be lacking in both your discussion. I gave good links which show that condoms cannot be used in marriage because they violate the first condition in the principle of double effect area and I gave you an audio to Marriage and the Eucharist.Marriage is a reflection of the Trinity and of the Eucharist , especially in the conjugal act.

But you are ignoring the fact that the married couple is causing other sins in being forever celibate. Read Romans 7 and 1 Cor 7, St Paul talks exactly to the upmost importance of Sex in a Marriage. The use of a condom is a minor sin compared to losing your spouse to divorce, become a adultery, or addicted to porn and masturbation. Most Of which are labeled specifically as intrinsic evils in the catechism, is using a condom specifically labeled as a intrinsic evil?

 

[Rob59]

Consider this scenario: A woman who is a lifelong Catholic tests “positive” on an HIV antibody test after having had no consensual sexual contact or intravenous blood transfusion, but after having been raped by multiple offenders in another country. She has a very strong desire to have children, and no interest in hindering childbirth, but also no interest in exposing her future husband to what she has been told is a lethal virus.

If American bishops allow oral contraceptives to rape victims, provided such do not prevent implantation, would they also allow this rape victim to get married, even though her physicians have advised her future husband that he should use a condom? Or would she only be permitted to get married outside of the Catholic Church, taking into account the opinion of some that she could not have a lawful marriage within the Catholic Church?

 

[Seatuck]

But you are ignoring the fact that the married couple is causing other sins in being forever celibate. Read Romans 7 and 1 Cor 7, St Paul talks exactly to the upmost importance of Sex in a Marriage. The use of a condom is a minor sin compared to losing your spouse to divorce, become a adultery, or addicted to porn and masturbation. Most Of which are labeled specifically as intrinsic evils in the catechism, is using a condom specifically labeled as a intrinsic evil?

1. I don’t believe the couple must abstain if they are both in agreement
2. the couple may abstain if they are both in agreement without it being a sin.This changes of course when one of them decides to end the continence.
3. I don’t agree that the use of the condom is a minor act. It is a mortal sin. It damages the conjugality of the marital act.
4. The CCC says that all methods of contraception are intrinsically evil. BTW The CCC does not have to include every aspect of church teaching. It is a learning tool. It is a place to start education from. So , no you won’t find anything about preventing HIV

**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, 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” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. It also says

**2399 **The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

So , no a legitimate intention to prevent the transmission of a virus does not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means.

 

[Seatuck]

Consider this scenario: A woman who is a lifelong Catholic tests “positive” on an HIV antibody test after having had no consensual sexual contact or intravenous blood transfusion, but after having been raped by multiple offenders in another country. She has a very strong desire to have children, and no interest in hindering childbirth, but also no interest in exposing her future husband to what she has been told is a lethal virus.

If American bishops allow oral contraceptives to rape victims, provided such do not prevent implantation, would they also allow this rape victim to get married, even though her physicians have advised her future husband that he should use a condom? Or would she only be permitted to get married outside of the Catholic Church, taking into account the opinion of some that she could not have a lawful marriage within the Catholic Church?

American Bishop’s do not allow oral contraceptives to rape victims except in the form of the morning after pill and after ascertaining that the woman has not ovulated so as not to cause an abortion. Rape is not a conjugal act. Repeat Rape is not a conjugal act. Your woman wants to have conjugal relations. She cannot use a condom. The Bishop’s would allow a marriage if the intention was to have normal

 

[Rob59]

Seatuck, the quotes from the Catechism that you posted go beyond the quotes that I previously posted from both Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae and a speech by Pope John Paul II on the subject. As the Catechism was published after much discussion with regard to contraceptives and HIV, the more extensive prohibition contained in the passages were presumably intended to encompass not only use of contraceptives to regulate birth control (as in the case of Humanae Vitae) but even the transmission of potentially harmful viruses.

It thus seems that a woman who suffers acts of rape and afterward tests positive for HIV would not necessarily be allowed to get married in the Catholic Church, because most potential mates would desire to use a condom to protect themselves from supposed HIV infection, which would be consistent with other teachings of the Catechism re the sanctity of human life. She might well be allowed to marry within the Orthodox Church, however, and presumably the Catholic Church acknowledges the legitimacy of Orthodox marriages.

The woman might well wish to discuss with her physician the possibility of a false positive test result re antibodies suspected of indicating the presence of HIV. Here is a Web site with information about such: virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm

 

[Jermosh]

**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, 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" is intrinsically evil:

Again this speaking directly of contraception, which is not the intent of this particular issue. This would be the same situation as if someone had tubal ligation due to a tubal pregnancy, or had to testicles removed due to cancer. Both cases have sterilization and abortive effects, but their intent was for the healthy wellbeing of the person not the sinful ones.

 

[Jermosh]

American Bishop’s do not allow oral contraceptives to rape victims except in the form of the morning after pill and after ascertaining that the woman has not ovulated so as not to cause an abortion. Rape is not a conjugal act. Repeat Rape is not a conjugal act. Your woman wants to have conjugal relations. She cannot use a condom. The Bishop’s would allow a marriage if the intention was to have normal

What he is stating as is I, that the note from the bishops showcases that contraceptives are not an intrinsic evil. If they were, then the bishops would not allow them in any case.

 

[Seatuck]

What he is stating as is I, that the note from the bishops showcases that contraceptives are not an intrinsic evil. If they were, then the bishops would not allow them in any case.

Condoms are not mentioned nor are the being used as a post rape method which of course would be absurd.Also Rape is not a conjugal act.I really don’t see how you are not understanding the difference between rape and a loving act between husband and wife.

Normal marital relations are not mentioned in the health care document. You cannot make the inference that the same treatment is allowed in consentual marital acts.

 

[Rob59]

We are not comparing rape to normal marital relations. The American bishops made an exception to the general policy of forbidding oral contraceptives by allowing such (when not preventing implantation) in the case of medical care for rape victims, and so the question had arisen as to whether the use of condoms to prevent viral transmission could also be allowed as part of medical care for rape victims. You have made it clear that you do not believe they could be allowed for any purpose that could possibly be considered legitimate.

Apparently the obligation to refrain from using condoms has absolutely no humanitarian exceptions in the Catholic Church, while the obligation to attend Mass does. Has the teaching on condoms been elevated above the teaching on Mass? I’m sure that this is not the intention, but the situation is curious, and clarification would be of interest.

 

[Seatuck]

We are not comparing rape to normal marital relations. The American bishops made an exception to the general policy of forbidding oral contraceptives by allowing such (when not preventing implantation) in the case of medical care for rape victims, and so the question had arisen as to whether the use of condoms to prevent viral transmission could also be allowed as part of medical care for rape victims. You have made it clear that you do not believe they could be allowed for any purpose that could possibly be considered legitimate.

Apparently the obligation to refrain from using condoms has absolutely no humanitarian exceptions in the Catholic Church, while the obligation to attend Mass does. Has the teaching on condoms been elevated above the teaching on Mass? I’m sure that this is not the intention, but the situation is curious, and clarification would be of interest.

There is one use for a condom within marriage as I already stated. For a sperm analysis test and it must be a perforated one.

You are missing apples and oranges. Yes you are not obligated to Mass under certain conditions. There isually something good that you are doing that is preventing your mass attendance. Taking care of yourself when ill, taking care of a child or a sick person. Those are “good” things. Condoms are not “good” things . They are meant to be contraceptive. That’s why the perforations are allowed in the medical testing. To make them at least partially procreative and unitive.

Perhaps if you review the conditions of the Principle of Double effect that will help you.

cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56

It might be a good idea to ask the National Catholic Bioethics Center what there take on it is.I always get a response when I ask them for clarification on a moral issue.

www.ncbcenter.org

 

[Rob59]

If a Catholic woman who tested positive for antibodies presumed to indicate HIV infection sought a Catholic marriage, and were refused for reasons related to her fiancee’s desire to use a condom (not her own decision), would she be excommunicated if she obtained a civil marriage or married in another Christian church? Would the Catholic Church regard her as not geninuely married after any such marriage, and as a fornicator living in sin?

 

[Jermosh]

Condoms are not mentioned nor are the being used as a post rape method which of course would be absurd.Also Rape is not a conjugal act.I really don’t see how you are not understanding the difference between rape and a loving act between husband and wife.

Normal marital relations are not mentioned in the health care document. You cannot make the inference that the same treatment is allowed in consensual marital acts.

Either a act is a intrinsic evil or its not. Abortion is an intrinsic evil at all times, does not matter the outcome or reasoning, it does not matter if its due to a rape, incest, or any other reasoning if the intent of the procedure was to stop the life of another human.

If a council came out and said that abortion was morally allowed for this or that, it really is no longer an intrinsic evil.

But where an abortion is morally acceptable if it is the result of another action, such as tubal pregnancy, or cervical cancer. But it only morally acceptable because it is not the intent of the procedure, and the procedure is of a serious and just cause.

I am not sure why my point is not getting accross; the reality is this does happen and is a real life situation, it is rare of course. But in this situation, I would certainly pray that the couple would seek real moral guidence through a priest and not a internet forum. I have learned some truth in this discussion though, and that is the intent of such discussions.

 

[Rob59]

Seatuck, is it your view that heterosexual relations that involve the use of condoms is inherently contrary to how our bodies were designed, no less so than homosexual relations?

One cannot imagine any medical exception under which homosexual relations would be considered compatible with Catholic faith, and likewise you cannot imagine any medical exception under which a married heterosexual couple could use a condom consistently with Catholic faith. One might as well be engaging in same-sex sodomy as to seek to have heterosexual relations with one’s spouse while using a condom.

Do I understand you correctly?

Rob

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think the church moral teaching requires that this couple not have sex. In other words the marriage debt would still stand. I know it seems to be the prudent course of action by most standards but I do not see moral theology requiring the abstention. If the non infected spouse wishes to risk it there would be no sin if the couple opted for conjugal relations.

I agree.

My wife was diagnosed as HIV positive, and she let me know of this diagnosis prior to our marriage by inviting her to meet her physician, who told me about it with her present. Initially I presumed the diagnosis to be reliable, but also believed God had guided the two of us to be together, and so we proceeded with marriage, trusting God for the future. Physicians advised us to use condoms. Later, my understanding of both the reliability of the HIV diagnosis and the related assumption that those who are HIV+ will likely die of AIDS changed, and since then we have not used condoms. My wife has never taken any HIV-related drugs (which are extremely dangerous: check out the Web pages of HIV drug manufacturers for lists of side effects), and remains free of any symptoms. At a time when I thought HIV antibody tests were reliable, I took one of these tests (after we’d been married for some time) and was diagnosed HIV negative. That was a few years ago. I do not regard these tests as having any proven worth, and see no point in taking one again.

So if you don’t trust the tests and you tested negative, do you trust that you are indeed negative?

Fertility has nothing to do with the requirements for the sacrament but the ability to perform the act in the procreative way is required. There is a theological and spiritual meaning to the marital act. The act itself must retain both the procreative and unitive aspects and meaning. The husband must finish inside his wife for the act to be conjugal in meaning. The couple must form the one flesh union for it to retain it’s conjugal meaning. Condoms prevent this.They are a barrier to the one flesh union. Condomistic sex is immoral because it affects both the procreative meaning and the unitive meaning.

If you haven’t studied Theology of the Body you might find it helps your understanding in this. You might want to look at a Christopher West study on it. You will want to look at how marriage and the marriage act are a reflection of the Eucharist.

Flesh-Flesh contact is a poor qualifiation for “unity”, methinks.

Using a Condom to prevent a STD is NOT a function of it contraceptive attributes, this is the same situation in that using the pill is morally ok due to medical needs, or Ectopic Ligation surgery is morally allowed even though it aborts a baby.

Nope.

Here’s why:

Using the “pill” for medical needs is by definition a necessity.
Ligation or attempted correction of an ectopic pregnancy is a necessity.

In both cases, if medical intervention is not performed, (physically) something happens.

If intercourse with a condom does not proceed…nothing happens.

There is no principle of double effect with using a condom.

 

[Rob59]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob59
My wife was diagnosed as HIV positive, and she let me know of this diagnosis prior to our marriage by inviting her to meet her physician, who told me about it with her present. Initially I presumed the diagnosis to be reliable, but also believed God had guided the two of us to be together, and so we proceeded with marriage, trusting God for the future. Physicians advised us to use condoms. Later, my understanding of both the reliability of the HIV diagnosis and the related assumption that those who are HIV+ will likely die of AIDS changed, and since then we have not used condoms. My wife has never taken any HIV-related drugs (which are extremely dangerous: check out the Web pages of HIV drug manufacturers for lists of side effects), and remains free of any symptoms. At a time when I thought HIV antibody tests were reliable, I took one of these tests (after we’d been married for some time) and was diagnosed HIV negative. That was a few years ago. I do not regard these tests as having any proven worth, and see no point in taking one again.

Newbie2 responded to the above: “So if you don’t trust the tests and you tested negative, do you trust that you are indeed negative?”

---

My reply:

I regard the tests as reliable when it comes to detecting the presence of certain antibodies. I regard the assumption that these antibodies are exclusive to HIV as provably false, given extensive medical literature documenting numerous cases of false positives due to factors other than HIV.

It’s an interesting question as to whether the absence of these antibodies proves the absence of HIV infection. That is to say, in the hypothetical case someone were HIV-infected, would one always expect to see these antibodies, even if they could also be generated for other reasons? Any guesses about such matters would ideally be tested using as a gold standard pure HIV isolated from bodily tissues, but such has never been obtained.

There’s a lot about the significance of HIV antibody tests that remains unknown and thus open to speculation. I wouldn’t make any medical decisions based solely on them. Or marital decisions.

 

[Seatuck]

Seatuck, is it your view that heterosexual relations that involve the use of condoms is inherently contrary to how our bodies were designed, no less so than homosexual relations?

Yes, I would say so . Not just how our bodies were designed but how they were meant to act. Our actions have meanings. Condoms destroy the meaning of the marital act .Homosexual acts have no marital meaning.

One cannot imagine any medical exception under which homosexual relations would be considered compatible with Catholic faith, Agreed and likewise you cannot imagine any medical exception under which a married heterosexual couple could use a condom consistently with Catholic faith.Only to obtain a semen sample and then the condom must be perforated. One might as well be engaging in same-sex sodomy as to seek to have heterosexual relations with one’s spouse while using a condom. Both are devoid of marital meaning. So although I don’t get in the game of comparing sin to sin I guess so.

Do I understand you correctly?

Rob

The ends of marriage are

1. Procreation and raising of children.
2. The mutual support of the spouses
3. Concupiscence.

We need all 3.

The meaning of the marital act-

Procreative- Obvious

Unitive- When a couple makes love it is a renewal of marriage vows, it is communion it is the one flesh union. This cannot be accomplished with a barrier.

Just as we would not attempt to receive communion from Christ with a Barrier .
Listen to the Audio

catholicmentoday.org/2008/09/04/marriage–the-eucharist-the-two-shall-become-one.aspx

 

[Seatuck]

Flesh-Flesh contact is a poor qualifiation for “unity”, methinks.

Do you think the same thing when you receive the Eucharist? Because that is the representation. Christ is forming the one flesh union with you as you take in his flesh the way a bride takes in her spouse’s flesh.
I thought you said in another thread that you studied Theolology of the Body… Perhaps that was someone else. Try this audio that I already gave in this thread.

catholicmentoday.org/2008/09/04/marriage–the-eucharist-the-two-shall-become-one.aspx

 

[Rob59]

Biblically, the term for marriage is “one flesh,” so requiring contact of flesh-to-flesh would seem consistent with this (i.e., no marriages between persons who have never had contact, except via telephone or Internet). Whether this would require total nudity without anything else on the body is another matter. Presumably wearing of a wedding ring during marital relations would not be considered inconsistent with being “one flesh,” even if such would hinder contact of flesh to flesh in areas covered by the ring. That this seems generally to be considered a non-issue is presumably because this would not hinder the generative process.

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie2;5041462:

Flesh-Flesh contact is a poor qualifiation for “unity”, methinks.

Do you think the same thing when you receive the Eucharist? Because that is the representation. Christ is forming the one flesh union with you as you take in his flesh the way a bride takes in her spouse’s flesh.
I thought you said in another thread that you studied Theolology of the Body… Perhaps that was someone else. Try this audio that I already gave in this thread.

catholicmentoday.org/2008/09/04/marriage–the-eucharist-the-two-shall-become-one.aspx

No, you’re right, I’ve read it several times.

What I mean is that when the argument is reduced to whether or not unity is present based on flesh-flesh contact, i.e. that such contact is the only criterion for untiy, it not an argument that will be accepted by too many.