HIV discordant married couple and infertility

[Abyssinia]

You are correct in saying that the Pope has not yet said anything about one person in a marriage being HIV+.

However when I made the my statement it was in reference to someone saying that it is never permissible to use a condom UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I pointed out that the Pope has now said that there are instances, when using a condom is permissible. That’s all. I’m not saying that Pope says it’s OK to use a condom if you’re married and are HIV+.

Pope never said condoms where acceptable for anyone. No circumstance did Pope did say it was acceptable to use a condom.

Pope was taking about the intention, not the action of using a condom. He did not say using a condom was moral.

Article explains it well:

This paragraph doesn’t strike me as at all ambiguous. Benedict is merely pointing out that when people like prostitutes use a condom, it can be seen as a faint glimmer of responsibility, a tiny baby step on the road to moral recovery. And he goes on to explicitly rule out condoms as a solution to HIV/AIDS, pointing out that the epidemic will only end when human sexuality is understood in its proper context of faithful and responsible human love

Default Media Ignores Truth in Reporting on Pope and Condoms: lifenews.com/2010/11/24/opi-1019/

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

You are correct in saying that the Pope has not yet said anything about one person in a marriage being HIV+.

However when I made the my statement it was in reference to someone saying that it is never permissible to use a condom UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I pointed out that the Pope has now said that there are instances, when using a condom is permissible. That’s all. I’m not saying that Pope says it’s OK to use a condom if you’re married and are HIV+.

I think that you were referring to MY post, but I am too lazy to go back and look, so I am just going to reply anyway

The Pope never said anything even remotely close to “there are circumstances where it is permissible to use a condom”. The actual quote has been posted many times on this thread and the (approximately) 4 million other threads on this topic and nowhere does he use the words permissible, valid, licit, acceptable, or moral in reference to this. What he SAID was that the intent to protect others might signify a general change of perspective towards a moral understanding of sexuality and human dignity on the part of a male prostitute (which was later explained to be equivalent to all people).

Should you want the quote reposted, again, just ask.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I’m going to be brutally honest an open myself up for ridicule here, but oh well.

The church says that it is immoral to use a condom in this case. I personally disagree strongly in this situation. It’s almost like splitting hairs to me, and is more obsessive with following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.

However

I think it’d take a pretty heartless spouse to insist or allow sex when he/she is HIV/AIDS positive knowing that a condom fails 2 out of 10 times. Do you want to play russian roulette in that way? With your spouse’s life?

I don’t agree with what I view (and I am a falling human being with flawed understandings!) as a splitting of hairs scenario as the church describes it…but rather I feel that if you love your spouse, you won’t gamble their lives when a horrific death is on the line. So no, no condoms. No sex. It’s too risky.