If a married person has HIV--should condoms be permitted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whatevergirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kendy said:
I think if you know you have HIV, the only loving thing to do is to be abstinent. But if you are opting to be selfish, I would prefer it were done with a condom, but it is still selfish to risk the life of your spouse.

Kendy
Click to expand...
I general, I agree with you. Obviously it would have to be a joint decision between both parties.
 
I will end my postings to this thread with this. I personally do not believe using contraception is evil and wrong. Yes, I know this is against church teachings; however I personally feel they are too restrictive on this issue, especially when it deals with the prevention of disease.

While I understand the argument to a certain degree with contraception that can also lead to accidental abortions, contraception that does not cause this, I believe is ok.

I believe most mainstream lay catholics have no problem with contraception and many use it.

Most catholics who post here are very conservative, by the book types who really don’t represent the mainstream. Thus the rebuttals against my position.
 
mikew262 said:
You are probably right. However, in reality, most lay catholics have no problem with contraception and many use it.
Click to expand...
WHAT A SHAME…such a simple principal to follow and the cant or wont…very selfish on their parts:eek:
 
mikew262 said:
You are probably right. However, in reality, most lay catholics have no problem with contraception and many use it.
Click to expand...
You mean most people who claim to be Catholic yet are not really Catholics becuase to be a true Catholic one must follow as the Church Teaches.

There are many people out there who lay claim to the name Catholic and yet are not Catholics in reality.

That is a great shame.
 
mikew262 said:
I will end my postings to this thread with this. I personally do not believe using contraception is evil and wrong. Yes, I know this is against church teachings; however I personally feel they are too restrictive on this issue, especially when it deals with the prevention of disease.

While I understand the argument to a certain degree with contraception that can also lead to accidental abortions, contraception that does not cause this, I believe is ok.

I believe most mainstream lay catholics have no problem with contraception and many use it.

Most catholics who post here are very conservative, by the book types who really don’t represent the mainstream. Thus the rebuttals against my position.
Click to expand...
Let’s let Jesus have the last word on your opinion and what “most mainstream lay catholics” choose to do in unbelief and disobedience:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” **Matthew 7: 13-14 **

"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, …As I swore in my wrath `They shall never enter my rest.’” Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end, while it is said, "Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.“Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? And with whom was he provoked forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.” Hebrews 3: 7-8, 11-19
 
mikew262 said:
I believe most mainstream lay catholics have no problem with contraception and many use it.
Click to expand...
If this is accurate then it means many Catholics have given their consciences a license to do as they will rather than as they ought.
 
migurl said:
Condoms cannot be used. The only time in which a condom is allowed, is when a couple is concerned about fertility and want to have the husbands sperm tested. THe technique is the holes are punched into the condom so that most of the sperm escapes while a small amount is trapped for testing. THis is allowed since masterbation is wrong no matter what the cause. Other than that, condoms are not allowed. Yes, it may seem unfair, but that’s life. CHrist was crucified-I think a life without sex is tolerable. Besides, how could a person say that they love you and at the same time put you at risk for a deadly disease? I mean, come on people!!! Even if it was a fraction of a percent, how can you do that to someone if you really love them? Would you hold your spouse over the edge of a cliff if there were a .1% chance that you would drop her/him? I hope not. Sex is not everything. It is beautiful, it is holy and sacred…there is no place for selfishness in marital love. People in other threads talk about how men shouldn’t force their wives to have sex if their wives are not in the mood or are tired or a bit under the weather, so why even ASk for sex if you could give them a disease to which there is no cure? Talk about self-centered!!! It is truly unbelievable that this is even a question any more! Who or what is more important? The life of your spouse or your desire for sex?
Click to expand...
 
setter said:
Condoning one to “opting” to use an evil means is never a licit Catholic position in the absence of the lessser of two evils criteria. This is a basic principle of Catholic moral theology; and also a practical basic of the reality of our existence as enfleshed spirits with an eternal soul.
Click to expand...
I did not say it was moral to do it. Let’s take an easier example. Let’s say I have a choice between 5 years or 10 years. Now, I might think that neither is a good choice, but I will take five over ten.

I didn’t condone anything, but it’s not inconveivable that people can order their preferences. I had a aunt who died of AIDS from her cheating husband. Now, of course, I would have prefered that he had taken the moral choice and been abstain, but I also wished he had at least used a condom during his affair. This does not condom the affair AT ALL.

Kendy
 
so the general consensus is that one should remain celibate if one has AIDS and is married?
I think that’s what I’m gathering, and you know, after really pondering and mulling it over since posting this…I can’t imagine wanting to put my husband through that…even if we both would ‘want’ to…I would be too frightened to contaminate him.

Wouldn’t this be a terrible thing to happen to one’s marriage though? 😦 Sex isn’t everything…but intimacy is important…let’s face it. God wants us to be intimate. It would take great strength and courage only given to us through the gifts of the Holy Spirit to weather such a storm.

If anyone is reading this who is in this situation, you’re in my prayers.
 
Kendy said:
I did not say it was moral to do it. Let’s take an easier example. Let’s say I have a choice between 5 years or 10 years. Now, I might think that neither is a good choice, but I will take five over ten.

I didn’t condone anything, but it’s not inconveivable that people can order their preferences. I had a aunt who died of AIDS from her cheating husband. Now, of course, I would have prefered that he had taken the moral choice and been abstain, but I also wished he had at least used a condom during his affair. This does not condom the affair AT ALL.

Kendy
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, two wrongs do not make a right. The double bind criteria of the lesser of two evils is not present in your above vignette. I refer again to the principle of Catholic morality:

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. (CCC)
 
Kendy said:
Everyone is biased, but some people are more biased than others. CDC articles are thoroughly peer-reviewed and very few scientists want their credibility tarnished or to be perceived as having an agenda. Don’t you think if 1/3 of HIV semens were spilling out of condoms there would be a huge outcry. Again, I beg you to look at the effective of condom use among the gay male community in the United States, which remains as promiscous as ever.

Pro-life organizations have no one monitoring their data for accuracy and don’t care so much about professionalism as they care about promoting their cause. A cause I happen to agree with, but I just wouldn’t look to the people I work with for scientific data. I have occasionally heard contradictory facts about how effective condoms are within our office.

Kendy
Click to expand...
ITA, Kendy. 🙂
 
Kendy said:
I volunteer for a pro-life organization (a very well-respected catholic one), and while I love the work and think it’s important (We have kept thousands of women from having abortions), I am occasionally embarassed by how we stretch numbers and use studies we like while ignoring those we don’t like. So, information about condoms from a pro-life organization? Well, I am a little skeptical.

Reliable information about condoms can be found through the CDC, the World Heath Organization, and the American Medical Association.

And I will also speak from years of experience of a wildly unchaste pre-christian life. (Not to mention the experiences of my equally unchaste female friends) Condoms used correctly are very effective. Lying about it just makes us look dishonest or foolish, which does very little to help our cause in this debate.

Kendy
Click to expand...
Kendy,

How do “you” stretch the numbers and ignore studies you don’t like? By “we”, do you mean your organization, or do you mean we Catholics?

Also - reducing chances is not the same as preventing something from occurring. At the risk of stating the obvious, statistics do not apply to the individual. If I do something, it’s either 100 or 0 (50-50 in a sense). I do not have a 70% chance of x happening. This is Statistics 101 information, and we do tend to forget that when discussing stats.

A fellow prodigal daughter,

Juli
 
Kendy said:
This is not a true statement. Morality issue aside. Condoms significantly reduce the chances of catching HIV. In fact, condoms are probably the chief reason why the spread HIV has been reduced in the West compared to Africa; We all know it’s not because Americans and Europeans are living chaste lives.

Kendy
Click to expand...
I keep seeing “Significantly reduced” and have to say SO WHAT!!! If you had a gun with ammo that is very old. The chances of that gun firing are “significantly reduced”. That doesn’t mean I am going to point it at my head and keep pulling the trigger. Would you point that gun at someone you loved and pull the trigger?
 
gelsbern said:
I keep seeing “Significantly reduced” and have to say SO WHAT!!! If you had a gun with ammo that is very old. The chances of that gun firing are “significantly reduced”. That doesn’t mean I am going to point it at my head and keep pulling the trigger. Would you point that gun at someone you loved and pull the trigger?
Click to expand...
OK, how can you even compare condoms to guns. putting a rubber thingy on the end of some-ones thingy cannot be compared to putting a gun to your head. condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission, and if your statement is SO WHAT!!!, then what if you had cancer, and the cancer was significantly reduced, would you scream SO WHAT!!!
Wammy
 
Wammy101 said:
OK, how can you even compare condoms to guns. putting a rubber thingy on the end of some-ones thingy cannot be compared to putting a gun to your head. condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission, and if your statement is SO WHAT!!!, then what if you had cancer, and the cancer was significantly reduced, would you scream SO WHAT!!!
Wammy
Click to expand...
Is there no moral difference between reducing cancer which is no one’s fault and engaging in a behavior that is completely avoidable?
 
Sheeniac said:
Kendy,

How do “you” stretch the numbers and ignore studies you don’t like? By “we”, do you mean your organization, or do you mean we Catholics?

Also - reducing chances is not the same as preventing something from occurring. At the risk of stating the obvious, statistics do not apply to the individual. If I do something, it’s either 100 or 0 (50-50 in a sense). I do not have a 70% chance of x happening. This is Statistics 101 information, and we do tend to forget that when discussing stats.

A fellow prodigal daughter,

Juli
Click to expand...
Well, most of the women who call think we are an abortion clinic. I volunteer as a receptionist and while I never say, “We are an abortion clinic” I allow them to continue to believe that we are— that’s how we get abortion bound clients to visit us.

As for the difference between reducing chances and preventing— wearing a seat belt will not prevent death in case of a car accident, but it reduces the chance significatly, and this is important information to have when deciding to ride a car.

Kendy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top