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

[Kendy]

But the issue is not whether something is 70, 80, 90, or 100% effective, Kendy.

The idea that if something is, say, 80% effective, that means the risks are ‘low’ enough for Joe and Jane Average to “use” it; and 90% effectiveness practically speaking translates to “almost totally effective”. . .THAT is what people are thinking about condom use.

Whereas the POINT of the discussion is not whether something is effective at ‘preventing disease’. The POINT is that condom use is immoral for ALL, not just Catholics (we don’t, you see, believe that morality is subjective and relative, and that sins for US as Catholics are different from sins for non-Catholics). The reason condom use is immoral is that it prevents the generative part of the sexual experience which is meant to be between one man and one woman in the state of holy matrimony. That sex is carried out OUTSIDE of this state is another red herring. We don’t “change the rules” because people don’t abide by them; morality is something that functions this way. Morality is a constant; we expect people to change their behavior to be moral, not for morality to change in order to ‘bestow morality’ upon people.

So arguing that ‘because’ in the opinion of people (even experts) condom supposedly is 70, 80, 90, 100% effective against something like a DISEASE, and therefore that makes its use MORAL. . .is flat out wrong. If something is immoral it is immoral in ALL situations.

Unlike killing, which can be accidental or even justifiable if the killing came about as an UNINTENDED result of protecting one’s own or other innocent lives from 100% certainty of death, condom use is neither accidental nor justifiable.

I have not argued that if condoms are 99.99% effective that would make them moral. What I am arguing against is the tendency for people on our side of the issue to throw in bad scientific data about condoms while they are arguing that they are not moral. That they are not moral and they don’t work are two different things.

I am further arguing that saying condoms fail a 1/3 of the time might lead some people to just have unprotected sex, and that’s no better. People have a right to know that abstinence 100%, that condoms are more than 90% effective, and that unprotected non-marital sex is very dangerous. Of course, we hope they decide on abstinence, but let them decide on accurate data, not fear tactics.

Kendy

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

I would estimate that contraception has killed more people than are alive today on Earth, that is over 7,000,000,000 people.

 

[BeeSweet]

:banghead: I know you may not be sensitive to this concern, but the problem with this myth about voids is that it will lead people who will have sex anyway to just be reckless. One of the main problems in Africa is that many people are running around believing that condoms are evil white man gadgets. This would be fine if these people planned to abstain, but they are not abstain. They are just making themselves and their innocent wives sick. I am not saying that in this case it is moral to use a condom. It is never moral to commit adultery, but in this particular case, condom use a greater social good.

Kendy

Condoms lead people to believe they are safe having sex with many different partners, or even with a partner they know is infected with a STD. ** It is the condoms that lead to the reckless sexual behavior. **

Look at the study between Thailand and the Philippines. Look at the difference between Uganda and all other African nations. We have little abstinance data because no one is promoting it. Why?

**There’s no money to be made in abstinance!! ** Who’s going to make it worth their while to promote something that won’t make them any money? Certainly NOT the medical community. Certainly NOT the condom manufacturers. I’m sorry if this sounds like conspiracy theory, I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy as much as it’s simple negligence of the populace as a whole to take responsibility for themselves. Why take responsibility for your own sexual behavior when you can make the condom responsible?

If a man believed that he did not have a means of protecting not only his wife, but also himself from getting HIV/AIDS by having sex with multiple partners, he would be abstaining, pure and simple. The African problem is because they believe these “evil white man gadgets” will do the trick, but they simply do not. Whether it’s from a built in flaw, a manufacturing defect, poor storage, or poor application, whatever the reason, they just don’t work well enough to contain the spread of this scourge, and as such, combined with the perception they make it OK to be sexually reckless, they are a social EVIL, not a social good!

Sorry to beat you up Kendy!!

 

[setter]

…but in this particular case, condom use a greater social good.

Kendy

As a Catholic you have just blown by the duty to preserve the inherent dignity of each person made in the image and likeness of God and to give credible witness to the Gospel.

It is never morally licit to use evil means toward a perceived good ends,i.e., the ends never justify the means.

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)

1789 Some rules [of conscience] apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it; (CCC)

**2419 **“Christian revelation . . . promotes deeper understanding of the laws of social living.” The Church receives from the Gospel the full revelation of the truth about man. When she fulfills her mission of proclaiming the Gospel, she bears witness to man, in the name of Christ, to his dignity and his vocation to the communion of persons. She teaches him the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom. (CCC)

2044 The fidelity of the baptized is a primordial condition for the proclamation of the Gospel and for the Church’s mission in the world. In order that the message of salvation can show the power of its truth and radiance before men, it must be authenticated by the witness of the life of Christians. “The witness of a Christian life and good works done in a supernatural spirit have great power to draw men to the faith and to God.” (CCC)

 

[migurl]

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?

 

[Aleii]

Yet the most successful campagin in Africa against HIV was abstinence.

When you teach people the facts rather than just handing out condoms and telling them that they are ok to have sex with them.

It is irresponsible to tell people that sex with condoms is safe because it is a fact that it isn’t.

It is unethical and immoral to do so.

Right, its “safer sex” not “safe sex”. For this board, however, I fail to see where anyone has been saying that condoms are 100% safe, will never fail nor will the user ever fail at its application. In fact, Kendy has repeated over and over, as has the CDC, that abstinence is a good thing, and should be taught and promoted, and is the only 100% thing out there.

Kendy is trying to make sure that people aren’t confused by the facts of condoms, since it seems that some people here are inferring that condoms are not safe whatsover, and that HIV floods through “holes” and provides 0 protection.

These are findings that condoms offer significant protection against HIV and other STDs. No, not 100% because there is user error etc. But just as people should be aware about the facts of abstinence, so should the facts about condoms be learned, and so should the Church’s stance be learned. Education in and of itself is not a bad thing! Now turning towards the morality of the issue, yes, the couple should abstain.

It is the condoms that lead to the reckless sexual behavior.

I would have to question this conclusion. I would offer that instead, it is lack of education that leads to reckless sexual behavior. Here’s information from the New England Journal of Medicine on this concern:

"A theoretical concern exists that the promotion of condom use could lead to “risk compensation” — in other words, that men who use condoms might feel safer and consequently have sex more frequently or with more partners, thus reducing or even reversing the protection offered by condoms. However, a review of 174 condom-related prevention approaches concluded that these interventions designed to reduce the risk of HIV infection do not increase unsafe sexual behavior.5 Despite this reassurance, we must continue to be vigilant when promoting the use of condoms to avoid giving users a false sense of security; we should refer, for example, to “safer sex” rather than “safe sex.” "
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/25/2642
(Please note that in this link, the authors also discuss abstinence)

Who’s going to make it worth their while to promote something that won’t make them any money? Certainly NOT the medical community.

I’m figuring you mean big corporate pharmaceutical companies? I am part of the medical community and I have to say that we educate based on health, not based on making money. Again, even with the report on condoms from the CDC, they discuss abstinence. I take seriously my oath to protect the health of the community and promote education as do most others in my field. We do NOT promote something that simply makes us money. In fact, we try to find ways to save the patient money to decrease stress and increase compliance for their therapeutic regimen.

“The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”
cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf

No, the CDC is not out to get you! Its a pretty highly respected source.

my apologies if I’ve misrepresented you Kendy!

 

[jmcrae]

The idea that if something is, say, 80% effective, that means the risks are ‘low’ enough for Joe and Jane Average to “use” it; and 90% effectiveness practically speaking translates to “almost totally effective”. . .THAT is what people are thinking about condom use.

That’s only because people are bad at math.

90% may be a passing grade in school, but it is not very good odds when your life is at stake. What 90% effective means is that it works 9 times out of 10 - not that it works the first 9 times and then fails the 10th time, but rather, that any one of those ten times could be the failure - including the first one.

Unlike a cancer treatment that works 90% of the time (since not treating cancer is fatal nearly 100% of the time) the person who is considering using a condom has a 100% safe alternative - abstinence. When a 100% effective alternative exists, that’s the one you should take - 100% of the time.

The birth control pill is effective 99% of the time, and we all know people who were born of mothers who were on the pill. That’s ten times the effectiveness of the condom.

Unlike killing, which can be accidental or even justifiable if the killing came about as an UNINTENDED result of protecting one’s own or other innocent lives from 100% certainty of death, condom use is neither accidental nor justifiable.

Amen!!

 

[fix]

The problem with condoms

… While the church teaches that a lesser evil may be passively tolerated to avoid a greater evil or promote a greater good, it is never permissible to sanction, encourage or do an intrinsically evil act so that good may come from it (CCC, no. 1756), even in cases when “the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, no. 14). …

In short, the church cannot condone or encourage a couple’s decision to use a condom to prevent the transmission of AIDS. Not only would such ecclesiastical action aid and abet the violation of the moral principle never to choose evil, it would also mislead couples into thinking that physical death is worse than the much more serious moral fallout that can accompany immoral sexual acts. The moral way for such couples to prevent the transmission of AIDS is by abstaining from the marital act, and the faithful should support them in taking advantage of God’s abundant grace to do so…

 

[BeeSweet]

I would have to question this conclusion. I would offer that instead, it is lack of education that leads to reckless sexual behavior.

I’m figuring you mean big corporate pharmaceutical companies? I am part of the medical community and I have to say that we educate based on health, not based on making money.

Correct, but the education that is promoted is about condoms, not about abstinance. Abstinance is an afterthought. Abstinance is rarely if ever promoted as the first option, sure it’s touted as the best option, but generally only after a litany of information is presented on the effectiveness and reliability of condoms as a means of protection.

And no, I don’t mean big corporate pharmaceutical companies, unfortunately I mean the medical community as a whole. Research costs money. Labs cost money. Time and effort cost money. Education and promotion cost money. Marketing costs money. That’s the unfortunate truth. The individual members of the medical community certainly for the most part are genuine in their wants to help people, no doubt, but let’s not loose sight of how much their education cost them, and how they paid for it. If it wasn’t their own money, it was somebody else’s money. And it’s naive to believe the education available out there is completely altruistic in it’s financial origin. The money for those labs came from donors who can afford to fund them, be they pharmaceudical companies or what have you. The dollars that come from charitable donations are far outweighed by the dollars that come from profit based organizations. That’s my opinion, I don’t particularly care to cite any sources to back up that statement, but I’m fairly confident I’m correct in that assumption.

It’s no wonder that the best medical care available on the planet exists in the wealthiest country. I’m not saying anyone’s out to get anyone. It’s a blessing and a curse.

 

[CRW]

fix:
Bless you. You have a true understanding of the Church teachings and also answering the original Post.

 

[CRW]

fix,
"While the church teaches that a lesser evil may be passively tolerated to avoid a greater evil or promote a greater good, it is never permissible to sanction, encourage or do an intrinsically evil act so that good may come from it (CCC, no. 1756), even in cases when “the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, no. 14). …

In short, the church cannot condone or encourage a couple’s decision to use a condom to prevent the transmission of AIDS. Not only would such ecclesiastical action aid and abet the violation of the moral principle never to choose evil, it would also mislead couples into thinking that physical death is worse than the much more serious moral fallout that can accompany immoral sexual acts. The moral way for such couples to prevent the transmission of AIDS is by abstaining from the marital act, and the faithful should support them in taking advantage of God’s abundant grace to do so… "

Bless you. You have the true teaching and understanding of the Church teaching concerning this topic.

 

[setter]

I would have to question this conclusion. I would offer that instead, it is lack of education that leads to reckless sexual behavior. Here’s information from the New England Journal of Medicine on this concern:

“Reckless sexual behavior” is always a symptom of a spiritual malady and break with traditional Judeo-Christian values. Ultimately it is conversion of heart and mind, not education, that will give the proper and lasting solution to such rampart spread of STD’s.

 

[Aleii]

“Reckless sexual behavior” is always a symptom of a spiritual malady and break with traditional Judeo-Christian values. Ultimately it is conversion of heart and mind, not education, that will give the proper and lasting solution to such rampart spread of STD’s.

I don’t see how education wouldn’t help lead to, if not be a crucial factor to, a conversion of heart and mind. Many times people don’t understand why what they are doing is wrong and unsafe.

Are you saying no education is beneficial to breaking the cycle? That boggles my mind.

 

[Aleii]

Correct, but the education that is promoted is about condoms, not about abstinance. Abstinance is an afterthought. Abstinance is rarely if ever promoted as the first option, sure it’s touted as the best option, but generally only after a litany of information is presented on the effectiveness and reliability of condoms as a means of protection.

In pretty much every link I posted, if not all, abstinence is listed there. I can see how it would appear that that is overshadowed by a litany of condom information, but what other information about abstinence should be provided to balance that better? Its already a fact that abstinence is 100% so no study is needed to prove that. Abstinence is pretty simple to learn and implement too

And no, I don’t mean big corporate pharmaceutical companies, unfortunately I mean the medical community as a whole.

Everyone pays a price for medicine. Premiums are huge, medicine is extremely expensive(part of the price of medicine goes to future research funding), the government is running out of funds, and there is a critical shortage of health care workers. Sure, a good chunk of it is fueled by desire for money/competition (hey, hospitals have to stay in business too), and sure, there is probably some corruption existing, but patients don’t get their medications from drug companies, they get it from doctors, nurses and pharmacists. My patient didn’t get Lovenox today because it is expensive(and boy is it ever - wow!). They got it because it works, and it helps prevent life-threatening complications. There is that human barrier that all patients must pass through that will help ensure that patients are getting the right information and the right treatment for the right reasons. Even though the commercials might advertise a drug, its up to the doctor whether or not to write a prescription for it. There are some extraordinarily heartwarming stories from experiences in the hospital.

I toured a free clinic last week and assisted for a while in giving immunizations. They are moving into a very nice new location, donated by one of the local hospitals. Maybe I’m a little overly optomistic, or not yet jaded, but i still have a lot of faith in my field, my coworkers, my hospital, and the work that we do

 

[Kendy]

Condoms lead people to believe they are safe having sex with many different partners, or even with a partner they know is infected with a STD. ** It is the condoms that lead to the reckless sexual behavior. **

Look at the study between Thailand and the Philippines. Look at the difference between Uganda and all other African nations. We have little abstinance data because no one is promoting it. Why?

**There’s no money to be made in abstinance!! ** Who’s going to make it worth their while to promote something that won’t make them any money? Certainly NOT the medical community. Certainly NOT the condom manufacturers. I’m sorry if this sounds like conspiracy theory, I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy as much as it’s simple negligence of the populace as a whole to take responsibility for themselves. Why take responsibility for your own sexual behavior when you can make the condom responsible?

If a man believed that he did not have a means of protecting not only his wife, but also himself from getting HIV/AIDS by having sex with multiple partners, he would be abstaining, pure and simple. The African problem is because they believe these “evil white man gadgets” will do the trick, but they simply do not. Whether it’s from a built in flaw, a manufacturing defect, poor storage, or poor application, whatever the reason, they just don’t work well enough to contain the spread of this scourge, and as such, combined with the perception they make it OK to be sexually reckless, they are a social EVIL, not a social good!

Sorry to beat you up Kendy!!

No problem.

I am not sure what is unclear about what I am saying. My only point is that we should not be promoting abstinence by lying about condoms. We should also not ignore the fact that condoms and not abstinence contained the spread of AIDS in the West. Now, you might say that it doesn’t elimiate AIDS and I agree, but we still need to be honest about how effective they are.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

As a Catholic you have just blown by the duty to preserve the inherent dignity of each person made in the image and likeness of God and to give credible witness to the Gospel.

It is never morally licit to use evil means toward a perceived good ends,i.e., the ends never justify the means.

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)

1789 Some rules [of conscience] apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it; (CCC)

**2419 **“Christian revelation . . . promotes deeper understanding of the laws of social living.” The Church receives from the Gospel the full revelation of the truth about man. When she fulfills her mission of proclaiming the Gospel, she bears witness to man, in the name of Christ, to his dignity and his vocation to the communion of persons. She teaches him the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom. (CCC)

2044 The fidelity of the baptized is a primordial condition for the proclamation of the Gospel and for the Church’s mission in the world. In order that the message of salvation can show the power of its truth and radiance before men, it must be authenticated by the witness of the life of Christians. “The witness of a Christian life and good works done in a supernatural spirit have great power to draw men to the faith and to God.” (CCC)

Oh Setter, I was waiting for my list of quotes from the CCC

I don’t know how I have violated the dignity of anybody by saying that research about condoms holes have been repudiated and that we should not lie about how effective they are.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Right, its “safer sex” not “safe sex”. For this board, however, I fail to see where anyone has been saying that condoms are 100% safe, will never fail nor will the user ever fail at its application. In fact, Kendy has repeated over and over, as has the CDC, that abstinence is a good thing, and should be taught and promoted, and is the only 100% thing out there.

Kendy is trying to make sure that people aren’t confused by the facts of condoms, since it seems that some people here are inferring that condoms are not safe whatsover, and that HIV floods through “holes” and provides 0 protection.

These are findings that condoms offer significant protection against HIV and other STDs. No, not 100% because there is user error etc. But just as people should be aware about the facts of abstinence, so should the facts about condoms be learned, and so should the Church’s stance be learned. Education in and of itself is not a bad thing! Now turning towards the morality of the issue, yes, the couple should abstain.

I would have to question this conclusion. I would offer that instead, it is lack of education that leads to reckless sexual behavior. Here’s information from the New England Journal of Medicine on this concern:

"A theoretical concern exists that the promotion of condom use could lead to “risk compensation” — in other words, that men who use condoms might feel safer and consequently have sex more frequently or with more partners, thus reducing or even reversing the protection offered by condoms. However, a review of 174 condom-related prevention approaches concluded that these interventions designed to reduce the risk of HIV infection do not increase unsafe sexual behavior.5 Despite this reassurance, we must continue to be vigilant when promoting the use of condoms to avoid giving users a false sense of security; we should refer, for example, to “safer sex” rather than “safe sex.” "
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/25/2642
(Please note that in this link, the authors also discuss abstinence)

I’m figuring you mean big corporate pharmaceutical companies? I am part of the medical community and I have to say that we educate based on health, not based on making money. Again, even with the report on condoms from the CDC, they discuss abstinence. I take seriously my oath to protect the health of the community and promote education as do most others in my field. We do NOT promote something that simply makes us money. In fact, we try to find ways to save the patient money to decrease stress and increase compliance for their therapeutic regimen.

“The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”
cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf

No, the CDC is not out to get you! Its a pretty highly respected source.

my apologies if I’ve misrepresented you Kendy!

No, finally someone who understand me!

 

[BeeSweet]

No problem.

I am not sure what is unclear about what I am saying. My only point is that we should not be promoting abstinence by lying about condoms. We should also not ignore the fact that condoms and not abstinence contained the spread of AIDS in the West. Now, you might say that it doesn’t elimiate AIDS and I agree, but we still need to be honest about how effective they are.

Kendy

It’s very clear what you’re saying, it’s just wrong. If the Philippines have a HIV infection rate of 113 per million, and the United States (here representing the West as a whole) has an infection rate of 3,900 per million, it is crystal clear the condom as a means of prevention against the disease is disasterously ineffective. Honest.

 

[Kendy]

It’s very clear what you’re saying, it’s just wrong. If the Philippines have a HIV infection rate of 113 per million, and the United States (here representing the West as a whole) has an infection rate of 3,900 per million, it is crystal clear the condom as a means of prevention against the disease is disasterously ineffective. Honest.

While I am not familiar enough with the case of the phillipines to comment, I don’t remember saying that condoms were more effective than abstinence. I am only arguing against the widely-repudiated condom wholes rumor.

Kendy

 

[fix]

Interview with Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo
concerning condom use

… but at least it seemed to us that there was a call to attention when we read in *The Guardian *that the World Health Organization states, “Consistent and correct condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%”. Therefore, there is that 10% where due to different causes, a risk remains. If 10 persons out of 100 can contract an illness like this, which is mortal, what should the attitude of the Health Ministries be? And so, this is simply what I said. A warning should be put on these products, such as, “This is not safe”, or “This is not completely safe”. This is a responsibility, especially towards the poor countries.