Infertile married couple condom use

[mistfall]

If one spouse has an infection or disease, why would they put their beloved at ANY risk?

“I love you enough to reduce the risk of you getting sick, but not enough to protect you completely.” (by abstaining)

I hope my husband would love me enough not to put me at risk at all.

Its funny how different people can come to the opposite conclusions given the same premise. If I was married, loving my husband would mean I’d rather take my chances on catching whatever he had rather than deny him (and myself) the marital embrace. I guess to me, just as I would be expected to assume his debts because we are “one flesh”, I’d happily assume the risk of catching whatever he happened to have. If it is something non-fatal like herpes, I can live with that. If it was HIV, well, nobody gets off this planet alive, and I’d rather have a complete and loving marriage for a few years than a marriage without that union.

 

[Newbie2]

Its funny how different people can come to the opposite conclusions given the same premise. If I was married, loving my husband would mean I’d rather take my chances on catching whatever he had rather than deny him (and myself) the marital embrace. I guess to me, just as I would be expected to assume his debts because we are “one flesh”, I’d happily assume the risk of catching whatever he happened to have. If it is something non-fatal like herpes, I can live with that. If it was HIV, well, nobody gets off this planet alive, and I’d rather have a complete and loving marriage for a few years than a marriage without that union.

That goes directly to my previous quote:

“I guess an understandable objection stems from the comparison (from a relativistic perspetive, anyway) of what’s worse, the loss of any marital union through intercourse without a condom or the loss of union through the loss of direct contact by the use of a condom.”

 

[Seatuck]

Its funny how different people can come to the opposite conclusions given the same premise. If I was married, loving my husband would mean I’d rather take my chances on catching whatever he had rather than deny him (and myself) the marital embrace. I guess to me, just as I would be expected to assume his debts because we are “one flesh”, I’d happily assume the risk of catching whatever he happened to have. If it is something non-fatal like herpes, I can live with that. If it was HIV, well, nobody gets off this planet alive, and I’d rather have a complete and loving marriage for a few years than a marriage without that union.

The church does not require that of you . It certainly allows and supports that position but out of justice it does not require that .If you had young children to take care of and support then an untimely death by HIV might not be worth it and the church would support that. The church would support the same heroic virtue that is displayed by a couple who must abstain from the marital embrace for the health reasons of the mother .

 

[Newbie2]

The church does not require that of you . It certainly allows and supports that position but out of justice it does not require that .If you had young children to take care of and support then an untimely death by HIV might not be worth it and the church would support that. The church would support the same heroic virtue that is displayed by a couple who must abstain from the marital embrace for the health reasons of the mother .

Was mistfall speaking of using a condom in such a situation?

 

[Ron_Conte]

If the couple’s infertility is morally certain, such as in the case of a woman who is post menopausal or has had a hysterectomy, then use of a condom for the purpose of lessening the possibility of disease transmission would not be contraceptive. However, the effectiveness of this type of protection is probably exaggerated by modern society. The couple morally would not, generally speaking, be justified in risking disease transmission of a fatal and incurable disease in this way.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If the couple’s infertility is morally certain, such as in the case of a woman who is post menopausal or has had a hysterectomy, then use of a condom for the purpose of lessening the possibility of disease transmission would not be contraceptive. However, the effectiveness of this type of protection is probably exaggerated by modern society. The couple morally would not, generally speaking, be justified in risking disease transmission of a fatal and incurable disease in this way.

Such action would still oppose Church teachings. You maybe clear on that however your post may mislead others on the subject.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Number one, I’m not making fun of my own faith. You’re assuption is somewhat less than charitable. :tsktsk:

Number two, the reference to lazy was tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I’m looking for a specific reference within JPIIs theology of the body. I could go and read it myself (again), but am appealing to the good forumites who know it much better than I do :bowdown2: to find specifics.

Number three, the “tiny window I’m seeing through” is playing devil’s advocate; I’m looking for a different way to explain Catholic theology to someone who might be struggling with it.

Number four, no, I’m not looking for a loophole.

Newbie2
You are absolutely making fun of our faith and most specifically you are making “fun” of HV.
Spend a year studying this magnificent document together with Castii Conubii, Donum Vitae, HV, and EV. and Theology of the Body. Make a complete study of these and you wuill have all your questions answered.
However, if you are simply “making fun” of the Catholic faith, I am sure you wont be bothered as the answers are not your real agenda.
bye
GraceAngel.

Number five, your post has done nothing to help me. double , but thank you to those who have actually tried to help me address this topic. :clapping:

See the thread “Interpreting the Bible literally” in Apologetics-Sacred Scripture to see what sort of answers I was hoping to get.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…And even now the Vatican has still remained mum on the question. Your May 2006 article by Thomas Nash hoped for a such an official statement and one is still not forthcoming. Curious.
…
unfortunately Cardinal Trujillo did NOT address the issue of whether married couples may or may not use condoms when one spouse is infected and the other is not
…
A woman on BC pills could actually ovulate several times a year without ever realizing it; but medical research has this well documented.
…

??? you have me confused The church teaching is a man and wife are one and thus no condom is needed. So the Vatican nor “Cardinal Trujillo”(any relation to father Trujillio?) do not need to address when the husband and wife should stop being one. BTW I would love to see some good research on the “break through ovulation rate” I do not need to see that break through ovulation occurs as we call those “pill babies”. Pill babies prove the uterus is not hostile and the pill does abort fertilized eggs (zygotes if you would like)
hope that helps

 

[newbetx]

Was mistfall speaking of using a condom in such a situation?

I did not read her post that way. I read it that she would willingly take the risk to her health to be one with her husband without the use of a condom. Similar to being “open to life.” Accepting both the possibility and the outcome as determined by God.

Beautifully put, Mistfall!

 

[TMC]

TMC

I coudn’t post the whole excerpt I wanted to. Please go into the article to read what comes after the part I was able to fit in.

Now I know why folks around here use 3 posts in a row to fit information in. Very Frustrating.

You said

I think you really need to do some more study to understand this. The marital act has a sacramental theological meaning. Any contraceptive behavior gets in the way of this theological meaning.

I promised I would eventually get back to this topic. Been away for a while with work. Here is what I think of the Theology of the Body in a nutshell. I agree I could learn more about it, but I have done some more reading and I think I get the basics. I think there is a lot there that is true and beautiful in a spiritual way. But I think it goes too far in some ways. I think that a free and open exchange between partners is crucial to fully achieving the unitive significance of marriage. I just can’t agree that an exchange of bodily fluids is a necessary part of that.

I think that this body of work and study has contributed a lot and advanced the ball on Catholic thinking of sexuality. While not inconsistent with the past, it is clearly a development that branches out in a different direction. I think more development is needed and will come. Catholic morality has long approached sex and sexuality very differently than other areas of human life and action. We are seeing the Church slowly unify sexual morality with other Catholic thinking. I just don’t think we are done yet.

 

[Seatuck]

Was mistfall speaking of using a condom in such a situation?

I took it to mean just having sex out of love and not worrying about the consequences. Did mistfall mean using a condom despite the risk?

 

[paperwight]

I don’t understand. If there’s no possibility of conceiving (o.k. bar a miracle) but a married couple want to use a condom to minimise infection, and they don’t feel that it impedes unity, why are people saying that it does impede umity?
Surely it all depends how the couple feel it affects their relationship? if they don’t feel it does, what is the problem?
Surely some are elevating theory, i.e.condoms destroy the unitive aspect, over the reality as perceived by the couple i.e.no, it doesn’t FOR THEM.

 

[Seatuck]

I don’t understand. If there’s no possibility of conceiving (o.k. bar a miracle) but a married couple want to use a condom to minimise infection, and they don’t feel that it impedes unity, why are people saying that it does impede umity?
Surely it all depends how the couple feel it affects their relationship? if they don’t feel it does, what is the problem?
Surely some are elevating theory, i.e.condoms destroy the unitive aspect, over the reality as perceived by the couple i.e.no, it doesn’t FOR THEM.

But it does for the church. How one “feels” about something doesn’t necessarily mean they are right . Feelings can ignore the truth. People are saying that it impedes unity because that is what the church says . Look back over the thread for the references. Unitive doesn’t just mean how a couple “feels” . It involves much more than that has already been discussed.

 

[davia]

well, this is JMO, but for example that there is a married couple, and as the OP said, she has had a hysterectomy for some disease say, and she 100% cannot have children, and God forbid this would ever happen to anyone, but she is raped coming back from work or wherever and finds out she has HIV (or some other DEADLY disease). Now, I think it would be very appropriate to seek the advice of a priest because -especially if they are pretty young- they are not going to want to live a life without sex as a married couple. I mean, maybe the man is willing to take the risk of a condom failing, but of course he is not going to want to just have sex unprotected, so if he wants to take the risk that’s up to him as long as a priest says it’s okay.

I don’t think the same for those STD’s which you can get as some said from the whole area, most of those diseases are non-life threatening, and it’s up to the other spouse to say if they want to give up sex just to prevent a herpes outbreak once and a while.

As to the argument than you can get it from saliva or sweat, I think research has pretty much shown that you can not catch something like HIV from this. Even if you could say for arguments sake, that doesn’t mean they should just say what the heck, maybe i’ll get it that way so let’s forget the condom.

In this case, they both are innocent and I don’t think God would hold it against them to use a condom. I don’t think God would want to let them suffer like that. He created sex not just for children (I mean that in the cases of women or men who are infertile like this example) but also to bond the couple. It’s unrealistic for a 25 year old couple in this situation to live a sexless marriage.

I think God has a lot of love for everyone and I don’t think he would be so technical in this kind of a situation - “you violated the rules” kind of thing.

I mean, every situation is different - seek help from a priest. In another example, let’s say everything about the above story is the same, but let’s say she had a hysterectomy after having their first child and there was complications. Should the husband not use a condom then and risk himself when they have a child that would most likely need him if the mother dies? Yes, some would say just don’t have sex, but for some the choice isn’t that easy and if he choses to do so anyway, he should protect himself.

 

[mistfall]

Was mistfall speaking of using a condom in such a situation?

Nope. I was speaking of neither using a condom nor abstaining, but taking my chances. I am, however, not a mother and of an age that it is unlikely that I ever shall be one, so I might think differently if, as a poster above noted, I had small children that would be orphaned. But given the availability of HIV treatment to a middle-class American, and the non-lethality of non-treatable STDs, I doubt that death would be an issue anyway. Of course the original post did not have a lethal disease in mind, so I guess its off-topic anyway.

 

[mistfall]

But it does for the church. How one “feels” about something doesn’t necessarily mean they are right . Feelings can ignore the truth. People are saying that it impedes unity because that is what the church says . Look back over the thread for the references. Unitive doesn’t just mean how a couple “feels” . It involves much more than that has already been discussed.

I think Seatuck is onto something important. Seatuck was replying to a post that said the couple using a condom will know that it did not hinder the unitive dimension of their marriage “for them”. This implies that a couple will be consciously aware of it when something is damaging their union. This is not necessarily true - I suspect we can all think of things that people can do to each other that fly under the radar, but cause damage nevertheless.

If a man chats with a female friend on the computer every day, he may think its no big deal since its all innocent topics. His wife even may think its no big deal. But the seeds of jealousy and suspicion may be taking root in her mind in ways that will surface months down the line. He may becoming more emotionally intimate with a female friend in a way that will make him start thinking that she understands him better than his wife.

If somebody is staring at the TV while his wife is trying to speak to him, neither may consciously think this is any big deal. But years of this, and they may have “grown apart” because she feels profoundly ignored and he feels like he is never allowed any private time to relax, and neither may know where these feelings came from.

 

[newbetx]

Mistfall, you’re good!

 

[newbetx]

well, this is JMO, but for example that there is a married couple, and as the OP said, she has had a hysterectomy for some disease say, and she 100% cannot have children, and God forbid this would ever happen to anyone, but she is raped coming back from work or wherever and finds out she has HIV (or some other DEADLY disease). Now, I think it would be very appropriate to seek the advice of a priest because -especially if they are pretty young- they are not going to want to live a life without sex as a married couple. I mean, maybe the man is willing to take the risk of a condom failing, but of course he is not going to want to just have sex unprotected, so if he wants to take the risk that’s up to him as long as a priest says it’s okay. .

Sorry, I’m “old” and wouldn’t want to go without a sexlife, either.

You miss the point, I’m afraid. Sex is a gift. Like fertility. Some have it, some won’t. Let’s change the scenario a bit… Husband gets hurt in car accident. Paralized such that normal intercourse is no longer possible. Is the woman in my scenario any more entitled to sex as the male in your scenario? And the other thing about “technology”… Just because we have it, doesn’t mean it’s right to use it. And no, I’m not advocating leaving behind all medical advancements. Just that some aren’t seen as proper by the Church. And a condom is one of those things.

In this case, they both are innocent and I don’t think God would hold it against them to use a condom. I don’t think God would want to let them suffer like that. He created sex not just for children (I mean that in the cases of women or men who are infertile like this example) but also to bond the couple. **It’s unrealistic for a 25 year old couple in this situation to live a sexless marriage. **

I think God has a lot of love for everyone and I don’t think he would be so technical in this kind of a situation - “you violated the rules” kind of thing…

Well, YOU may think it’s OK… And God MAY forgive them. Certainly, they can hope so. For many different reasons and my failings, I have to depend on this myself. That does not change “the rules”.
In other words, it’s not “unrealistic”, it’s just plain difficult. But so are so many other challenges that God gives people. Ill children, poverty, illness, loss of limbs… the list is endless. God still expects us to act accordingly. I’m not being critical… do you understand what I’m saying?

I mean, every situation is different - seek help from a priest. In another example, let’s say everything about the above story is the same, but let’s say she had a hysterectomy after having their first child and there was complications. Should the husband not use a condom then and risk himself when they have a child that would most likely need him if the mother dies? Yes, some would say just don’t have sex, but for some **the choice isn’t that easy **and if he choses to do so anyway, he should protect himself.

Twice you say to seek out the oppinion of a priest… If the priest gives proper advice, it will be the same as you’ve heard… Good thing is that the priest will hear the confessions.

Key here is that we’re NOT entitled to sex as prevailing culture seems to dictate. God gives it as a gift. Just like good health (or not). There may be times that the cross a couple bears is living without it. Certainly love is enjoyed more with the sexual union, but love’s not void without it especially when one would suffer because of it. I knew a couple in this situation. Sex was horribly painful for her. They chose to adopt and raise a child. And they loved each other all the rest of their days while being chaste. Believe it or not, it is possible and sometimes necessary.

 

[Seatuck]

well, this is JMO, but for example that there is a married couple, and as the OP said, she has had a hysterectomy for some disease say, and she 100% cannot have children, and God forbid this would ever happen to anyone, but she is raped coming back from work or wherever and finds out she has HIV (or some other DEADLY disease). Now, I think it would be very appropriate to seek the advice of a priest because -especially if they are pretty young- they are not going to want to live a life without sex as a married couple. I mean, maybe the man is willing to take the risk of a condom failing, but of course he is not going to want to just have sex unprotected, so if he wants to take the risk that’s up to him as long as a priest says it’s okay.

I don’t think the same for those STD’s which you can get as some said from the whole area, most of those diseases are non-life threatening, and it’s up to the other spouse to say if they want to give up sex just to prevent a herpes outbreak once and a while.

As to the argument than you can get it from saliva or sweat, I think research has pretty much shown that you can not catch something like HIV from this. Even if you could say for arguments sake, that doesn’t mean they should just say what the heck, maybe i’ll get it that way so let’s forget the condom.

In this case, they both are innocent and I don’t think God would hold it against them to use a condom. I don’t think God would want to let them suffer like that. He created sex not just for children (I mean that in the cases of women or men who are infertile like this example) but also to bond the couple. It’s unrealistic for a 25 year old couple in this situation to live a sexless marriage.

I think God has a lot of love for everyone and I don’t think he would be so technical in this kind of a situation - “you violated the rules” kind of thing.

I mean, every situation is different - seek help from a priest. In another example, let’s say everything about the above story is the same, but let’s say she had a hysterectomy after having their first child and there was complications. Should the husband not use a condom then and risk himself when they have a child that would most likely need him if the mother dies? Yes, some would say just don’t have sex, but for some the choice isn’t that easy and if he choses to do so anyway, he should protect himself.

Davia what about the case where one spouse is injured and can no longer perform the marital act.Lets say this is a really young couple. Does that mean the non injured spouse should be allowed to have sex with someone else? Or is this just a cross that they will be bearing along with Christ ? Yes it is going to be difficult but with God all things are possible. Perhaps there will be a cure in the future who knows. When we marry we do it for better or worse and we accept the challenges that come. These are serious challenges indeed. We don’t have the right to have immoral sex because it is difficult to abstain. We never want to encourage anyone to do an immoral act to protect themselves from another immoral act. The church has spoken. Contraception is always immoral because it introduces something into the marital act that does not belong there. You mentiones the couple should be allowed to use the condome because they don’t “want” to give up a sex life. Well, we want all kinds of bad things for us or things that are difficult to do that are right for us to do. That’s why we have the church as a moral teacher.

I have not doubt couples can shop around and find dissenting or ignorant ( I give some the benefit of the doubt because they don’t all get the same education )priests enough to allow them to do what they want. Doesn’t make it right. A person going to a priest should be getting the same info they is being given using church documentation from any priest they go to.

 

[Seatuck]

Nope. I was speaking of neither using a condom nor abstaining, but taking my chances. I am, however, not a mother and of an age that it is unlikely that I ever shall be one, so I might think differently if, as a poster above noted, I had small children that would be orphaned. But given the availability of HIV treatment to a middle-class American, and the non-lethality of non-treatable STDs, I doubt that death would be an issue anyway. Of course the original post did not have a lethal disease in mind, so I guess its off-topic anyway.

Thanks for clarifying. I have taken a post’s intent wrong on occaision.

Of course the original post did not have a lethal disease in mind, so I guess its off-topic anyway

Really , a thread go off topic and drift! It can’t be so…