Is the Church's Ban on Non-Abortive Artificial Birth Control a Doctrine or Discipline?

[manualman]

I have a hard time respecting anyone with AIDS who knowingly engages in sex at all afterwards. I mean how can you claim to be LOVING someone when you are risking their life in order to get your jollies??

Condoms are quite simply not foolproof - FAR from it. They merely represent playing the game of Russian roulette with fewer bullets in the cylinder. By definition, this is NOT an act of self-giving love.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Well, I have a problem with AIDS too. Here’s the problem. If one partner has AIDS before he/she gets married, the only even partially acceptable protective sex is with a condom. But that’s only about 80-90% effective aginst the transmission of the HIV virus. Is it acceptable to marry someone knowing that you are pretty likely to pass the HIV virus to him/her if you have sex more than 10 times in your married life? 90% is only 9/10!

That’s not the way statistics work. EACH time you have sex, the condom has only a 10% failure rate, meaning there is only a 10% chance every time that the condom will break. When used properly, this statistic goes down. Most people will never have a condom break. On top of that, if the condom does break, the chance of transmitting the virus from male to female is only 1 in 40, again, EACH time you have sex (1 in 100 from female to male). With regular and correct condom usage, the chances of spreading the AIDS virus between partners is very, very slim.

Not to mention the theological position that barrier sex is not fully consumated. So a couple who married and never has sex without a condom never really consumates their marriage. Yes, I have a problem with that.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I have a hard time respecting anyone with AIDS who knowingly engages in sex at all afterwards. I mean how can you claim to be LOVING someone when you are risking their life in order to get your jollies??

Condoms are quite simply not foolproof - FAR from it. They merely represent playing the game of Russian roulette with fewer bullets in the cylinder. By definition, this is NOT an act of self-giving love.

I don’t think it’s ideal either, but it’s better than the Church’s position that if you choose to marry someone with AIDS, then you better be ready to get AIDS yourself and have a bunch of kids with AIDS who will then spread AIDS to others or have fun burning in Hell.

Why do we harp on sexual sins so much? The idea of saying that EVERY SINGLE sex act has to be open to life is like saying that EVERY SINGLE meal we eat has to be for fueling your body ONLY. Yes, the primary purpose of eating should be to give your body the fuel it needs to survive, and our diet as a whole should be based on that very idea. Gluttony is a sin; eating a piece of chocolate cake is not. The same should apply with married sex. The marriage itself should be open to life (barring one of the partners having AIDS or some horrible genetic disease that will almost assuredly be passed on), but every SINGLE act of sex? I think that’s a bit over the top and it’s an archaic idea based on a world with less than 1 billion inhabitants, with almost no deadly sexually transmitted diseases and with a global economy based upon agriculture where the more children a family had, the better off everyone was. In a post-industrial revolutionary world with 7 billion people and the AIDS epidemic killing millions, the Church’s position is downright irresponsible. We are destroying the planet for crying out loud (which was entrusted to us by God in Genesis by the way), and that’s just one of the problems with this attitude.

 

[Corki]

You seemed to have some problem with the quoting feature; I hope I am responding to your comments correctly.

That’s not the way statistics work. EACH time you have sex, the condom has only a 10% failure rate, meaning there is only a 10% chance every time that the condom will break. When used properly, this statistic goes down. Most people will never have a condom break. On top of that, if the condom does break, the chance of transmitting the virus from male to female is only 1 in 40, again, EACH time you have sex (1 in 100 from female to male). With regular and correct condom usage, the chances of spreading the AIDS virus between partners is very, very slim.

The only reason the statistics don’t work is that you are applying the statistic of condom breakage and eliminating all the other statistical factors that lead to a far less than perfect rate of protection from the HIV virus. The fact is that HIV can spread even with perfect condom use and no breakage.

If this were true and the sex act hasn’t actually taken place, then there should be nothing wrong with pre-marital sex using barrier methods…wait a minute…

The sex act is not the same as marital consumation. I think you know that and are trying to bait, but anyway…

Premarital sex is gravely wrong with or without birth control. Artificial birth control is gravely wrong with or without marriage. Premarital sex with birth control is just two sins instead of one.

Yeah, and most people don’t want to have kids that close together, especially when it is recommended worldwide by the WHO that babies be breastfed for 24 months. Ever try breastfeeding a toddler and an infant both?

If a couple doesn’t want their kids that close together, then they should use NFP or more stringent abstinence to space the children farther apart. My point is, however, in many countries, ecological breastfeeding results in children spaced roughly two to three years apart. If we aren’t getting those results in the US, why? Is it a different understanding of ecological breastfeeding? Is it something else? It’s not a failure of NFP.

 

[Corki]

I don’t think it’s ideal either, but it’s better than the Church’s position that if you choose to marry someone with AIDS, then you better be ready to get AIDS yourself or have fun burning in Hell.

Actually, I don’t think the Church would marry a couple if one and only one of the potential spouses knew he/she had AIDS. I may be wrong but it seems like that would be an impediment to marriage. It would be the same as marrying someone with the intent to poison him/her.

 

[manualman]

I don’t think it’s ideal either, but it’s better than the Church’s position that if you choose to marry someone with AIDS, then you better be ready to get AIDS yourself or have fun burning in Hell.

I don’t suppose you can substantiate this “Church’s position” you cite?

It seems to me that catholic morality simply calls those with AIDS to celibacy. (Gasp!)

Let’s look at your own statistics further. If we accept a potential 10% condom failure rate per use and a subsequent 1in 40 chance of contracting AIDS per exposure, then there is a resulting 0.25% chance of contracting AIDS per condom sex act with an infected partner. On the flip side, this means a 99.75% chance of getting away with it. Sounds good, right? If the couple has intercourse twice a week, then over the course of 15 years, that is 1,560, um, condoms used.

So, 0.9975 ^ 1,560 = 0.02. After 15 years, there is a 2% chance of the other partner remaining AIDS free. (presuming I remember college statistics class correctly) Stated otherwise, by your own probabilities, there is a 98% chance of giving the partner AIDS sometime in that 15 years. (73% chance of transmitting it in the first 5 years.)

Sound loving to you?!!! Not to me.
Got AIDS? Keep your pants on at all times.

Condoms provide some protection for those in the shack up / hook up scene. In a marriage context, only a fool and/or a knave risks infecting his beloved.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You seemed to have some problem with the quoting feature; I hope I am responding to your comments correctly.

The only reason the statistics don’t work is that you are applying the statistic of condom breakage and eliminating all the other statistical factors that lead to a far less than perfect rate of protection from the HIV virus. The fact is that HIV can spread even with perfect condom use and no breakage.

 

[manualman]

A generation, huh? I see your one generation and raise you:
If everybody lived chastity, we wouldn’t have AIDS to begin with. If everybody started it tomorrow, we’d eliminate AIDS MUCH sooner.

Granted, we won’t, but your 100% condom use pipe dream is just as unrealistic for the same reason: fallen human nature.

STDs are a gushing arterial wound on civilization. Condoms are a band-aid. The virtue of chastity is the only real cure.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I don’t suppose you can substantiate this “Church’s position” you cite?

It seems to me that catholic morality simply calls those with AIDS to celibacy. (Gasp!)

Let’s look at your own statistics further. If we accept a potential 10% condom failure rate per use and a subsequent 1in 40 chance of contracting AIDS per exposure, then there is a resulting 0.25% chance of contracting AIDS per condom sex act with an infected partner. On the flip side, this means a 99.75% chance of getting away with it. Sounds good, right? If the couple has intercourse twice a week, then over the course of 15 years, that is 1,560, um, condoms used.

So, 0.9975 ^ 1,560 = 0.02. After 15 years, there is a 2% chance of the other partner remaining AIDS free. (presuming I remember college statistics class correctly) Stated otherwise, by your own probabilities, there is a 98% chance of giving the partner AIDS sometime in that 15 years. (73% chance of transmitting it in the first 5 years.)

Sound loving to you?!!! Not to me.
Got AIDS? Keep your pants on at all times.

Condoms provide some protection for those in the shack up / hook up scene. In a marriage context, only a fool and/or a knave risks infecting his beloved.

Most people in marriages who practice safe sex where one partner has AIDS will never transmit it to the other partner. EACH time the couple has sex, there is a 99.75% chance that the partner will not contract AIDS. EACH TIME.

And if I had AIDS, of course I would be celibate. That’s not the point. The point is that just telling people to remain celibate who may or may not even be Catholic or even have marriages in the way that we understand them is ridiculous and immoral with the AIDS virus spreading out of control even to innocent children. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils. Even the Catholic Church allows for that on occasion. This is one circumstance where they need to re-open the books and possibly realize that ABC is not necessarily an INTRINSIC evil. Evil? Perhaps. INTRINSIC evil? No.

 

[Corki]

And as I stated earlier, NFP does not work with breastfeeding, as told to me by my very religious doctor who has been an OBGYN for more than 30 years. Your body does not respond the same. It is very difficult to tell when you are ovulating. So are you saying women and men in a marriage who are obviously open to children because they have an infant should stop having sex altogether for 2 years until breastfeeding is complete and the woman can properly track her cycle in order to avoid having more children? Please.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

A generation, huh? I see your one generation and raise you:
If everybody lived chastity, we wouldn’t have AIDS to begin with. If everybody started it tomorrow, we’d eliminate AIDS MUCH sooner.

Granted, we won’t, but your 100% condom use pipe dream is just as unrealistic for the same reason: fallen human nature.

STDs are a gushing arterial wound on civilization. Condoms are a band-aid. The virtue of chastity is the only real cure.

You and I both know that condom use in Africa would SIGNIFICANTLY lessen the amount of people contracting and spreading the AIDS virus, while telling people to remain eternally celibate is a joke. I would also like a unicorn for Christmas, but it’s not going to happen. We need to live in reality here and this is the only way to put any real dent in the AIDS problem.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone;6963980:

Please don’t put words into my mouth.

What I am saying is that IF a couple has a serious reason to delay the birth of another child and IF they can’t find a method of NFP that’s working for them during breastfeeding (which is not at all a universal truth) THEN they may have to make a choice between continuing breastfeeding and immediate sexual gratification. Continence and sacrifice for the well-being of the family is a good thing but you make it sound like it’s the end of the world. It’s not. All sex - all the time is a modernist fallacy.

IMMEDIATE gratification? 2 years of celibacy is what we’re talking about here. This can and would put a HUGE stress on any marriage. Even the CC says that the best way to ensure lifelong fidelity amongst married couples is regular sex. St. Paul was a proponent as well.

 

[choose_to_love]

re: every single act open to life

Apply that logic to another made during the wedding: the vow to be faithful. You mean every single act of intercourse for the rest of my life has to be with her? I mean, come on, I am generally faithful. It’s unrealistic - - against nature, you might say - - to be totally monogamous, right?

 

[Corki]

IMMEDIATE gratification? 2 years of celibacy is what we’re talking about here. This can and would put a HUGE stress on any marriage. Even the CC says that the best way to ensure lifelong fidelity amongst married couples is regular sex. St. Paul was a proponent as well.

Please show me where the CC teaches that the BEST way to ensure lifelong fidelity is regular sex regardless of personal situation. That would mean that a couple who finds themselves unable to continue to have sex is doomed to adultery? Not buying it.

If you want to choose 2 years of celibacy (which means not being married, BTW) that’s up to you but not what I said or implied.

 

[jilly4ski]

Yes, AIDS CAN be spread even with condom use. The point is that it is not spread at NEARLY the same rate. We could actually eliminate AIDS altogether within a couple of generations with proper condom usage.

 

[manualman]

Most people in marriages who practice safe sex where one partner has AIDS will never transmit it to the other partner. EACH time the couple has sex, there is a 99.75% chance that the partner will not contract AIDS. EACH TIME.

Open a statistics book. When something has an individual chance of occurance of 0.25% and you give it 1,560 tries, the overall series probability of at least one occurance is 98%. 98%! You only need to contract AIDS once to die from it. No cure. Statistics are hard, but not THAT hard. Look it up.

In your later post you accuse me of being imaginary. Not so. Not only do I actually exist, I’ve only ever had intercourse with my wife. I have plenty of other moral failures, so I’m pretty sure I’m not endowed with any superhuman moral virtue either (besides Grace, which all believers are offered). People CAN make wise choices. It helps when they are raised by people who tell them they CAN do it rather than by people who tell them it is “unrealistic.”

High goals and expectations dont’ guarantee success. But low goals and expectations DO guarantee failure.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Please show me where the CC teaches that the BEST way to ensure lifelong fidelity is regular sex regardless of personal situation. That would mean that a couple who finds themselves unable to continue to have sex is doomed to adultery? Not buying it.

If you want to choose 2 years of celibacy (which means not being married, BTW) that’s up to you but not what I said or implied.

1 Corinthians 7:5

“Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

And I did not say that the CC teaches this REGARDLESS of situation, just that it is in fact, a teaching of the Church, and the BEST way to ensure fidelity.

: cel·i·ba·cy
Pronunciation: \ˈse-lə-bə-sē
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

I was clearly referring to definition 2a.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Open a statistics book. When something has an individual chance of occurance of 0.25% and you give it 1,560 tries, the overall series probability of at least one occurance is 98%. 98%! You only need to contract AIDS once to die from it. No cure. Statistics are hard, but not THAT hard. Look it up.

In your later post you accuse me of being imaginary. Not so. Not only do I actually exist, I’ve only ever had intercourse with my wife. I have plenty of other moral failures, so I’m pretty sure I’m not endowed with any superhuman moral virtue either (besides Grace, which all believers are offered). People CAN make wise choices. It helps when they are raised by people who tell them they CAN do it rather than by people who tell them it is “unrealistic.”

High goals and expectations dont’ guarantee success. But low goals and expectations DO guarantee failure.

I hate to say it, but you are wrong about the overall possibility of contracting AIDS. Anyone will tell you that if you only have a .25% chance of getting AIDS each time you have sex, the chances of you getting it, even over a lifetime, are minuscule.

As an example, let’s put that statistic onto something you might see more favorably, like NFP. Let’s say that NFP is 99.75% effective and that each time a married couple has sex, they stand only a .25% chance of becoming pregnant. This couple will probably never conceive if they do not wish to do so.

You don’t just add up that .25% over and over again until you come up with some huge number or possible chance of contracting AIDS or becoming pregnant. You have to start over every time you repeat the act, so every time you engage in said act, the clock resets and you have no greater chance of becoming pregnant or contracting AIDS than you did the first, second, or five-trillionth time. That’s just how it works.

And I did not accuse you of being imaginary. My unicorn reference was not in reference to you. Also, I’ve only had sex with my husband. What’s your point? MY point is that on a continent where superstition reigns and most people aren’t even Catholic, the smart and MORAL thing to do is to present these people with an option that they
will actually take (condoms) to prevent the spread of AIDS to wives, husbands, single people and children. Yes, IDEALLY, no-one would ever have sex, the population would dwindle down to a sustainable level, disease would not be spreading like wildfire and having 10 kids wouldn’t be completely insane. the fact is that we cannot take care of the Earth and the population on it without at least presenting these people with another alternative besides “Stop having sex you idiot”. The latter is indirectly killing children all over the world every single day. When I have to weigh the evil of a little rubber thing versus that of a dead child, the choice is very, very clear.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone;6963980:

Actually I don’t think the church would let a person who knowingly had AIDS get married, because presumably the couple would be completely closed to having children.

NFP does work after LAM. NFP can be difficult and the couple may need to abstain more than normal but it still “works.” I was able to accurately chart the return of my cycles at 7/8 months while breastfeeding. So it is possible.

Possible in some cases but not always prudent or accurate. You’re one of the lucky ones. I can’t chart anything and I’ve been nursing for 13 months. I just started getting my mucous back recently, so maybe I could try charting that anyway. I haven’t ovulated to my knowledge, but I could pop at any second Who knows?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

re: every single act open to life

Apply that logic to another made during the wedding: the vow to be faithful. You mean every single act of intercourse for the rest of my life has to be with her? I mean, come on, I am generally faithful. It’s unrealistic - - against nature, you might say - - to be totally monogamous, right?

I don’t think it’s unrealistic to be monogamous. For our society, it makes perfect sense. Each and every marital act being open to life however, makes very little societal sense, unless we want to destroy the planet and everything on it, in which case, I may reconsider my position.