Married Couple using condoms to prevent spread of STD?

[Gift_from_God]

In a hypothetical situation, a man gets an STD and then repents for having sex a few years later. He then marries a woman and wants to use a condom to prevent her from receiving the disease. In light of what the Pope has said (and the many misquotes) would this be okay?

 

[Daegus]

In a hypothetical situation, a man gets an STD and then repents for having sex a few years later. He then marries a woman and wants to use a condom to prevent her from receiving the disease. In light of what the Pope has said (and the many misquotes) would this be okay?

No.

If the man in question truly loved the person he married, he wouldn’t even consider having sex with her out of concern for her safety (and his). In fact, if he really cared about her he might not have even married her to begin with, knowing that he had an STD. By using a condom the man has effectively eliminated the unitive aspect of sex and has created a barrier that God did not intend to be there, and he also tries to circumvent God’s will by avoiding pregnancy.

The only proper solution to said man’s problems would be to lead a chaste life and be a man of God. Simply using condoms to justify disordered desires is immoral and is anathema.

 

[twoangels]

In a hypothetical situation, a man gets an STD and then repents for having sex a few years later. He then marries a woman and wants to use a condom to prevent her from receiving the disease. In light of what the Pope has said (and the many misquotes) would this be okay?

If he knew he had the STD before they married, it would be something he would need to inform her of during the courtship. My understanding is that some STD’s are more of just annoying rather than life threatening. She would need to carefully discern whether or not she is willing to expose herself to that STD, for even if contraceptives were not immoral, throughout the years of their marriage, chances are that one time or another a condom would break or slip off. And there are some diseases where the condom does not cover the entire affected area and thus still can transmit the disease. So, if she’s marrying someone with an STD, she needs to consider whether or not she wants to go through with the marriage. If he can live with the STD, than maybe she can too.

That said, if they are already married and he gets diagnosed later into their marriage, chances are she’s already been exposed and would already develop it herself.

Overall I wouldn’t consider the condom a safe protection. But that said, if someone is contageous with a disease that can kill you, than abstainence may be the most loving thing to do.

Overall what the Pope said doesn’t really add anything to consider in such a situation. Anyone who thinks it does should read this bit of humor about it: insidecatholic.com/feature/pope-changes-catholic-faith-completely.html

 

[kepha1]

Pope:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

When Seewald asked the Holy Father to clarify the Church’s position on the use of condoms, Benedict XVI responded: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Father Lombardi explained, “In that case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality but maintains that the use of a condom to reduce the danger of infection may be ‘a first act of responsibility,’” as opposed to “not using it and exposing the other to risking his life.”
zenit.org/article-31025?l=english

 

[Observer3]

In a hypothetical situation, a man gets an STD and then repents for having sex a few years later. He then marries a woman and wants to use a condom to prevent her from receiving the disease. In light of what the Pope has said (and the many misquotes) would this be okay?

Yes, it’s been answered before on here many times. It’s perfectly ok, and recommended for couples with STD’s.

I don’t seriously believe the people on here who are saying “give up sex” would actually do that if it happened to them. Or take this scenario: If your son or daughter was about to have sex with someone who had an STD, would you rather them use a condom or follow the churches teaching? I think we know the answer.

Condoms are a blessing that help save lives. A true pro-life person would support condoms.

 

[davidv]

Yes, it’s been answered before on here many times. It’s perfectly ok, and recommended for couples with STD’s.

I don’t seriously believe the people on here who are saying “give up sex” would actually do that if it happened to them. Or take this scenario: If your son or daughter was about to have sex with someone who had an STD, would you rather them use a condom or follow the churches teaching? I think we know the answer.

Condoms are a blessing that help save lives. A true pro-life person would support condoms.

If it was answered this way before, it is, like it always will be, the incorrect answer.

Sin is never “perfectly ok”, never has been, nor will. And sin is never a blessing.

What you “seriously believe” is of no consequence to the determination of what is moral or not. Condoms, when used as a barrier between husband and wife, is contraception. Contraception is gravely disordered and sinful.

 

[manualman]

Observer3, you realize this is a forum on catholic teaching, right?

To the OP, a potentially fatal STD would be a crushing burden to bear. If marriage is the placing of the other first, the decision to live a self sacrificing love for the rest of one’s life with the beloved, is it in character to place that beloved’s life at risk for the sake of the pleasure of sexual initimacy? I can certainly see the temptation. But genuine love requires more than ‘reduced risk’ of STD transmission. St. Paul says the man is to love his life as Christ loved the Church. Christ gave up his life to save us from us sins. Are we really OK with saying it’s OK NOT to give up sexual pleasure in order to save our beloved from ones OWN sins? Is that what Jesus would do?