ok to use condoms if have std and past child bearing?

[Didi]

If you have a disease that is sexually transmittable and you are past childbearing ( would be impossible), is it ok to use condoms with your spouse?

 

[pensmama87]

This would be a question to ask your priest, I think.

 

[LoyalViews]

I agree that it’s something to ask your priest. It’s a non-standard moral situation. Since conception is impossible, it still stands in muddled water because sex is an act that should be open to the instance of life at all times.

 

[Elizium23]

No, artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and it is not permissible to use a condom to frustrate the procreative significance of the marital act. I hope that your priest will say the same thing, as it is the teaching of the Church. See Humanae vitae.

 

[Rau]

If you have a disease that is sexually transmittable and you are past childbearing ( would be impossible), is it ok to use condoms with your spouse?

Brief Answer:
It is not OK because all sexual acts are required to be of a kind “apt for generation”. Wearing a condom destroys that aptness.

Detailed Answer:
A well-known theologian, Fr. Martin Rhonheimer wrote an article in 2004 stating:
“…a married man who is HIV infected and uses condoms to protect his wife from infection is not acting to render procreation impossible, but to prevent infection. If conception is prevented, this will be an—unintentional—side effect and will not therefore shape the moral meaning of the act as a contraceptive act.”
The above frames the issue of condoms and HIV in relation to the question of what constitutes a contraceptive act. The suggestion is that if it is not contraceptive, it is not wrong. A number of theologians have pointed out however that framing the question as being about contraception fails to come to grips with the underlying moral issue, which, in fact, is not about avoiding conception. They point out the the question needs to be addressed in relation to the nature of the conjugal act and chastity.

Traditional teaching holds that sexual acts must be conjugal to be good., hence if the use of a condom prevents the sexual act from being truly conjugal, then the very choice to use a condom is in itself morally evil. Rhonheimer tries to get round this by arguing that the Church’s teaching that “each and every” sexual act between spouses must by “Open” to procreation should be understood to mean “intentional” openness, rather than “physical” openness. Otherwise he says, that the natural fertility, medical treatments and the like would also invalidate sexual intimacies of the spouses, since they too would lack physical openness.

Rhonheimer errs in that he he argues that the use of a condom as such is a pre-moral or merely “natural” description of an event, and not yet the description of a moral act. It is analogous therefore to the statement “a man was killed.” His conclusion then is inevitable: it is not until the intention (e.g., use of a condom to prevent conception, or use of a condom to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS) is known that any moral evaluation at all can be made. But this is not right (according to Catholic moral theology) - the choice to use a condom constitutes a moral object.

Numerous Church documents teach that each and every conjugal act must be open to new life. Each must be of a kind that can consummate a marriage, making the husband and wife “one flesh”. Canon Law (1061) says consummation requires a conjugal act “per se apt for the generation of children”, and explains that this per se aptness is what makes the spouses one flesh. In other words, even though the question of condoms and HIV/AIDS does not turn on whether the act is an act of contraception (i.e., whether it possesses the intentionality of preventing conception), whether or not the sexual act is a “kind of behavior” that is “apt for generation” is nevertheless crucial in determining whether it is a conjugal act. Certain acts having nothing to do with contraception, such as sodomy or mutual masturbation, are also immoral (unchaste) on the basis of a similar inaptness.

It is not actual conception that renders the spouses one flesh. What is necessary is that the sexual act be the appropriate kind of behaviour, it must be such as to permit the sort of mutual communication in which the husband communicates his “flesh” and the woman receives it, regardless of whether other factors such as age, or sterility prevent this communication from being fruitful in particular cases.

The “non-contraceptive” use of condoms is a failure with respect to aptness for generation. It likewise cannot communicate the husband’s substance to the wife in the way that is pertinent to a conjugal act, even when no contraceptive intent is present. Thus, freely adopting (and therefore intending) such acts as the object of choice implies the pursuit of sexual pleasure without the communication objectively necessary for conjugal love.

Such acts are therefore distinct from the sexual union of infertile spouses, whether that infertility results from natural causes (such as menopause), hormone therapy, hysterectomy, low sperm count, or the wife’s natural cycles. Infertile spouses can become one flesh in their sexual relations because the communication of bodies does occur in their sexual intimacy, although the normal fruit of this communication is not possible. Conjugal relations under these circumstances are not “inapt” for generation; they are simply ineffective.

Source: communio-icr.com/articles…s-and-hiv-aids
Much of the above text borrows directly from the above source and is reproduced here for the ease of study by readers. I recommend reading the source for a fuller picture.

---

The text above is copied from this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12573755&postcount=136

which is post #136 on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=924900

 

[Mintaka]

Even if it were moral and fitting (which it isn’t), the failure rate for condoms is really really high, and there are a lot of ways for it to go wrong. Disease germs can often get through the latex, too.

People go to a lot of trouble not to give their colds and flus to the people they love.

I think it would be worth a lot more trouble (and abstinence) to avoid giving an STD to one’s spouse. (Or anybody else, for that matter.)

 

[captainrick]

If you have a disease that is sexually transmittable and you are past childbearing ( would be impossible), is it ok to use condoms with your spouse?

I don’t know, but it would certainly make sense. Some say it is evil per se. I just can’t believe that. Just one of several church teachings with which I disagree. Yes, I obey the teachings, but don’t agree with all of them.

 

[Elizium23]

I don’t know, but it would certainly make sense. Some say it is evil per se. I just can’t believe that. Just one of several church teachings with which I disagree. Yes, I obey the teachings, but don’t agree with all of them.

Actually, it makes no sense. Because sex must be both procreative and unitive; using a condom destroys at least one of these. So it makes no sense to me by the precepts laid out in Humanae vitae and Theology of the Body how this could be called permissible, or even a gray area, but as you can see, there is even confusion among Catholics about these clear teachings, as evidenced by the posts in this very thread.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Traditional teaching holds that sexual acts must be conjugal to be good., hence if the use of a condom prevents the sexual act from being truly conjugal, then the very choice to use a condom is in itself morally evil. Rhonheimer tries to get round this by arguing that the Church’s teaching that “each and every” sexual act between spouses must by “Open” to procreation should be understood to mean “intentional” openness, rather than “physical” openness. … But this is not right (according to Catholic moral theology) - the choice to use a condom constitutes a moral object. Numerous Church documents teach that each and every conjugal act must be open to new life."

I don’t believe you’re correct in this particular instance.

I have heard/seen from numerous sources, for example, that if you have to take hormonal birth control to treat a medical condition you can still have sex because the contraception is not the purpose of the pill but more like a side effect.

I think that same logic applies to wearing a condom to prevent giving someone else an STD. The purpose is to prevent infection, not to contracept. But there is no way to safely have sex in that situation without the proper gear.

Pope Benedict even said as much several years ago – nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html?pagewanted=all

Also, for what its worth, how are we defining “openness” if not by intent? If we consider a woman who can’t have children for some reason open to life because there’s the tiniest chance of a miraculous conception, shouldn’t someone using condoms for non-contraceptive reasons get the same benefit of the doubt? They have like a 5 percent fail rate!

 

[Elizium23]

The oft-abused quote from Pope Benedict XVI regards usage by a male prostitute, in which no contraceptive effect is possible.

 

[JRKH]

If you have a disease that is sexually transmittable and you are past childbearing ( would be impossible), is it ok to use condoms with your spouse?

Short answer…
No it is not OK. In the situation described here the preferred option should be abstinence.

Peace
James

 

[QuasiCatholic]

The oft-abused quote from Pope Benedict XVI regards usage by a male prostitute, in which no contraceptive effect is possible.

If you read the story, the Vatican spokesperson says the premise applies “whether it’s a man or woman or a transsexual.” (Also, what makes you think there aren’t male prostitutes who have sex with women??)

And on the point of using the pill for medical reasons, I give you this from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"Is there ever a time “contraceptives” may be used for medical reasons?
Catholic teaching does not oppose the use of hormonal medications – such as those found in chemical contraceptives – for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent. "

How is that different than using a condom for the medical purpose of infection control?

 

[Rau]

I don’t believe you’re correct in this particular instance.

I have heard/seen from numerous sources, for example, that if you have to take hormonal birth control to treat a medical condition you can still have sex because the contraception is not the purpose of the pill but more like a side effect.

I think that same logic applies to wearing a condom to prevent giving someone else an STD. The purpose is to prevent infection, not to contracept. But there is no way to safely have sex in that situation without the proper gear.

Pope Benedict even said as much several years ago – nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html?pagewanted=all

Also, for what its worth, how are we defining “openness” if not by intent? If we consider a woman who can’t have children for some reason open to life because there’s the tiniest chance of a miraculous conception, shouldn’t someone using condoms for non-contraceptive reasons get the same benefit of the doubt? They have like a 5 percent fail rate!

The condom to prevent transmission of an STD is need not be contraception if there is no contraceptive intent in the act. But putting that aside, it fails in other respects - it is not procreative. It is not conjugal. It is not apt for generation.

The two scenarios of medication and the wearing of a condom are not analogous, and this is explained in the post to which I linked, and debated at depth in the thread from which that post is taken.

And you are mistaken in your interpretation of Benedict. He did not declare anything previously immoral as now moral. A male prostitute infected with HIV wearing a condom would seem to be a step towards personal responsibility. That was his point I believe.

 

[Rau]

Also, for what its worth, how are we defining “openness” if not by intent? If we consider a woman who can’t have children for some reason open to life because there’s the tiniest chance of a miraculous conception, shouldn’t someone using condoms for non-contraceptive reasons get the same benefit of the doubt? They have like a 5 percent fail rate!

The infertile woman has not made any choice to be less open to life than she is capable.

The effect of the condom on the marital act is not a side-effect but the very essence of its operation.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

And you are mistaken in your interpretation of Benedict. He did not declare anything previously immoral as now moral. A male prostitute infected with HIV wearing a condom would seem to be a step towards personal responsibility. That was his point I believe.

Translation: If you have an STD, and you’re going to have sex, wear a condom.

I mean I guess technically the church wants everyone with an STD to remain abstinent for the rest of their life. If you can pull that off, great.

But a lot of people probably won’t stay celibate like that. So the answer remains – if you have an STD, and you’re going to have sex, wear a condom.

 

[Rau]

If you read the story, the Vatican spokesperson says the premise applies “whether it’s a man or woman or a transsexual.” (Also, what makes you think there aren’t male prostitutes who have sex with women??)

And on the point of using the pill for medical reasons, I give you this from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"Is there ever a time “contraceptives” may be used for medical reasons?
Catholic teaching does not oppose the use of hormonal medications – such as those found in chemical contraceptives – for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent. "

How is that different than using a condom for the medical purpose of infection control?

That has been explained. How do man and woman become one flesh separated by latex? How is the wearing of a condom a choice to act in a manner apt for generation?

 

[QuasiCatholic]

The infertile woman has not made any choice to be less open to life than she is capable.

The effect of the condom on the marital act is not a side-effect but the very essence of its operation.

OK, so let’s say a woman has a family history of ovarian cancer. And because of this she elects to have her ovaries removed now, while she’s healthy, instead of waiting to find out if she gets sick.

She is now infertile – having chosen to be less open to life than she is capable – but for a medical reason.

Would she get to have sex under your interpretation?

 

[Rau]

Short answer…
No it is not OK. In the situation described here the preferred option should be abstinence.

Peace
James

How is that answer to be reconciled with your answer on the other thread where you talked about the possibility of exceptions (in that case, to contraception teaching) and advised seeing a priest (by implication, in order to explore that avenue)?

 

[Rau]

OK, so let’s say a woman has a family history of ovarian cancer. And because of this she elects to have her ovaries removed now, while she’s healthy, instead of waiting to find out if she gets sick.

She is now infertile – having chosen to be less open to life than she is capable – but for a medical reason.

Would she get to have sex under your interpretation?

Medical treatment is to be undertaken with prudence. I can’t comment more on whether the woman acted prudently in her medical choice, but let us suppose she did. Then, the answer is yes.

Now, serious conditions may always be treated. Should treatment lead to infertility, that is an unfortunate side effect, not a course chosen for an illicit end. The woman chose to be healed, she did not choose (we assume) to contracept. The Papal encyclical Humane Vitae specifically makes mention of a scenario like this - where a person needs therapeutic treatment (I suppose hysterectomy is what immediately comes to mind) and makes clear the Church has no objection.

 

[SecretGarden]

I would speak to your doctor and ask he or she what method would be the best to protect your spouse. Furthermore, I would also look into any treatment options that are available and get treated accordingly.

Regardless of what the church teaches regarding contraceptives. Your first aim should be to protect your spouse which might require both of you using condoms just in case one fails. Furthermore depending on the STD such as AIDS or HIV, abstaining from sex all together for the protection of your spouse might also be the safest route.

People will tell you quote different theologians and other documents which are great for some questions. But in this case, you really need to speak with your doctor because only he or she came give you the best medical advice for your situation.