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

[Rau]

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.

Medical advice would appear to presuppose a willingness to use contraception (if confirmed sufficient to prevent transmission) with only the means to be resolved. Nevertheless, If one is not prepared to choose abstinence then your advice is appropriate.

 

[Regina7]

There is a HUGE difference between a woman taking birth control pills and the person using the condom to prevent an std. The woman takes the pill to help correct a physical condition. A condom does not fix a medical condition.

A woman taking the pill (in this scenario) is not doing so in order to have sex; she’s doing so to help a medical condition. The man wearing the condom is doing so only to have sex. See the difference? The woman’s pill is not purposely for preventing pregnancy; it’s a consequence. The man’s purpose is to prevent semen from reaching the woman.

***i will say that after researching Dr Hilgers cans his team of docs, there is NO medical reason to be on the pill. The pill fixes the symptoms, not the root cause of the actual problem.

As for those who say the man cannot possibly be chaste forever, perhaps he just needs to accept the consequence (std) of his (or a partner’s) sin.

 

[CathConvert602]

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

Ditto. Asking strangers on the net may not be the most prudent.

Though personally I’d take the STD as a clue that chastity is the very virtue to help me carry my cross of STD. Ask your priest.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

I’ll admit I’ve just now started to wonder… If the intimacy between a married man and woman is supposed to always be open to the possibility of procreation, how does this law apply to a woman who is past child-bearing age? In this instance, the married couple would be intimate but for pleasurable reasons only, obviously, since she cannot have children anymore. I can’t believe this would be wrong. Also, every time a married couple is intimate, really, it must be hundreds of times, and yet they aren’t going to have hundreds of children. What happens if the woman gets pregnant every time she and her husband are intimate? There has to be some control. But I agree that it needs to be Natural Family Planning. Yet if a man and woman are intimate, and the woman has told him now is the time to do it because she isn’t at her fertile time, they aren’t engaging in the act while being open to children. They are purposely choosing to do it at a time when she knows she is the least likely to conceive. All of this, I feel, is certainly fair. There has to be some control. I just am confused about the words “always open to procreation.” There are times, obviously, when the couple are intimate and are naturally avoiding conception. Is this a contradiction? Is it unrealistic? It makes it sound as though there should be no control at all, not even natural, but I wouldn’t agree with that at all.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

This question I asked was answered in another thread, so just disregard it. I wish I could just delete my above post, but that’s all right.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

I’m still in the dark about the beyond child-bearing age. A married man and woman (anymore you have to specify that you don’t mean two of the same gender) who are elderly…they are obviously intimate for pleasure only, with no chance of children. Is there a law that intimacy needs to stop after child-bearing? I highly doubt it, but I just wonder.

 

[CathConvert602]

<<>>Yet if a man and woman are intimate, and the woman has told him now is the time to do it because she isn’t at her fertile time, they aren’t engaging in the act while being open to children. They are purposely choosing to do it at a time when she knows she is the least likely to conceive. All of this, I feel, is certainly fair. There has to be some control. I just am confused about the words “always open to procreation.” There are times, obviously, when the couple are intimate and are naturally avoiding conception. Is this a contradiction? Is it unrealistic? It makes it sound as though there should be no control at all, not even natural, but I wouldn’t agree with that at all.

I believe that the question is answered with the fact that they are being intimate when they are least likely to conceive, not taking measures to ensure that they are not able to conceive.by way of barriers (Condoms), or poisons (spermicide). Huge difference, they are choosing to be intimate when there is just a much lower chance to conceive, but still a chance.

 

[Elizium23]

I’m still in the dark about the beyond child-bearing age. A married man and woman (anymore you have to specify that you don’t mean two of the same gender) who are elderly…they are obviously intimate for pleasure only, with no chance of children. Is there a law that intimacy needs to stop after child-bearing? I highly doubt it, but I just wonder.

Sarai and Abram were regarded as well past the age of bearing children, and yet look at what happened to them.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Sarai and Abram were regarded as well past the age of bearing children, and yet look at what happened to them.

I know. I would completely begin to doubt some of our laws if it forbade a married man and woman to continue intimacy past child-bearing. Marriage seals it, from beginning to end. The man and the woman are beholden to each other, and certainly deserve each other fully.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Huge difference, they are choosing to be intimate when there is just a much lower chance to conceive, but still a chance.

I’ll admit it would still be frightening for me, to know there was a chance. But there is even with fake contraception. Even that isn’t a guarantee, or so I’ve heard. I feel a woman should be able to at least pray that she won’t conceive when she doesn’t want to. That, I feel, is fair, moral, and not enslaving the woman to having a child every year. That’s just not realistic. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a devout Catholic, and maybe “enslaving” was a strong word, but I do understand how some of these women who know they don’t want children (at least for a time) feel, and being it’s all contained within marriage makes it moral. Now what about a couple who know they never want children? Is it acceptable to marry, but know you don’t want children, yet always plan naturally?

I answered another post on the previous page, just so it’s not missed.

 

[Elizium23]

I’ll admit it would still be frightening for me, to know there was a chance. But there is even with fake contraception. Even that isn’t a guarantee, or so I’ve heard. I feel a woman should be able to at least pray that she won’t conceive when she doesn’t want to. That, I feel, is fair, moral, and not enslaving the woman to having a child every year. That’s just not realistic. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a devout Catholic, and maybe “enslaving” was a strong word, but I do understand how some of these women who know they don’t want children (at least for a time) feel, and being it’s all contained within marriage makes it moral. Now what about a couple who know they never want children? Is it acceptable to marry, but know you don’t want children, yet always plan naturally?

I answered another post on the previous page, just so it’s not missed.

Being closed to life would render a marriage invalid ab initio.

 

[melissa_b]

In a Catholic wedding, one of the three questions asked prior to the exchanging of vows is “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” If the answer is no, that would be an impediment to the marriage.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

In a Catholic wedding, one of the three questions asked prior to the exchanging of vows is “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” If the answer is no, that would be an impediment to the marriage.

That’s kind of what I thought. Personally, I don’t feel childless marriages are very traditional. I know it’s a different story if she is unable to conceive, then they may adopt. The marriage where the man and woman are both “career people” is not really my type. But I was just asking these questions, simply because I wasn’t fully sure of the laws. Now that you’ve said it, I do remember that as being one of the questions the priest asks of the couple standing at the altar. And I think it’s special and beautiful.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)

***i will say that after researching Dr Hilgers cans his team of docs, there is NO medical reason to be on the pill. The pill fixes the symptoms, not the root cause of the actual problem.

(…)

While NaPro technology can address a lot of conditions of a woman’s reproductive system, it cannot treat all. Uterine fibroids can cause heavy bleeding, among other things, and hormone treatments using the pill or IUD are common treatments to stop heavy bleeding or periods.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I believe that the question is answered with the fact that they are being intimate when they are least likely to conceive, not taking measures to ensure that they are not able to conceive.by way of barriers (Condoms), or poisons (spermicide). Huge difference, they are choosing to be intimate when there is just a much lower chance to conceive, but still a chance.

That there is a “lower chance to conceive” or that it is “natural” is not the reason NFP is is a moral form of birth control.

• The rightful place of sexual intercourse is marriage.
• Couples may have sex when they are fertile.
• Couples may have sex when they are infertile (including after menopause.)
• NFP is information and does not change the marital act (that is why NFP is moral).

 

[NurseyJ]

Just so you know…the transmission of Herpes and HPV is not prevented by condoms (I’m an RN). And like an earlier poster pointed out, condoms themselves don’t have perfect success rates.

 

[Rau]

If a person is using a condom for another reason than birth control…they can still be considered “open to life”.

They are not purposefully trying to prevent pregnancy, and they are open to get pregnant.

Whilst one might argue that such a person is not guilty of contraception, the sex act with condom is unacceptable as explained in post #5.

 

[Rau]

I’m still in the dark about the beyond child-bearing age. A married man and woman (anymore you have to specify that you don’t mean two of the same gender) who are elderly…they are obviously intimate for pleasure only, with no chance of children. Is there a law that intimacy needs to stop after child-bearing? I highly doubt it, but I just wonder.

Certainly not! The fruits of sexual intimacy are multiple and nature dictates that in old age, some are no longer available. There is not then a requirement to deny oneself / each other the other fruits (mutual comfort, pleasure, bonding, etc).

 

[Rau]

I believe that the question is answered with the fact that they are being intimate when they are least likely to conceive, not taking measures to ensure that they are not able to conceive.by way of barriers (Condoms), or poisons (spermicide). Huge difference, they are choosing to be intimate when there is just a much lower chance to conceive, but still a chance.

The fact that there remains a chance of conceiving is not really the right way to look at it. There is no chance after menopause, or after a (medically required) hysterectomy. What matters is that the couple have not chosen to to interfere with the natural course of the act. It is in our nature that the woman is not always fertile.

 

[JRKH]

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)?

(I thought you might ask me this…)

1. There was nothing implied in the other thread about seeing their priest on the matter. I told them quite explicitly that they needed to talk to their priest.
2. There can be a considerable difference in advice given to someone dealing with a real life and highly complex situation such as is presented in the other thread - and someone who seems to be putting out a hypothetical situation with very few details - which seems to be the situation here.

Peace
James