Pope allows condom use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ematouk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hasikelee said:
Exactly the same argument used to support a plethora of dispicable actions. Since we can’t truly help the women, let’s offer false hope and inaccurate education in the manifestation of a piece of latex that even our most personally-motivated organizations admit isn’t effective at preventing pregnancy or the spread of disease.

It’s cheap, it helps assuage our conscience, it makes us look good, all in all a win situation for us.

🤷
Click to expand...
So what do we do, tell them to die for their husband’s sins instead? I’m not saying moral education and social reform are not needed, but of what value is that to the thousands of women who’ll die before these take hold?

Personally, I do hope the Church looks at this one again long and hard. There are communities in Africa where only the grandparents are left to look after the children when their parents die of AIDS. Sometimes the kids have to look after themselves.

Maybe the piece of latex isn’t 100% effective, but it offers some protection. I can’t see how a woman can be morally justified in taking the pill to prevent debilitating menstrual cramps and a piece of latex can not be morally justified to help save lives in situations such as described above.

In my opinion, though difficult practically, women can be taught to detect their ovulation, abstain around that time and otherwise use condoms for marital relations. I fail to see the great immorality of such an approach when weighed against the staggering number of lives at risk (both from actual infection/death as well as from deprivation of parental care).
 
Harrison said:
Well, abstinence is the absence of sex. But having sex while contracepting does intend to block conception. You could also say that abstinence is not open to life, but the Church doesn’t command us to have sex at every possible opportunity.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why the “block conception” paraphrase is not on point and “contraception” is.
 
seekerz said:
So what do we do, tell them to die for their husband’s sins instead? I’m not saying moral education and social reform are not needed, but of what value is that to the thousands of women who’ll die before these take hold?

Personally, I do hope the Church looks at this one again long and hard. There are communities in Africa where only the grandparents are left to look after the children when their parents die of AIDS. Sometimes the kids have to look after themselves.

Maybe the piece of latex isn’t 100% effective, but it offers some protection. I can’t see how a woman can be morally justified in taking the pill to prevent debilitating menstrual cramps and a piece of latex can not be morally justified to help save lives in situations such as described above.

In my opinion, though difficult practically, women can be taught to detect their ovulation, abstain around that time and otherwise use condoms for marital relations. I fail to see the great immorality of such an approach when weighed against the staggering number of lives at risk (both from actual infection/death as well as from deprivation of parental care).
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that they are simply sinning one way (condom use) in an attempt to stop the physical effects of another grave sin committed by their husbands. I believe this was stated before, but, if a man is committing such a grave sin as to put his wife in jeopardy of death, why would he use a condom? Or better yet, who will teach him and will he listen? This does in fact look like a way to make us think we are helping a culture that is in need of education and cultural reform. Throwing condoms at them won’t help anything.
 
Harrison said:
The problem with this is that they are simply sinning one way (condom use) in an attempt to stop the physical effects of another grave sin committed by their husbands. I believe this was stated before, but, if a man is committing such a grave sin as to put his wife in jeopardy of death, why would he use a condom? Or better yet, who will teach him and will he listen? This does in fact look like a way to make us think we are helping a culture that is in need of education and cultural reform. Throwing condoms at them won’t help anything.
Click to expand...
No one here is suggesting simply throwing condoms at them. I am talking about immediate measures to prevent spread of a deadly infection. The fact is latex is used everyday in other forms to protect from spread of infection, so why is it ineffective only in the sexual context? If it is also ineffective in preventing pregnancy, why consider it a contraceptive at all?

What alternatives do you suggest that can be immediately instituted? Our Catholic upbringing and values simply does not allow for simply sitting back and doing nothing. Life is always way near the top of our list of priorities as a Church, right there in the number 2 spot, beneath God.

I keep getting the response that condoms in not the answer, but no specific solutions to the problems posed. Our faith is one of action, not of words and one of our defining qualities is mercy - above the legalism that sometimes characterizes other denominations.

I still don’t get what is intrinsically evil about a condom used to protect life versus a pill used to control menstrual abnormalities. Specifics please, if I am to be in any way enlightened (and I am *truly *seeking enlightenment).
 
seekerz said:
I keep getting the response that condoms in not the answer, but no specific solutions to the problems posed. Our faith is one of action, not of words and one of our defining qualities is mercy - above the legalism that sometimes characterizes other denominations.

I still don’t get what is intrinsically evil about a condom used to protect life versus a pill used to control menstrual abnormalities. Specifics please, if I am to be in any way enlightened (and I am *truly *seeking enlightenment).
Click to expand...
I think that what they need is education that will hopefully lead to a reform of their attitudes and culture. If we can educate a man about what he is doing, then hopefully we can get him to understand why he shouldn’t do it. These people are not animals, they have the ability to understand reason, which is what we need to do. Giving a country full of AIDS condoms will only tell them to keep having sex. Condoms are not 100%, so the problem will still exist. I am thinking of it like this: If we have two people shooting at each other, it is better to have them resolve the issue instead of just giving them a bullet proof vest so that the chance of them killing each other is reduced. Condoms are a band-aid, not a cure-all, and I was always under the impression that condoms were made to prevent pregnancy, not stop disease spread. Don’t they say in every condom commercial that they do not prevent the spread of disease?

I view condoms as evil b/c of their intended use. They were made in an attempt to prevent pregnancy, not stop infection between partners.
 
I think my question is being misunderstood to apply to general populations and to illicit sexual relations. This is in no way the case as I explained several posts above.

My concern is about a relations between married people where one is affected (perhaps because of infidelity before or during marriage, perhaps because of non-sexual transmission).

This is not about whether condoms should be offered to a community as a whole as a panacea for the AIDS epidemic. I’m not in support of that at all. My concern is for those who already have the disease, are married and are subject to the normal instinct of every married couple to engage in sexual intimacy.

In that narrow context alone, am I saying, I can’t see what the problem is with condom use. If abstinence is practiced around ovulation time and condoms used in between, isn’t that better than no protection at all?

I have received responses suggesting that lifelong abstinence is the only choice in such a situation and my take is that it is, in most cultural settings, impractical especially considering the male psyche.

Of course fidelity is to be expected in marriage if one partner is ill or disabled, but many many HIV infected people look and feel normal and live normal lives before the onset of AIDS. My question relates specifically to the practicality of saying that their only moral choices are lifelong abstinence or separation (indeed, once could argue that it would be wrong to abandon a spouse who will eventually need care for a terminal condition).
 
I believe that the marriage vows outline this very well. I also think that my previous post stands. Why would a man even risk using a condom when disease transmission can still happen? A marriage is not just about the couples at hand, it is about glorifying God in everything that they do. It is never morally acceptable to use a condom b/c it does not, under any circumstance, glorify God.
 
seekerz said:
No one here is suggesting simply throwing condoms at them. I am talking about immediate measures to prevent spread of a deadly infection. The fact is latex is used everyday in other forms to protect from spread of infection, so why is it ineffective only in the sexual context? If it is also ineffective in preventing pregnancy, why consider it a contraceptive at all?

What alternatives do you suggest that can be immediately instituted? Our Catholic upbringing and values simply does not allow for simply sitting back and doing nothing. Life is always way near the top of our list of priorities as a Church, right there in the number 2 spot, beneath God.

I keep getting the response that condoms in not the answer, but no specific solutions to the problems posed. Our faith is one of action, not of words and one of our defining qualities is mercy - above the legalism that sometimes characterizes other denominations.

I still don’t get what is intrinsically evil about a condom used to protect life versus a pill used to control menstrual abnormalities. Specifics please, if I am to be in any way enlightened (and I am *truly *seeking enlightenment).
Click to expand...
seekerz, it does sound as if you are earnest in trying to find a solution. I would suggest researching the various sexually transmitted diseases and the condoms, including the different kinds and the failure rates (both in terms of not protecting from a disease and in terms of physical defects.)

I will do a common disease, as there are so many it would take hundreds of posts to thoroughly list them.

HPV-Human Papillomavirus. No test exists for males, only for females. Some cases are asymptomatic or have symptoms that don’t seem life threatening, but the virus can destroy the female reproductive system, resulting in genital warts, permanent infertility, polyps that bleed and hurt, cervical, anal and genital cancer and death. How is this spread? **HPV is spread through genital contact, including the entire genital area. **

(Condoms only cover several inches of the males genital area.)

Here are some quotes from CDC.gov:
  • “The surest way to eliminate the risk of genital HPV infections is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.”
  • “HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered.”
  • “Rarely, a pregnant woman can pass HPV to her baby during vaginal delivery. A baby that is exposed to HPV very rarely develops warts in the throat or voice box.”
  • “For 2004, the American Cancer Society estimates that about 10,520 women will develop invasive cervical cancer and about 3,900 women will die from this disease.”
    Condoms are ineffective at preventing disease and simply give a facade of helpfulness. If we give condoms to these starving, warring, poverty-stricken, oppressed countries, we are doing nothing but soothing our own pricked consciences and making others believe something is being done.
I don’t post on this subject to tear others down, but in the hopes that more people will research the physical properties of latex condoms and STDs and realize we need to provide aid other than boxes of latex.
 
seekerz said:
I think my question is being misunderstood to apply to general populations and to illicit sexual relations. This is in no way the case as I explained several posts above.

My concern is about a relations between married people where one is affected (perhaps because of infidelity before or during marriage, perhaps because of non-sexual transmission).

This is not about whether condoms should be offered to a community as a whole as a panacea for the AIDS epidemic. I’m not in support of that at all. My concern is for those who already have the disease, are married and are subject to the normal instinct of every married couple to engage in sexual intimacy.

In that narrow context alone, am I saying, I can’t see what the problem is with condom use. If abstinence is practiced around ovulation time and condoms used in between, isn’t that better than no protection at all?

I have received responses suggesting that lifelong abstinence is the only choice in such a situation and my take is that it is, in most cultural settings, impractical especially considering the male psyche.

Of course fidelity is to be expected in marriage if one partner is ill or disabled, but many many HIV infected people look and feel normal and live normal lives before the onset of AIDS. My question relates specifically to the practicality of saying that their only moral choices are lifelong abstinence or separation (indeed, once could argue that it would be wrong to abandon a spouse who will eventually need care for a terminal condition).
Click to expand...
Okay, you are saying the debate is not about oppressed women being coerced into sexual intercourse, but now about two consenting adults in a marriage, where one partner has a disease?

That one can still be answered from a medical standpoint. Condoms simply do not provide effective protection from STDs.

But, if you want to work through this specific dilemma, it leaves me with an emotional standpoint as well. If you had HIVs, would you engage in sexual intercourse with your spouse and feel loving by using a condom?

Are you aware that HIV is the systemic destruction of your immune system, and that the victim typically dies from the complications of several diseases going on at the same time, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and cancers? In fact, those with AIDS tend to get extra-special, super diseases such as Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carnii.

HIV is present in all blood and genital secretions of an infected person. This means the virus can be spread through contact with the genital area, the anal area, the mouth, the the eyes and a cut or opening in the skin.

Now, I understand that many people want to discard the “holes” idea a religious crackpot legend, but it has to do with a position of honesty. Those who claim there are not holes big enough for the passage of the HIV virus fail to go further by saying “at least in the specific companies X Y Z which have been quality tested and are a specific latex.” A little honesty could definitely save more lives. 🤷
 
hasikelee said:
Okay, you are saying the debate is not about oppressed women being coerced into sexual intercourse, but now about two consenting adults in a marriage, where one partner has a disease?

That one can still be answered from a medical standpoint. Condoms simply do not provide effective protection from STDs.

But, if you want to work through this specific dilemma, it leaves me with an emotional standpoint as well. If you had HIVs, would you engage in sexual intercourse with your spouse and feel loving by using a condom?

Are you aware that HIV is the systemic destruction of your immune system, and that the victim typically dies from the complications of several diseases going on at the same time, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and cancers? In fact, those with AIDS tend to get extra-special, super diseases such as Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carnii.

HIV is present in all blood and genital secretions of an infected person. This means the virus can be spread through contact with the genital area, the anal area, the mouth, the the eyes and a cut or opening in the skin.

Now, I understand that many people want to discard the “holes” idea a religious crackpot legend, but it has to do with a position of honesty. Those who claim there are not holes big enough for the passage of the HIV virus fail to go further by saying “at least in the specific companies X Y Z which have been quality tested and are a specific latex.” A little honesty could definitely save more lives. 🤷
Click to expand...
Certainly condoms are not 100% effective but considering the dependence on latex gloves seen in my daily occupation (they are used to prevent spread of HIV, among other diseases) I have to wonder if yours is a scientifically based assertion or if lives are unknowingly being placed at risk.
 
seekerz said:
Certainly condoms are not 100% effective but considering the dependence on latex gloves seen in my daily occupation (they are used to prevent spread of HIV, among other diseases) I have to wonder if yours is a scientifically based assertion or if lives are unknowingly being placed at risk.
Click to expand...
I guess if you don’t want to take the Center for Disease Control as a site for information, then we really have no further discussion.

You didn’t answer my question by the way…if you were infected with HIV, would you engage in sexual intercourse with your wife using a condom?
 
I only wish that most people were as educated on this as hasikelee is. Shout it from the mountain tops!!! I’m listening and I know you’re right, if only other’s would wake up and hear the truth!!! As Fr. Corapi says about the truth—“Keep telling it, eventually it’ll sink in.”
 
hasikelee said:
I guess if you don’t want to take the Center for Disease Control as a site for information, then we really have no further discussion.

You didn’t answer my question by the way…if you were infected with HIV, would you engage in sexual intercourse with your wife using a condom?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. I’m simply stating that medical personnel derive protection from latex gloves everyday without coming down with STD’s in droves. People with HIV are actually operated on. I listen to the various authorities on this subject, but need to see practical applications and experience addressed. Guess things just always have to make sense to me.

To answer your question, if I felt that abstinence was excessively burdensome to either one of us and negatively impacting our relationship, I would consider it despite one of us being infected. Either way it would be a joint decision between equal partners in a loving marriage.

Happily, that is a decision I’m not likely to be faced with because here as in most developed countries, there exist combinations of drugs that can lower infectivity to the point where normal sexual relations and conception can occur with negligible risk of passing on infection. It’s the places or situations where people aren’t so blessed I’m concerned about.

I don’t take Church teaching lightly, but acceptance does not preclude questioning especially when things do not seem to make sense to me . Which gets me back to a much earlier question, why the exception for use of the pill in medical conditions and not for the use of condoms in the situations we have been discussing?
 
The answer is that in an exception for the use of the pill in a medical situation is that the couple is then to abstain until the woman stops using the pill. (I’m not as educated in this as others though and will refer to people such as is documented, for example, if it is proven that a “pill” exists that would only treat the medical condition and not prevent implantation. But as far as I know no such pill exists.)
 
seekerz said:
You misunderstand. I’m simply stating that medical personnel derive protection from latex gloves everyday without coming down with STD’s in droves. People with HIV are actually operated on. I listen to the various authorities on this subject, but need to see practical applications and experience addressed. Guess things just always have to make sense to me.

To answer your question, if I felt that abstinence was excessively burdensome to either one of us and negatively impacting our relationship, I would consider it despite one of us being infected. Either way it would be a joint decision between equal partners in a loving marriage.

Happily, that is a decision I’m not likely to be faced with because here as in most developed countries, there exist combinations of drugs that can lower infectivity to the point where normal sexual relations and conception can occur with negligible risk of passing on infection. It’s the places or situations where people aren’t so blessed I’m concerned about.

I don’t take Church teaching lightly, but acceptance does not preclude questioning especially when things do not seem to make sense to me . Which gets me back to a much earlier question, why the exception for use of the pill in medical conditions and not for the use of condoms in the situations we have been discussing?
Click to expand...
Hmm, I see where you are coming from, but also take into account that HPV is the STD in question regarding transmission despite latex.

In terms of the so-called legend going around about the size of the HIV virus and the size of latex condoms, I was attempting to point out that although it has been refuted, the refutation needs to come with clarification.

Specific companies, such as a major importer from Japan, have a certain quality of latex condoms that generally maintain their impermeability. (Viscosity is considered irrelevant in their studies and has not been commented on.) What this means is yes, some latex condoms will prevent transmission of HIV in semen.

When someone does refute the claim of viruses being smaller than the naturally occurring holes in latex condoms, they usually fail to mention that it depends on the condom. This can set up a false sense of security for the average condom user, who will not take pains to choose a particular latex.

Also, although specific types of latex condoms have been shown to have an efficacy rate of around 85% (CDC) this is based on studies of transmission by semen. This means oral sex, anal sex, blood, tears and vaginal secretions still transmit the disease.

You don’t sound like someone born yesterday, so I’m sure you know how things can be presented with omissions. Thus, the fact stated might be accurate, but it becomes inaccurate because of a deliberate omission. That often happens to be the case regarding latex condoms and transmission of STDs.

Thus, if you are the woman in the relationship, your spouse can wear a condom, but that will not necessarily protect him from the HIV present in your mucous membranes, mouth and vagina.

Hope this helps.
 
allhers said:
The answer is that in an exception for the use of the pill in a medical situation is that the couple is then to abstain until the woman stops using the pill. (I’m not as educated in this as others though and will refer to people such as is documented, for example, if it is proven that a “pill” exists that would only treat the medical condition and not prevent implantation. But as far as I know no such pill exists.)
Click to expand...
There are forms of synthetic hormones given in straight doses (e.g. only one hormone) that might have the side effect of infertility, but not the side effect of discouraging implantation.

Abstaining from sexual intercourse is recommended for mixed dosage birth control pills, also known as Combination Oral Contraceptives.

It is also recommended that each woman carefully research the particular BCPs available, as some are shown by the FDA to cause severe birth defects. If the woman experiences breakthrough ovulation and conceives, the drugs may cause lasting damage to the child before she is even aware of the conception.
 
All that being said then, what would be wrong in requiring intermittent abstinence around ovulation (as with NFP and medical use of the pill) while allowing condom use outside this period for a married couple affected by HIV?

To respond specifically to Allhers, I know of no requirement that couples must practice total abstinence while using the pill for medical reasons. Is that what you were asserting?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top