Question about contraception

[shaky]

Why would a man marry a young girl knowing he had HIV? Selfishness. The solution, of course, is to live in continence due to his disease.

Why should a married couple live in continence if either one of the partner has HIV when using condoms will prevent the other partner from getting this disease ?

 

[Chrish1975]

When it comes to our family I have absolutely no problem with the Church’s position on contraception - indeed I think it is incredibly healthy and life-affirming.

I just wanted to raise on issue that I came across that has given me pause for thought - a real-life situation given to me by an acquaintance doing relief work in Africa:

A young woman, recently married to a slightly older man who has contracted HIV through a prostitute. It is not possible for her to resist his demands for conjugal relations, but he has agreed to use a condom to reduce the risk of infection (he isn’t, from what I gather, a very nice person). Is her choice either sinning or getting HIV here?

The Church doesn’t allow for contraception for any reason, so the woman will possibly contract HIV.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[thewanderer]

Hang on - I’m just relaying the situation - nothing about trapping the Church

Yes - the best answer is to flee the situation - I’m not sure if that is possible in Botswana, there is little support network. In the meantime, this poor woman remains trapped in a hopeless situation and if it was me I’m not sure what I could do to give her best advice. It seems the options are - flee into poverty and ostracization, commit a sin by having sex with a condom or get HIV. Poor woman

Yeah, except that even if this weren’t a situation of rape the Church allows a married man or woman to have relations with their spouse, even if their spouse insists on contracepting, under certain circumstances. Here is Fr. Vincent Serpa’s post about this issue.

Here is the official teaching, direct from the Vatican website:

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…emecum_en.html

Quote:
13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47

1. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;

1. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).

The “proportionally grave reason for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse” is usually understood in terms of keeping the marriage from falling apart. I hope this is helpful.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

So even if this weren’t rape (which changes the obligations involved drastically) So long as she doesn’t encourage him to use contraception or help him do so and lets him know that she thinks it is wrong to use contraception then it can be fine for her to have sex even if her husband uses contraception, it is his sin not hers.

But as I pointed out earlier, rape changes things, and lets face it, thats what this is. This woman has no obligation to prevent this man from using a condom and she is perfectly justified to use whatever force necessary to prevent him from harming her by having sex. If not stopping him from wearing a condom at is all she can do to help protect herself from harm than she should at the very least do that much. It is not sinful to protect yourself from harm that others are trying to force on you.

Also, in case you are interested, here is the section from the USCCB website saying that the morning after pill can be morally used in certain rape situations. This is what makes me think that since this is rape she wouldn’t even need to have the above 3 conditions fulfilled to ensure she is acting morally, having her husband wear a condom is a matter of self-defense for her in a situation where she is being forced by an unjust agressor into a life-threatening situation, self-defense is accpetable in such situations.

*“Emergency Contraceptives” are multiple-dose oral contraceptives taken after intercourse. The pills have at least four possible mechanisms: (1) suppressing ovulation, (2) altering cervical mucus to hinder the transport of sperm, (3) slowing the transport of the ovum and (4) inhibiting implantation of the newly conceived human embryo. Which of these mechanisms is operative depends on when the pills are taken. If taken before ovulation, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, thereby preventing conception. If taken after the LH surge which triggers ovulation, EC will not disrupt ovulation in that cycle, but can inhibit implantation of the developing embryo.

A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.

*~ old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/…n/ecfact.shtml

 

[R1ch4rd]

I can see what you mean, but does “murder” include defending yourself by killing? Maybe there is a more precise way to speak of this in light of what the Catechism puts before us on murder.

"There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. " (1756, bold added)

Understood, but what do you call it when you kill in a licit war?
Then there’s this from the CCC:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow

Not saying this should happen, just thinking it may be morally OK in this case

 

[sstrider]

Understood, but what do you call it when you kill in a licit war?
Then there’s this from the CCC:

Not saying this should happen, just thinking it may be morally OK in this case

Maybe I would probably just call it defending yourself by killing. In popular language “killing” and “murder” can mean the same thing. In light of the words of the Catechism, I was just thinking that one word can be better than another depending on what we are talking about.

 

[shaky]

The Church doesn’t allow for contraception for any reason, so the woman will possibly contract HIV.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

When one finds out that their wife has HIV. Why would the Husband be guilty of Sin if he used a Condom to try protect himself from being infected by HIV from his Wife.

‘‘The Couple can still have Children through IVF Treatment’’

 

[davidv]

When one finds out that their wife has HIV. Why would the Husband be guilty of Sin if he used a Condom to try protect himself from being infected by HIV from his Wife.

‘‘The Couple can still have Children through IVF Treatment’’

There are non-sinful ways of protecting himself from being infected.

 

[1ke]

When one finds out that their wife has HIV. Why would the Husband be guilty of Sin if he used a Condom to try protect himself from being infected by HIV from his Wife.

One is called to continence in such a situation

‘‘The Couple can still have Children through IVF Treatment’’

IVF is a mortal sin against the sixth commandment. It is an immoral means of conception.

 

[1ke]

Why should a married couple live in continence if either one of the partner has HIV when using condoms will prevent the other partner from getting this disease ?

Condoms do not prevent transmission of HIV. They “reduce the chance of infection”, they do NOT eliminate it. It is, simply, Russian roulette.

If my spouse had HIV, we would not be having sex AT ALL as it would be too great a risk of infection.

If I had HIV I would not risk my spouse’s life by ever having intercourse with them again.

Continence is the only way to actually protect someone from contracting the disease.

 

[shaky]

One is called to continence in such a situation

IVF is a mortal sin against the sixth commandment. It is an immoral means of conception.

IVF is a Mortal Sin against the 6th Commandment which is ‘‘Thou shalt not Kill/Murder’’.

What has IVF got to do with ‘‘Thou shalt not kill/Murder’’ when you are actually producing Life and not Death ?

‘‘One is called to continence in such situation’’. Paul quite clearly says in his epistle that not ALL have the same Gift from God as Him regarding Continence and advises these people with incontinecy to get married.
He also tells a married couple to only abstain from sex for a while by mutual agreement. Then come back together so that satan tempt you not for you incontinency.

 

[LauraMajestic]

With all the worrying about using condoms, which honestly stop worrying over so much, I think everyone is glossing over the fact a man has married a woman but has not told her he contracted HIV from a prostitute.

Wow…

She should divorce him for obvious reasons.

 

[thewanderer]

With all the worrying about using condoms, which honestly stop worrying over so much, I think everyone is glossing over the fact a man has married a woman but has not told her he contracted HIV from a prostitute.

Wow…

She should divorce him for obvious reasons.

Did we read the same thread?

In the 4th post the OP said

I’m not directly involved in this situation - it was one relayed to me by someone I know - hence I don’t have any direct (name removed by moderator)ut into it.

She really didn’t have a choice about marrying the person from what I understand, and doesn’t have the option of getting out of it.

In other words the OP is bringing up a scenario which none of us cannot be changed and which none of us can help, but is only bringing it up for asking a particular question about Catholic teaching on morality. Why in the world would you expect people to respond to the OP by saying that the woman should get out of this situation when the OP has made it clear that that is not a helpful answer to the question that is being asked? Why is it so surprising that people would actually answer the question the OP wants an answer to?

 

[fix]

When it comes to our family I have absolutely no problem with the Church’s position on contraception - indeed I think it is incredibly healthy and life-affirming.

I just wanted to raise on issue that I came across that has given me pause for thought - a real-life situation given to me by an acquaintance doing relief work in Africa:

A young woman, recently married to a slightly older man who has contracted HIV through a prostitute. It is not possible for her to resist his demands for conjugal relations, but he has agreed to use a condom to reduce the risk of infection (he isn’t, from what I gather, a very nice person). Is her choice either sinning or getting HIV here?

If it is a coerced act it is not the marital act. It is rape. The sin of contraception cannot exist during the evil act of rape.

 

[Listener]

It is quite a stretch to start out with a married couple, and then all of a sudden she is supposed to kill him in self defense!

If she is married to him, why would it be rape? If this was an arranged marriage, that is not all that uncommon in some countries.

I believe that there is also a problem in Africa where unmarried twelve-year-old girls get pregnant all of the time, and then they are shunned, but that is another subject.

It is simply a different culture than what we’re used to. If this woman left her husband, maybe she would be beaten or killed.

Since the Church forbids condoms, there is just no good answer here. She can’t abstain if her husband refuses to abstain. He will probably chase her and tease her until she gives in.

I guess her only choice is to get the disease. Sad, but true.

 

[thewanderer]

It is quite a stretch to start out with a married couple, and then all of a sudden she is supposed to kill him in self defense!

If she is married to him, why would it be rape? If this was an arranged marriage, that is not all that uncommon in some countries.

I believe that there is also a problem in Africa where unmarried twelve-year-old girls get pregnant all of the time, and then they are shunned, but that is another subject.

It is simply a different culture than what we’re used to. If this woman left her husband, maybe she would be beaten or killed.

Since the Church forbids condoms, there is just no good answer here. She can’t abstain if her husband refuses to abstain. He will probably chase her and tease her until she gives in.

I guess her only choice is to get the disease. Sad, but true.

Did you read any of the sources I quoted which indicate otherwise? If she is being forced then it is absolutely rape, whether she is being physically forced or forced because of fear of leaving, it is still rape. The USCCB says it is ok to use the morning after pill in cases of rape so long as the woman has not yet conceived. If the morning after pill is ok to use for the sake of protection from pregnancy then condoms are most definitely ok as a form of self-defence against a life-threatening disease which is being forced upon her. Please do not claim that Church teaching condemns such a woman to contract HIV without addressing the posts of those who have substantiated their claims that the opposite is actually true.

 

[sw85]

When it comes to our family I have absolutely no problem with the Church’s position on contraception - indeed I think it is incredibly healthy and life-affirming.

I just wanted to raise on issue that I came across that has given me pause for thought - a real-life situation given to me by an acquaintance doing relief work in Africa:

A young woman, recently married to a slightly older man who has contracted HIV through a prostitute. It is not possible for her to resist his demands for conjugal relations, but he has agreed to use a condom to reduce the risk of infection (he isn’t, from what I gather, a very nice person). Is her choice either sinning or getting HIV here?

Why is it not possible?

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

Why is it not possible?

Every time I read about a situation like the OP presented, I’m reminded of how lucky I am to live in a part of the world where women are generally not forced to have sex with their husbands and how lucky I am to live in a part of the world where a wife is generally able to leave an abusive husband without fear that she will be tracked down and either injured or killed, or forced to return to him. Even so, it still happens here occasionally.

It’s really not that long ago that husbands had a legal right to have sex with their wives whenever they wanted and a wife was considered to have consented to that when she married. It’s not that long ago that, legally and in people’s minds, there was no such thing as rape in marriage and that situation remains in many parts of the world.

I think sometimes we answer these sorts of questions as though everything else was ideal or at least ‘normal’ when actually for some people in many parts of the world, their situation is very far from what we would consider normal.

 

[Listener]

Did you read any of the sources I quoted which indicate otherwise? If she is being forced then it is absolutely rape, whether she is being physically forced or forced because of fear of leaving, it is still rape. The USCCB says it is ok to use the morning after pill in cases of rape so long as the woman has not yet conceived. If the morning after pill is ok to use for the sake of protection from pregnancy then condoms are most definitely ok as a form of self-defence against a life-threatening disease which is being forced upon her. Please do not claim that Church teaching condemns such a woman to contract HIV without addressing the posts of those who have substantiated their claims that the opposite is actually true.

It simply said that she was unable to resist his demands, it didn’t say it was rape. Maybe he’s irresistible! Honestly, how would you expect a young bride to tell her husband (who isn’t even a Catholic) that she’s not going to have relations with him? Doesn’t sound like much of a marriage to me. What good would the morning after pill do? She could still get AIDS. Since Church teaching forbids condoms, I believe that Church teaching would condemn such a woman to contract HIV. This Church teaching makes no sense to me at all, since it seems to me like it would be a medical use, kind of like putting on a band-aid. Since the pill is allowed for medical reasons, maybe it would make sense to allow condoms for married couples for medical reasons. I think the alternative is divorce, and the Church says that’s a mortal sin too. I think these people are between a rock and a hard place, and there are no good answers.

In some African countries, I wouldn’t be surprised if a woman who left her husband would be shunned and would have no means of support.

 

[fix]

The sin of contraception involves the two coming together willingly. Force is not part of the marital act.