I’m on a board discussing contraception and everyone’s disagreeing with Church teaching.
We talked about the double effect, as the reason why a person can have a hysterectomy for serious medical reasons, even though this would have the unintended consequence of prevent conception in the future.
The question arises: then why can’t one use a condom to prevent the spread of HIV, even if this has the unintended consequence of preventing pregnancy?
Thanks
This was indeed discussed on another thread at length. See here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=924900
While some may argue whether or not the wearing of the condom is contraception, the point is somewhat moot,
for the act is immoral for more basic reasons.
I extract the following from post #136 (should be on page 10) of the above thread:
What About Using Condoms to Prevent STD Transmission?
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.
