Sex, condoms and HIV

[Tenofovir]

I was hoping to ask a question. This has never been raised in my local parish so perhaps people here may have some (name removed by moderator)ut instead. I hope this is the right place to put this thread.

The Catholic moral teaching about sex is that barrier contraception (eg. condoms) should not be used. The teaching is also that sexual intercourse should only occur after marriage.
Married persons should remain faithful to each other.

In more impoverished regions, especially Africa, the spread of HIV/AIDS is thought to be linked with a phenomenon referred to as multiple concurrent sexual partnerships. People often have numerous sexual partners, having 3-4 partners intermittently which leads to a much much higher than monogamous HIV infection rate even though the same population has fewer lifetime sex partners than many developed nations where people mostly practice serial monogamous relationships and not concurrent ones. In monogamous relationships where premarital sex occurs people often have one sexual partner and may stay with that partner for a period of a year or longer while remaining faithful to this partner. In Sub-Saharan Africa for instance the latest research hints that people often have 3-4 partners at a time (not per encounter) but as regular partners. This increases the risk of HIV transmission many times as HIV is transmitted easiest when the HIV viral load (number of HIV particles in the blood) is the highest, this happens just after a person is infected and for several months thereafter. In serial relationships only one partner will e infected, in a multiple concurrent setting all partners risk being infected and since their partners may practice the same, they also pass the disease on. Condoms even in mostly Protestant or Tribalist sub-Saharan Africa also don’t tend to be worn as regularly as secular health would want because of the perception that they modify sexual pleasure, modify spontaneity, and many other reasons, especially in longer standing relationships. Scientists are even working on alternative prevention methods such as HIV medication taken every day or before a sex act or as a vaginal creme containing HIV medication to reduce the risk of acquisition of HIV. Some of these methods have proven to be efficacious in latest research.

My question now is, if the Church’s message is very vocal about ABSTINENCE before marriage and the ban on contraceptives (especially barrier contraceptives since these prevent HIV acquisition when used correctly and consistently), does the Church also hammer it into peoples’ heads that SEX itself may also lead to HIV acquisition? Is it hammered also that coercing someone to have sex is not only a violation of the earlier teachings but also a possible case of attempted murder (sin of murder)? I’m curious about these last two points. I gather from the anti-Catholic points from certain sources that the Church is very strict in its reminders about ABSTINENCE and FORBIDDING of contraception, but is she just as vocal at each occurrence with the reminders that SEX can lead to death of the other partner and any unborn child? HIV testing for couples before they marry or consummate their marriage? Do priests and church teachers do that?
I would gather it should be done at every mention of abstinence and disapproval of contraception use.

Any points?

Thanks

 

[edwest2]

There is an agency of the Church in Africa that is doing the work to get the message out:

stmichaelsociety.com/2010/02/05/harry-knox-pope-benedict-and-the-debate-on-condoms-in-africa/

In imitation of Christ, who did not hammer anyone, the Church speaks clearly, but the world, particularly the West, rejects and mocks the Church’s message. For some, including sex and porn addicts, the message is horrifying.

On the internet, the constant message is that abstinance can never be effective, this in the face of the clear logic: no sex, and you are 100% guaranteed to not get any Sexually Transmitted Disease. It is required by law for people to get a blood test prior to getting married. And the process of marriage should begin with friendship, the building of trust and true understanding of each before becoming engaged, not a series of ‘test drives’ that focus on brief physical contacts that do not sustain a marriage without a firm foundation based on mutual understanding and trust.

The Church will not send a priest to pound on your door if you miss Mass on Sunday. It doesn’t beat people over the head. It observes the world’s problems and offers solutions. It does not force, just as Christ does not force.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

My question now is, if the Church’s message is very vocal about ABSTINENCE before marriage and the ban on contraceptives (especially barrier contraceptives since these prevent HIV acquisition when used correctly and consistently), does the Church also hammer it into peoples’ heads that SEX itself may also lead to HIV acquisition? Is it hammered also that coercing someone to have sex is not only a violation of the earlier teachings but also a possible case of attempted murder (sin of murder)?

Tenofovir, you mentioned that a common practice in sub-Saharan Africa is to have multiple concurrent sexual partners e.g. a wife and several girlfriends (who often receive some kind of material support.)

Are you asking whether the Church is doing enough to discourage such arrangements?

 

[Lancer]

TenofovirSex, condoms and HIV
…
My question now is, if the Church’s message is very vocal about ABSTINENCE before marriage and the ban on contraceptives (especially barrier contraceptives since these prevent HIV acquisition when used correctly and consistently), does the Church also hammer it into peoples’ heads that SEX itself may also lead to HIV acquisition? Is it hammered also that coercing someone to have sex is not only a violation of the earlier teachings but also a possible case of attempted murder (sin of murder)? I’m curious about these last two points.** I gather from the anti-Catholic points from certain sources that the Church is very strict in its reminders about ABSTINENCE and FORBIDDING of contraception,* but is she just as vocal*** at each occurrence with the reminders that SEX can lead to death of the other partner and any unborn child? HIV testing for couples before they marry or consummate their marriage? Do priests and church teachers do that?
I would gather it should be done at every mention of abstinence and disapproval of contraception use.

Any points?

First, Do you believe that The Church “hammers” on ABSTINENCE AND CONTRACEPTION…but is not as vocal that SEX can lead to death of the other partner and any unborn child?..you sound like you believe that the Church/bishops/priests are guilty of something else…maybe sexism? I am probably wrong…but your phrasing/words sound like you agree with anti-Catholic rhetoric on this issue. Please forgive me if in fact I am wrong.

Second, I believe that The Church does exactly what JP-II and B-XVI said she ought to do…**She…only proposes…She…imposes nothing.

**Third, The State (government leaders and health officials) must be held most responsible for the role of “hammering” on this point…in the context of it’s (the State’s) responsibility for…and…its duty to protect the “common good” of its peoples and its society as a whole…Uganda is a great example of this.

Lastly, we Catholics in the pews should be more upfront and vocal in the “hammering” on this (type) of issue…more on us (our backs) than relying/pushing it onto the (backs) bishops/priests/religious. After they have preached it to the entire “flock” once…it is then more our responsibility…unless someone approaches the bishop/priest in a pastoral/spiritual personal situation. I don’t mean that we should be uncharitable or nosy busy bodies…but we should be very vocal in continually expressing the Church’s teachings and the serious issue which your raise on this aspect of HIV/AIDS and intimate relationships…which have life-to-death consequences.

Pax Christi

 

[Aboveallbereal]

I fully expect the Church to be attacked on almost everything and I accept such attack with equanimity but the attacks suggesting the Church causes AIDS are utterly laughable.

The Church spreads AIDS the Queen of England is a republican !!!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The most informative speech on HIV I have ever seen:

ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_truth_about_hiv.html

 

[thistle]

There is an agency of the Church in Africa that is doing the work to get the message out:

stmichaelsociety.com/2010/02/05/harry-knox-pope-benedict-and-the-debate-on-condoms-in-africa/

In imitation of Christ, who did not hammer anyone, the Church speaks clearly, but the world, particularly the West, rejects and mocks the Church’s message. For some, including sex and porn addicts, the message is horrifying.

On the internet, the constant message is that abstinance can never be effective, this in the face of the clear logic: no sex, and you are 100% guaranteed to not get any Sexually Transmitted Disease.** It is required by law for people to get a blood test prior to getting married. **And the process of marriage should begin with friendship, the building of trust and true understanding of each before becoming engaged, not a series of ‘test drives’ that focus on brief physical contacts that do not sustain a marriage without a firm foundation based on mutual understanding and trust.

The Church will not send a priest to pound on your door if you miss Mass on Sunday. It doesn’t beat people over the head. It observes the world’s problems and offers solutions. It does not force, just as Christ does not force.

Hope this helps,
Ed

What country is that? I’ve never heard of couples having to take blood tests prior to marriage. What is the purpose?

 

[budgie2]

The fact of the matter is that the Church’s teaching is for practising Catholics alone. The Church doesn’t tell people what contraception to use if they want to sleep with a prostitute.

 

[06convert]

When the world seems to be against you, you have to keep it simple and to the point. The Church tries to do that. If you want to stop AIDS, stop having sex. It’s hard to argue with that. Although our culture seems to try anyways.

Now imagine saying, sex can lead to death. You and I see this as a true statement, but society? They’ll think we’re nuts. So throwing that out there, is kind of useless.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What country is that? I’ve never heard of couples having to take blood tests prior to marriage. What is the purpose?

Blood Tests are manditory within seven states in the United States when applying for a marriage license.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

When the world seems to be against you, you have to keep it simple and to the point. The Church tries to do that. If you want to stop AIDS, stop having sex. It’s hard to argue with that. Although our culture seems to try anyways.

Now imagine saying, sex can lead to death. You and I see this as a true statement, but society? They’ll think we’re nuts. So throwing that out there, is kind of useless.

We can also end hunger by killing the hungry. Just because the Church’s position is effective in the case of perfect implementation does not make it the best solution. Realistically you are not going to convince everyone to be completely monogamous. Blind optimism does not change the fact that increased condom use is a more pragmatic way of combating the spread of AIDS.

The question is really this: is it right to handicap yourself in the fight against AIDS only to retain your sense of self righteousness?

 

[edwest2]

We can also end hunger by killing the hungry. Just because the Church’s position is effective in the case of perfect implementation does not make it the best solution. Realistically you are not going to convince everyone to be completely monogamous. Blind optimism does not change the fact that increased condom use is a more pragmatic way of combating the spread of AIDS.

The question is really this: is it right to handicap yourself in the fight against AIDS only to retain your sense of self righteousness?

How about self control? Is it logical to risk your life for a few minutes of pleasure? That’s the real question. Self control. What’s wrong with that? We don’t cuss out anybody we see? Why? Putting God out of the picture for a moment, because we know what the consequences could be: the other guy punches you in the face. Will it happen every time? No. But you know it can happen.

So it’s about logic. What’s wrong with having one monogamous partner? Unrealistic? Says who?

The “fight against AIDS” is a fight against sex addiction and mutiple partner sex. It would be different if it was spread through the air or by casual contact but it’s not. That’s the reality.

Blind optimism? Who told you that?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

God bless,
Ed

 

[06convert]

We can also end hunger by killing the hungry. Just because the Church’s position is effective in the case of perfect implementation does not make it the best solution. Realistically you are not going to convince everyone to be completely monogamous. Blind optimism does not change the fact that increased condom use is a more pragmatic way of combating the spread of AIDS.

The question is really this: is it right to handicap yourself in the fight against AIDS only to retain your sense of self righteousness?

I agree with edwest2.

The issue here is that we can stop having sex. I’m not sure why that idea seems so impossible to the world. How is controlling your urge to have an orgasm not practical?

 

[OraLabora]

I agree with edwest2.

The issue here is that we can stop having sex. I’m not sure why that idea seems so impossible to the world. How is controlling your urge to have an orgasm not practical?

Practical experience would suggest otherwise, unless you have a highly-motivated population of believers of a religion that heavily promotes chastity and marital monogamy.

It would therefore suggest to me that any attempt to promote abstinence before significant evangelization of a population, is putting the cart before the horse. And in depth evangelization might not be a simple or quick process given the considerable cultural constraints that exist.

We also have to face the reality that in a fallen world, 100% abstinence will never happen.

So what then? The issue is that innocent people (children, wives) are being caught in the crossfire and are dying of AIDS.

 

[constantseeker]

Blood Tests are manditory within seven states in the United States when applying for a marriage license.

I’m sorry, but this is completely outdated. Only six states and DC currently require blood tests.

 

[06convert]

Practical experience would suggest otherwise, unless you have a highly-motivated population of believers of a religion that heavily promotes chastity and marital monogamy.

It would therefore suggest to me that any attempt to promote abstinence before significant evangelization of a population, is putting the cart before the horse. And in depth evangelization might not be a simple or quick process given the considerable cultural constraints that exist.

We also have to face the reality that in a fallen world, 100% abstinence will never happen.

So what then? The issue is that innocent people (children, wives) are being caught in the crossfire and are dying of AIDS.

Sexual promiscuity is how AIDS is spread. Condoms will not stop sexual promiscuity.

If people are smashing each others feet with sledge hammers, do you give them steel toed shoes, or educate them on the value of their feet and better ways to use sledge hammers? The first choice makes the shoe companies very happy, the other choice stops the feet smashing. Maybe instead of spending millions of dollars on condoms, we should direct that money to food, or education programs. People are starving for a bite of food, yet condoms are in abundance. What a joyful solution to the worlds problems.

 

[BonnieK]

We have a choice.

 

[stephe1987]

Condoms actually encourage sexual promiscuity in many cases because people think they’re safe from disease/pregnancy. So they are going to have sex in times they wouldn’t have had sex if they didn’t have a condom. But the truth is, condoms fail all the time. Even when you’re being very careful, condoms have a 1:12 chance of failure due to slippage and breakage. This is why people need to encourage abstinence and monogamy, not condoms.

Monogamy/abstinence as being unrealistic… you do realize this is one of two things:

1. A person is trying to justify infidelity and not being able to control him/herself. So they say they can’t be with one person as an excuse for cheating.
2. A company is trying to sell you something. They discourage abstinence and make fun of people who are abstinent because they will lose billions of dollars every year if people learn self-control and keep it in their pants. Condoms, birth control pills, abortions, STD treatments… these would be over if everyone followed the Catholic teachings.

 

[JHow]

I question the AIDs stats coming out of Africa. The disease does not seem to perform there like it does anywhere else. Vaginal transmission of HIV is infrequent in the US. I also recall reading in the early years of the AIDs epidemic that cases were being recorded as AIDs in Africa not on the basis of a HIV test, but on the basis of symptoms (which of course, is not very useful, since AIDs victims do suffer from many other diseases as a result of the syndrome). There have to be some other factors at work, and that sexual intercourse may not be the primary vector (some possibilties include anal intercourse, or even more likely bad medical practice such as re-using needles).

The bottom line to the OP, however, if people followed everything the Church taught (including not using condoms), they would not be spreading disease.

 

[OraLabora]

Sexual promiscuity is how AIDS is spread. Condoms will not stop sexual promiscuity.

If people are smashing each others feet with sledge hammers, do you give them steel toed shoes, or educate them on the value of their feet and better ways to use sledge hammers? The first choice makes the shoe companies very happy, the other choice stops the feet smashing. Maybe instead of spending millions of dollars on condoms, we should direct that money to food, or education programs. People are starving for a bite of food, yet condoms are in abundance. What a joyful solution to the worlds problems.

As someone who worked for a long time in heavy industry, you give them steel-toed shoes (my employer at the time paid for a new pair every year).

Because:

1. accidents will happen;
2. some people will always be careless, cut corners, etc.

It’s human nature, we’ll never be perfect. The idea is to reduce foot injuries as much as possible. Or to to reduce the spread of HIV as much as possible.

BTW, I agree condoms are not the best choice for the job and are morally objectionable. However, again, I reiterate, we are talking about a largely non-Catholic population who do not consider themselves bound by Catholic morality.

So unless you evangelize first, you’re putting the cart before the horse.