S
Simeon_stylite
Guest
Would it be ok to use the condom for a noncatholic in order to avoid disease, not for anticonception? Is this a case of the principle of double effect?
- Status
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
No, the condom increases adultry and fornication which create many problems not just stds.
K
kingal86
Guest
What about between two married Catholics? As a hypothetical situation (though I guess that would involve past fornication or infidelity in marriage to catch the STD, and marrying someone who is, for example, HIV positive would be very problematic and preclude children).
R
Rascalking
Guest
I think the bigger, and more interesting question is should a Non-Catholic be forced to live by the rules of the Catholic church?
C
camerong
Guest
Why should the Catholic instead be “forced” to abandon his religion for others? If spouses have differing moral views, that is an issue for both of them, not just one, and forcing the Catholic to live by secular values is just as bad as forcing the non-Catholic to live by Catholic rules.
R
Rascalking
Guest
Did I say that?No, didn’t think so. I just asked another question. I don’t think that a Catholic should be forced to abandon their religion for anything, thank you.
L
LoveGod21
Guest
There are lots of diseases out there, id say use it. I myself have contracted an STD and its brutal
C
camerong
Guest
It’s one or the other, isn’t it? Either the Catholic abandons her belief and uses a condom, or the non-Catholic abandons his beliefs (that condoms are okay) and uses NFP or the like. Each can be highly intrusive upon personal autonomy–either violate deeply-held beliefs, or, in the present scenario, potentially contract an STD.
B
Brendan
Guest
No. Double effect requires that if means are availble to achive the positive effect ( avoidance of disease) that do not have the negative effect ( denial of the procreative aspects of the marital act), then those means should be used.
There is a means that achive the positive end without the negative end. It is called abstinance.
N
Newbie2
Guest
No, it’s not a case of double effect. Non-Catholics are not bound to Catholic theology.
True, in a societal sense. Using a condom doesn’t by default make one an adulterer or fornicator. There are lots of married Catholic couples who use condoms who are not likely to become adulterers as a result. But your point is well taken.
Nope. Abstinance is the answer here. One should not put sexual needs over the possibility of killing someone by infecting them with a deadly virus, whether or not that person is their spouse.
But that is a very good question. “Innocent” married people have contracted HIV through blood transfusions in the past, and although that is a rarity nowadays, it puts the married couple in quite a situation.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Because condoms are much less than 100% effective, the Church could never promote them as a moral response to a couple having sex when one partner has an STD (which BTW may not have been contracted “immorally”. Think HIV, which can be contracted in morally licit situations such as an infected needle, a bad blood transfusion; something that may not happen in Western society but is very much a risk in parts of Africa where poor hygienic measures are still problematic). And this is not just on the basis of condoms interfering with the procreative process.
By saying “go ahead and use a condom”, you are in fact saying “go ahead and use a method what will end up condemning a finite number to death (in the case of HIV)”. The Church has responsibility for each and every life and soul, and can’t recommend sacrificing 5% to satisfy the other 95%. She can only state what is known to be 100% effective therefore the only morally licit solution then is to place the moral responsibility on the infected one that s/he not infect his or her partner, by practicing continence.
That many will fail to do so in a fallen world is not surprising. We need to be merciful to them, just as Christ is merciful to all of us.
By saying “go ahead and use a condom”, you are in fact saying “go ahead and use a method what will end up condemning a finite number to death (in the case of HIV)”. The Church has responsibility for each and every life and soul, and can’t recommend sacrificing 5% to satisfy the other 95%. She can only state what is known to be 100% effective therefore the only morally licit solution then is to place the moral responsibility on the infected one that s/he not infect his or her partner, by practicing continence.
That many will fail to do so in a fallen world is not surprising. We need to be merciful to them, just as Christ is merciful to all of us.
M
mchale
Guest
I would add a couple of items to what others had wrote.
–
Bill
- While non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic teaching the way Catholics are, it should be noted that there are not two moralities, Catholic Morality and non-Catholic morality. If something is immoral for Catholics, its immoral for everyone, even if everyone else fails to recognize that it is immoral.
- Condoms not only fail, but they are also not equally effective against all STD’s. While they do reduce the risk of HIV (When used “properly”), they provide little or no protection against HPV and Herpes.
- The use of Condoms has been shown statistically to increase the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors. While there are individuals who use condoms only inside the bounds of marriage and remain faithful to their spouse, many more people increase the number of people they have sexual contact with because they feel they are protected from STD’s and pregnancies. Of course, these activities actually serve to offset a large part of the “benefit” they feel they get by using the condoms in the first place. For more information google “Risk Compensation”.
–
Bill
O
OraLabora
Guest
I dunno, when we were immature college students they made great water balloons
If you ask me that’s about all they’re good for!
M
mchale
Guest
I thought about excepting their use as EID’s (Emergency Inflatable Devices) from my blanket statement but I thought better of it considering the fact that we should not be encouraging irresponsible water balloon use. It would seem a reasonable extrapolation of church teaching and Tradition to state that anyone who is using water balloons or inflatable balloons should be responsible enough to go to the Dollar store and pick up a pack of traditional balloonsI dunno, when we were immature college students they made great water balloons
If you ask me that’s about all they’re good for!
.–
Bill
R
Rence
Guest
So the Church forbids a married couple from using a condom when one is infected with HIV? I did not know that. 
M
mchale
Guest
Keep in mind, that though it is unfortunate, abstinence is the only method of actually preventing the uninfected partner from contracting HIV.So the Church forbids a married couple from using a condom when one is infected with HIV? I did not know that.
The earlier post mentioning risk compensation applies here.
For the sake of the argument, lets assume that both spouses know that one of them is HIV positive.
If they don’t use condoms, they are likely going to make the heartbreaking but wise decision to refrain from marital relations. Thus the uninfected spouse will have no chance of contracting HIV from the infected spouse.
If they decide to engage in marital relations anyway, at least they do it with the full knowledge that the uninfected spouse will likely contract HIV in short order.
If they do use condoms, they, in fact, repeatedly risk infecting the other spouse. Whats worse, they might believe (as many seem to believe) that using a condom makes them completely safe and thus the uninfected spouse is put at risk without the spouse ever understanding that there is a risk.
–
Bill
R
Rence
Guest
Yes, but condoms can greatly reduce the risk of contracting HIV, if used correctly and consistently. I just didn’t know that the Church forbids married couples to use condoms if one of the spouses has HIV.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Maybe a weak argument could be made for this if the condom was 100% effective in combatting the transmission of STDs but it is not, it is not even 100% effective in stopping conception.
The other part of your question, just because somene is a non-catholic does not mean that a different morallity applies.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Yes but by reducing the risk, and saying it is OK to use them, the Church would be saying “well, tough luck for the 5% who have a condom fail on them”.
That she cannot do. Entrusted to her pastoral care is each and every single person, not just 95%, not just 99%, not even 99.9%.
So she can only teach the moral absolute: abstinence is the only morally acceptable solution to this issue. To say that it’s OK because it reduces risk, is to fall into moral relativism, because it is saying that the lives of the majority have more value than the lives of the unfortunates who fall into the 5% (or whatever the true percentage is) that experience condom failure and subsequent HIV infection.
The Church’s teaching places the burden of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of each of us, which is of course we can chose to accept or reject via our own free will. But, we reject the teaching at our peril, and in this case not just our eternal peril, but of our mortal lives as well.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
5% failure rate? That is a pretty conservative number, I have seen it as high as 10% and that with the cavet that it is a conservative number that the failure rate might be much higher.
- Status