Sexually transmitted disease and condoms

[OraLabora]

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.

You’re quite right on the failure rate, but the rate of infection from each failure would not be 100%. What the exact percentage is, I have no way of estimating. What I can say is that whether it is 1% or 49%, the same principle applies: it is not moral to sacrifice the lives of a few to benefit the sexual pleasure of the many.

 

[mchale]

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.

Actually, I would say that condoms reduce the risk on a per instance basis. However, the more often intercourse occurs, the less the risk is reduced.

Let me put it this way. Playing Russian Roulette with a single chamber loaded might be safer than playing it with 5 chambers loaded if you only play once. The problem is, the more often you play either version, the more likely it is that the result will be the same (infection).

–
Bill

 

[Rence]

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.

Is that the rationale behind fobidding the use of condoms by a married couple in which one of the spouses has HIV? I’m inclined to think the rational is more concrene than that. By that rationale, being a nurse, doctor, emerency medical technician, etc, would be forbidden, because of the high incidence of contracting incurable and horrible diseases.

Where is the Church teaching that answers this question? Anyone?

 

[OraLabora]

Is that the rationale behind fobidding the use of condoms by a married couple in which one of the spouses has HIV? I’m inclined to think the rational is more concrene than that. By that rationale, being a nurse, doctor, emerency medical technician, etc, would be forbidden, because of the high incidence of contracting incurable and horrible diseases.

Are you implying that there is a moral equivalence allowing a risk for the purpose of helping save lives, and allowing a risk in order to be able to enjoy sexual pleasure?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

The condom performs no proper role in relations. Let me help you with some math. The math has nothing to do with Church teachings. At 95% success / 5% failure rate

1 encounter 5% chance of failure
10 encounters 40% chance of failure
50 encounters >92% chance of failure
90 encounters >99% chance of failure

So you can see it is just a matter of time

Pregnancy rates are very different because the failure must occur during a fertile window and a successful implantation must also occur so it is closer to:

1 encounter 00.5% chance of pregnancy
10 encounters 4.3% chance of pregnancy
50 encounters >9.9% chance of pregnancy
90 encounters >10.6% chance of pregnancy

 

[tjm190]

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%.

Not consistent with Church teaching- simply being in regular contact with an infected individual bears a nonzero, albeit low, probability of infection. Is the Church saying ‘touch luck’ to someone who is infected with HIV due to some tragic accident?

 

[mchale]

Is that the rationale behind fobidding the use of condoms by a married couple in which one of the spouses has HIV? I’m inclined to think the rational is more concrene than that. By that rationale, being a nurse, doctor, emerency medical technician, etc, would be forbidden, because of the high incidence of contracting incurable and horrible diseases.

Where is the Church teaching that answers this question? Anyone?

Actually, I think we need to keep in mind here that the ineffectiveness of condoms can only be considered a supporting argument as to why the Church should not consider changing its position on the use of condoms.

The more important reason is that condoms are an intrinsically immoral means. They directly interfere with the full expression of sexual love between a husband and wife and therefore their use is by its very nature disordered.

The analogy of the Pill used to treat medical conditions does not apply here. The Pill is essentially a medicine that when used with improper intent, can be used to reduce or remove fertility, but many valid uses remain that can be used to treat real medical conditions (Though I want to stress I support those women who seek alternative treatments). To put it in simple terms, the Pill is a morally neutral means that can be used for an immoral intent.

The condom’s entire purpose is to interfere with the natural sexual act. Therefore, it makes the sexual act disordered by its very nature as by its very use, it indicates an unwillingness of the partners to fully share with one another.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

The problem is that you’re assuming that the Church is at all reasonable- if condom use cured cancer, the Church would be against it.

 

[tjm190]

The more important reason is that condoms are an intrinsically immoral means. They directly interfere with the full expression of sexual love between a husband and wife and therefore their use is by its very nature disordered.

Love is an emotion and is not at all affected by where bodily fluids go. A condom no more ‘breaks’ sex than a glove ‘breaks’ a handshake or salute.

 

[mchale]

The problem is that you’re assuming that the Church is at all reasonable- if condom use cured cancer, the Church would be against it.

Maybe, maybe not, but since it doesn’t cure cancer, your point is what?

Remember, no good Catholic can accept the notion that the ends justify the means. If the means are corrupt, no end, no matter how good can justify them.

–
Bill

 

[Brendan]

So the Church forbids a married couple from using a condom when one is infected with HIV? I did not know that.

Of course, in much the same way as it forbids them from playing Russian Roullette, and for the exact same reason.

If an HIV infected person and their uninfected partner have ‘protected’ vaginal sex once per week, it is statistically likely that the uninfected partner will become infected within 4 years.

Condoms are not a perfect barrier, even if used ‘correctly’. Sure they might prevent an infection in a singlular case, but not over repeated exposure.

If the spouses care about each other’s personal health, then the only valid option is to abstain. If the infected partner refuses to abstain, that is literally a life threating form of violence.

 

[tjm190]

Maybe, maybe not, but since it doesn’t cure cancer, your point is what?

Remember, no good Catholic can accept the notion that the ends justify the means. If the means are corrupt, no end, no matter how good can justify them.

–
Bill

The point is that the Church has decided that condom use in sex is wrong, even when used for means besides child prevention. Seem unreasonable? Well of course not! Mother Church this, that, the other.

 

[mchale]

Love is an emotion and is not at all affected by where bodily fluids go. A condom no more ‘breaks’ sex than a glove ‘breaks’ a handshake or salute.

Love is not simply an emotion. Love is also actions taken for another person.

In the specific case, we are talking about the expression of physical love. And since sex was designed by God for two purposes – the procreation of children and the expression of love between a husband and wife – and considering that condoms definitely are intended to prevent one of those purposes, it is clear that they do in fact break sex.

Sex with a condom is saying, I am willing to give you everything I am… well, sort of. Not exactly the thing of love sonnets.

As for handshakes with a glove on… I assure you, that most people would be put off by someone in normal social circumstances who insisted on putting gloves on before they shook hands with people. I grant that there might be circumstances that justify it, but I would also point out that shaking hands is merely a western social convention while sex is built into our biology and even our souls.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

The point is that the Church has decided that condom use in sex is wrong, even when used for means besides child prevention. Seem unreasonable? Well of course not! Mother Church this, that, the other.

The Church also says that abortion is wrong… should they revise their opinion if it could be shown that abortion cured cancer?

Remember, Catholic morality is built on the notion that both the ends and the means must be justified. Using condoms during sexual intercourse is an intrinsically immoral means regardless of the purpose it is used for.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

Love is not simply an emotion. Love is also actions taken for another person.

Friendship is not simply an emotion. Friendship is also actions taken for another person.

In the specific case, we are talking about the expression of physical love. And since sex was designed by God for two purposes – the procreation of children and the expression of love between a husband and wife – and considering that condoms definitely are intended to prevent one of those purposes, it is clear that they do in fact break sex.

If you can find a way to reduce the probability of STD prevention without reducing the probability of conception, go for it.

Sex with a condom is saying, I am willing to give you everything I am… well, sort of. Not exactly the thing of love sonnets.

Sex with a condom is saying “we’re sentient beings, and it is within our power to alter a natural process to better suit our needs- sort of like we have done with just about everything else on Earth”

As for handshakes with a glove on… I assure you, that most people would be put off by someone in normal social circumstances who insisted on putting gloves on before they shook hands with people. I grant that there might be circumstances that justify it, but I would also point out that shaking hands is merely a western social convention while sex is built into our biology and even our souls.

–
Bill

So if someone was sick and thought that they would be more likely to infect you via a handshake without a glove then with a glove, but both parties agreed that a handshake was called for would that be wrong? After all, God made the hand specifically for shaking.

I’d rather not continue discussing condom use in general- people seem to be under the impression that condom use with HIV is wrong because there is a nonzero probability of failure. I say there is a nonzero probability of getting HIV just be riding in a car with someone with HIV- is that wrong as well?

 

[tjm190]

The Church also says that abortion is wrong… should they revise their opinion if it could be shown that abortion cured cancer?

Remember, Catholic morality is built on the notion that both the ends and the means must be justified. Using condoms during sexual intercourse is an intrinsically immoral means regardless of the purpose it is used for.

–
Bill

Then, by the Church’s own lingo-

I may not intentionally kill someone. I may defend myself. If in my attempt to defend myself someone else is killed, that is justified.

I may not attempt to reduce the probability of conceiving. I may attempt to reduce the probability of getting myself/someone else sick. If in my attempt to reduce the probability of myself/someone else getting sick during sex the probability of a conception occurring is lessened, that is justified.

If there were magic condoms that killed HIV but not sperm cells, would you object to the use of those?

 

[OraLabora]

When you truly love someone, you do for them what is right. Not what feels good. Even if that implies self-sacrifice.

If you’re HIV-positive, having sex with someone, either with or without a condom, is not doing what is right.

It isn’t being procreative, and it certainly isn’t being unitive.

It certainly isn’t an act of love.

It is instead an act of overwhelming selfishness. It is a destructive act. It is the very antithesis to “love”.

 

[mchale]

Friendship is not simply an emotion. Friendship is also actions taken for another person.

Friendship is not an emotion period. Its a state that people who feel a certain type of love enter into.

If you can find a way to reduce the probability of STD prevention without reducing the probability of conception, go for it.

Vaccination, cure, etc? The point here is that condoms are an unjust means of attaining that goal because both their purpose and means is to reduce the intimacy of the sexual act.

Shoot I know a number of people, even some women who don’t like using them even if they have no moral problem with their use.

Sex with a condom is saying “we’re sentient beings, and it is within our power to alter a natural process to better suit our needs- sort of like we have done with just about everything else on Earth”

And that has always worked out for us so well!.. Oh wait, it hasn’t.

Actually, I have seen lots of things we have done to alter or get around the effects of natural processes on the Earth, but most of our attempts to actually alter natural processes have not had much effect. Or do you know of anything that will stop volcanoes and earth quakes?

So if someone was sick and thought that they would be more likely to infect you via a handshake without a glove then with a glove, but both parties agreed that a handshake was called for would that be wrong? After all, God made the hand specifically for shaking.

He did? Here I thought he make it so we could use tools, embrace each other and help each other. Shaking hands is not a universal tradition.

And if someone was worried about passing on an infection, I am sure they would explain it… and I suspect neither side would be offended in that situation if they simply omitted the handshake.

I’d rather not continue discussing condom use in general- people seem to be under the impression that condom use with HIV is wrong because there is a nonzero probability of failure. I say there is a nonzero probability of getting HIV just be riding in a car with someone with HIV- is that wrong as well?

Actually, if there is a chance of getting HIV from simply riding in a car with someone, the odds are so low as to be below the threshold where anyone has been able to establish them.

I agree that discussing failure rate of condoms is not a good justification for the Church’s position on condoms. Only a good justification for why HIV should not actually be used as a reason for claiming the Church should change its position on Condoms.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

Vaccination, cure, etc? The point here is that condoms are an unjust means of attaining that goal because both their purpose and means is to reduce the intimacy of the sexual act.

Objects do not have preset purposes, regardless of what the manufacturer intended or what the general public uses it for- they have things they are good at and things they aren’t. Condoms are good at preventing the spread of HIV. Surely slowing the spread of HIV is okay?

Shoot I know a number of people, even some women who don’t like using them even if they have no moral problem with their use.

Irrelevant

And that has always worked out for us so well!.. Oh wait, it hasn’t.

Actually, I have seen lots of things we have done to alter or get around the effects of natural processes on the Earth, but most of our attempts to actually alter natural processes have not had much effect. Or do you know of anything that will stop volcanoes and earth quakes?

We’ve been altering the natural world to suit our needs ever since we noticed that plants seem to grow wherever we dropped the seeds last year- or rather, the birth of agriculture.

He did? Here I thought he make it so we could use tools, embrace each other and help each other. Shaking hands is not a universal tradition.

But they fit so well together! Surely this is an accident (note- this is meant to be a parody of the “God made this for these purposes” arguments- they are, by definition, subjective. I used to try it by condemning the rolling of one’s eyes, but people generally didn’t catch it)

And if someone was worried about passing on an infection, I am sure they would explain it… and I suspect neither side would be offended in that situation if they simply omitted the handshake.

But people do shake hands wearing gloves yes? Why? I mean, gloves aren’t 100% effective, so the threat of infection still exists.

Actually, if there is a chance of getting HIV from simply riding in a car with someone, the odds are so low as to be below the threshold where anyone has been able to establish them.

Blood can be swapped in a car accident yes? A train accident? A (minor) air place accident? The argument stated, although not necessarily by you, was that the non-zero probability of failure associated with condom use precluded it from being a moral means to deal with HIV.

I agree that discussing failure rate of condoms is not a good justification for the Church’s position on condoms. Only a good justification for why HIV should not actually be used as a reason for claiming the Church should change its position on Condoms.

–
Bill

The Church doesn’t have to change it’s position on condoms with respect to birth control- you may believe reducing the probability of conception is wrong, but still accept the idea that reducing the probability of an HIV infection is licit.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If you can find a way to reduce the probability of STD prevention without reducing the probability of conception, go for it.

There is one and the Church whole hearted supports it and recommends it use.

It is only using sex in the way it was meant to be used, by a married couple.

If sex was used as it was created to be used there would be no STDs to transmit as there would be no sex out side of marraige and you would know exactly how many partners your spouse had.