Sexually transmitted disease and condoms

[mchale]

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.

This is vastly simplifying the Church’s position on this issue. A distinction needs to be made against murder versus the lawful killing of an individual, as well as the question of unintended consequences.

To put it simply, you may not murder. But the act of killing is not itself intrinsically evil. Capital punishment, self defense, killing the enemy in war are themselves allowed (even if the Church would prefer other recourses short of killing to be used).

To put it in simple terms, in Capital Punishment, one can rationalize the intent away. The whole point is to kill the criminal. Now while many members of the Church would prefer Capital Punishment not be used, the Church has always maintained that it is a legitimate exercise of government power. Therefore, the executioner is willfully killing, but he has not sinned.

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.

So lets see, I can reduce the risk of doing X by doing something that is intrinsically evil, therefore X is justified? I am sorry, I don’t buy it.

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

If someone was to invent something that looked like a condom, but did not prevent conception but did prevent HIV from being transferred, I see no reason why the Church should object to it.

–
Bill

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Condoms are good at preventing the spread of HIV. Surely slowing the spread of HIV is okay?

Ah, so its a numbers game with you.

Then I will go one better. Not having sex with someone infected with HIV is even better than condom use at preventing the spread of HIV.

Surely stopping the spread of HIV is even better?

 

[tjm190]

This is vastly simplifying the Church’s position on this issue. A distinction needs to be made against murder versus the lawful killing of an individual, as well as the question of unintended consequences.

To put it simply, you may not murder. But the act of killing is not itself intrinsically evil. Capital punishment, self defense, killing the enemy in war are themselves allowed (even if the Church would prefer other recourses short of killing to be used).

To put it in simple terms, in Capital Punishment, one can rationalize the intent away. The whole point is to kill the criminal. Now while many members of the Church would prefer Capital Punishment not be used, the Church has always maintained that it is a legitimate exercise of government power. Therefore, the executioner is willfully killing, but he has not sinned.

Ah, so killing may be moral depending on the circumstance- but altering sex? Never, of course not, you’re silly.

So lets see, I can reduce the risk of doing X by doing something that is intrinsically evil, therefore X is justified? I am sorry, I don’t buy it.

What is the intrinsic evil?

If someone was to invent something that looked like a condom, but did not prevent conception but did prevent HIV from being transferred, I see no reason why the Church should object to it.

–
Bill

What if that device reduced conceptions by 1%?

 

[tjm190]

Ah, so its a numbers game with you.

Then I will go one better. Not having sex with someone infected with HIV is even better than condom use at preventing the spread of HIV.

Surely stopping the spread of HIV is even better?

You’re side started the numbers game- picture a car ride with an HIV positive individual. Some of those car rides will end in car accidents. Some of those car accidents will result in infected blood passing to an uninfected individual. Thus, some people may become infected in this manner. Is it immoral for an HIV person to ride in a car with the one they love?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You’re side started the numbers game- picture a car ride with an HIV positive individual. Some of those car rides will end in car accidents. Some of those car accidents will result in infected blood passing to an uninfected individual. Thus, some people may become infected in this manner. Is it immoral for an HIV person to ride in a car with the one they love?

No, as the use of a car ride is not a moral evil, the use of a condom is a moral evil.

Nice try though.

 

[mchale]

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?

1. I admit that condoms can have uses that are perfectly licit. See the earlier exchange about using them for water balloons for one example.
2. The problem here is that condoms are only effective in prevent HIV when used as a contraceptive. I.e., by interfering in the natural sexual act.

Irrelevant

Of course it is relevant. You claimed that condoms don’t “break sex” which can be taken to mean interfere with sexual intimacy. If large numbers of people don’t like them, I think it is safe to say that they in fact do interfere, to at least some degree with sexual intimacy.

You can’t claim that condoms don’t interfere with sexual intimacy and then claim that evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.

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.

Thats not altering nature, that is working with nature. Though, it should be pointed out that many types of agriculture have resulted in ecological disaster.

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

Most people don’t wear gloves to shake hands and remove their gloves first if they are wearing them. And again, the analogy is not comparable since shaking hands is a cultural tradition. Therefore, even though most people get put off by someone donning gloves to shake their hand, the situation is not comparable since it is not a moral issue.

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 believe the point was that a relatively significant chance of infection even when used properly precluded arguing that condoms should be considered licit for preventing the spread of HIV.

Lets go back to the Russian Roulette example. I will start with a general rule. One shouldn’t point loaded revolvers at ones head and pull the trigger. Now, lets say that one gives me a revolver that has only one bullet in it. Does that mean we should reconsider the first rule because the odds of my death have been greatly reduced?

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.

No, the Church would have to change its position. Its not simply that reducing the probability of conception is wrong. In fact, there are licit ways of doing that with Natural Family Planning. Its that a condom forms a barrier to the full expression of love between a husband and a wife.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

No, as the use of a car ride is not a moral evil, the use of a condom is a moral evil.

Nice try though.

Nowhere in the argument was there any mention ‘moral evil’- the claim was that people can still become infected, so it’s wrong.

 

[tjm190]

1. I admit that condoms can have uses that are perfectly licit. See the earlier exchange about using them for water balloons for one example.
2. The problem here is that condoms are only effective in prevent HIV when used as a contraceptive. I.e., by interfering in the natural sexual act.

You assume the contraception is the intended effect- perhaps the intended effect is stopping HIV, while the unfortunate side effect is the reduced probability of conception.

Of course it is relevant. You claimed that condoms don’t “break sex” which can be taken to mean interfere with sexual intimacy. If large numbers of people don’t like them, I think it is safe to say that they in fact do interfere, to at least some degree with sexual intimacy.

That’s personal preference- it’s entirely possible for someone to prefer the use of a condom.

You can’t claim that condoms don’t interfere with sexual intimacy and then claim that evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.

“I know some people who ____” is never a form of evidence

Thats not altering nature, that is working with nature. Though, it should be pointed out that many types of agriculture have resulted in ecological disaster.

Really now? Nature had plants popping up wherever the wind/animals took the seeds. We put the seeds where it was most convenient for us. But in any event- certainly you would agree that genetically modifying food, either through selective breeding or scary science is altering nature?

Most people don’t wear gloves to shake hands and remove their gloves first if they are wearing them. And again, the analogy is not comparable since shaking hands is a cultural tradition. Therefore, even though most people get put off by someone donning gloves to shake their hand, the situation is not comparable since it is not a moral issue.

The issue is that an emotional message associated by a physical act need not be effected by the use of a form of protection.

I believe the point was that a relatively significant chance of infection even when used properly precluded arguing that condoms should be considered licit for preventing the spread of HIV.

Lets go back to the Russian Roulette example. I will start with a general rule. One shouldn’t point loaded revolvers at ones head and pull the trigger. Now, lets say that one gives me a revolver that has only one bullet in it. Does that mean we should reconsider the first rule because the odds of my death have been greatly reduced?

I will start with a general rule- I should not put myself at risk for getting HIV. An HIV positive friend asks for a car ride- certainly it is possible for me to get HIV during this car ride. Thus, I am putting myself at risk for HIV. Thus, I may not give him a ride?
Leaving the car ride hypothetical- how would this argument shape up if there was some hyper condom, which while not 100% effective, was so effective that the risk of dying during child birth was greater than the risk of contracting HIV?

No, the Church would have to change its position. Its not simply that reducing the probability of conception is wrong. In fact, there are licit ways of doing that with Natural Family Planning. Its that a condom forms a barrier to the full expression of love between a husband and a wife.

–
Bill

I thought we had established that something that looked just like a condom but only prevented HIV spreading was fine- I’m still waiting on an answer about whether or not there would be a problem if said device reduced the probability of conception by a minuscule amount.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You’re side started the numbers game- picture a car ride with an HIV positive individual. Some of those car rides will end in car accidents. Some of those car accidents will result in infected blood passing to an uninfected individual. Thus, some people may become infected in this manner. Is it immoral for an HIV person to ride in a car with the one they love?

It was clearly stated the numbers had nothing to do with the Church teaching.

Now to answer your question, since no intended sin, danger, accident is planned there is no moral problem in the car ride. One of the intrinsic evils of the relations with condom is to prevent the designed result from relations, another is to allow one to use another for purely sexual pleasure, etc. etc,

hope that helps

 

[mchale]

Ah, so killing may be moral depending on the circumstance- but altering sex? Never, of course not, you’re silly.

Killing is an action that deprives a person of life. There are many reasons why one might kill, some are justified and some are not.

There are also many reasons why one might choose to have sex, but only when the purpose is the full gift of oneself to one’s spouse is it a justified reason.

What is the intrinsic evil?

Denying your full self to your spouse.

What if that device reduced conceptions by 1%?

Did your education in philosophical discourse stop with sophistry?

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

It was clearly stated the numbers had nothing to do with the Church teaching.

Now to answer your question, since no intended sin, danger, accident is planned there is no moral problem in the car ride. One of the intrinsic evils of the relations with condom is to prevent the designed result from relations, another is to allow one to use another for purely sexual pleasure, etc. etc,

hope that helps

I interpreted some earlier arguments as “You shouldn’t risk infecting your loved one, so no”- which is of course a silly argument.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… how would this argument shape up if there was some hyper condom, which while not 100% effective, was so effective that the risk of dying during child birth was greater than the risk of contracting HIV?

I thought we had established that something that looked just like a condom but only prevented HIV spreading was fine- I’m still waiting on an answer about whether or not there would be a problem if said device reduced the probability of conception by a minuscule amount.

It would seem you have a misunderstanding here. If the condom mfg develops a chemical which is placed in the condom and the condom is placed on the toe, or finger then you are good to go. However if the condom is used to separate the male/female union so designed fluids to not interchange then it still wrong.

See the key is removing from sex what sex is designed to do - procreate, and unify

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I interpreted some earlier arguments as “You shouldn’t risk infecting your loved one, so no”- which is of course a silly argument.

Help me out what is silly about the comment?

 

[tjm190]

Killing is an action that deprives a person of life. There are many reasons why one might kill, some are justified and some are not.

There are also many reasons why one might choose to have sex, but only when the purpose is the full gift of oneself to one’s spouse is it a justified reason.

And what if part of you, namely your (hypothetical) HIV, might just kill your spouse?

Denying your full self to your spouse.

Yet you have no problem with abstinence?

Did your education in philosophical discourse stop with sophistry?

–
Bill

Avoiding the question is fun sometimes, but now is really not one of those times.

 

[tjm190]

Help me out what is silly about the comment?

You risk infecting someone, to some degree, anytime you could both become injured and swap blood.

 

[tjm190]

It would seem you have a misunderstanding here. If the condom mfg develops a chemical which is placed in the condom and the condom is placed on the toe, or finger then you are good to go. However if the condom is used to separate the male/female union so designed fluids to not interchange then it still wrong.

See the key is removing from sex what sex is designed to do - procreate, and unify

My initial hypothetical condom allows sperm to pass through unchanged- only HIV ‘cells’ were harmed.

 

[mchale]

You assume the contraception is the intended effect- perhaps the intended effect is stopping HIV, while the unfortunate side effect is the reduced probability of conception.

No, thats not what I meant. My statement was that only way to reduce the use of HIV by the use of condoms is by using them as a contraceptive. This is not stating the intended effect that the individual desires, its describing the particular use of the condom. That use is inherently flawed.

That’s personal preference- it’s entirely possible for someone to prefer the use of a condom.

“I know some people who ____” is never a form of evidence

Of course personal testimony is a form of evidence. Or should I break confidence with the people who told me? Or, should we just assume that you are just willing to disregard any evidence that you find contrary to your point of view?

Really now? Nature had plants popping up wherever the wind/animals took the seeds. We put the seeds where it was most convenient for us. But in any event- certainly you would agree that genetically modifying food, either through selective breeding or scary science is altering nature?

Selective breeding is not altering nature. Again, its working with nature since you are unable to breed two things that are not in some sense compatible.

As for genetic engineering, I am not sure. It certainly makes me nervous, since I think there will be many unintended consequences.

The issue is that an emotional message associated by a physical act need not be effected by the use of a form of protection.

Of course it is impacted. You are buying into the hype that our materialistic, permissive society is giving you.

Lets put it in simple terms, if using contraception did not alter the emotional message associated with the physical act of love, then why is it that the divorce rate for Catholics using contraceptions is essentially the same as that for non-Catholics but the divorce rate for Catholics utilizing NFP is tiny?

To put it in simple terms, using contraception tells your spouse you are not willing to share your entire self with them. Just your pleasure.

I will start with a general rule- I should not put myself at risk for getting HIV. An HIV positive friend asks for a car ride- certainly it is possible for me to get HIV during this car ride. Thus, I am putting myself at risk for HIV. Thus, I may not give him a ride?

So let me understand this… you are arguing for allowing an intrinsic evil by arguing that you should deny charity to someone because their is a small risk of HIV infection?

Lets put this in perspective. The risk of you getting infected with HIV by riding with an HIV positive individual is probably tiny compared to the risk of you dieing by other means in that car.

The point of all of us who are arguing against using reducing the probability of infection as a reason for the Church to reconsider its position is that the reduction in probability is such that it merely gives the illusion of safety. If a couple where one is infected has “protected sex” regularly, after a few years there is a good chance that there is no longer an uninfected spouse.

Leaving the car ride hypothetical- how would this argument shape up if there was some hyper condom, which while not 100% effective, was so effective that the risk of dying during child birth was greater than the risk of contracting HIV?

Then, perhaps, that particular argument against reconsidering the position would no longer hold true. It does not mean that the ultimate morality (i.e., condom use is intrinsically evil) would change in the slightest.

I thought we had established that something that looked just like a condom but only prevented HIV spreading was fine- I’m still waiting on an answer about whether or not there would be a problem if said device reduced the probability of conception by a minuscule amount.

My response was that asking that question is engaging in sophistry. You are trying to reduce this to a numbers game, when it is ultimately a game of function. If I say that a reduction in the probability of conception by 1% is acceptable, you will ask about 2%, 4%, etc.

The point of the matter is that using condoms in sexual intercourse is evil because their mode of operation is to prevent the full expression of love between a husband and wife. If your hypothetical device only reduces fertility as a side effect of its function then it would be acceptable, if the reduction in fertility is the method, then it would not be acceptable.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

And what if part of you, namely your (hypothetical) HIV, might just kill your spouse?

Which is why the Church would recommend abstinence in this situation. Because, even if I use a condom, it is still possible that sexual intercourse could kill my spouse.

Yet you have no problem with abstinence?

Of course not. There are times when abstinence is a gift of love to your partner. Its a sacrifice made for the benefit of the other person.

I mean lets, for the sake of the argument, assume I am HIV positive, which is more loving:

1. Having sex with a condom which:
   a. Still risks the health and life of my life since we know condoms fail and thus I know eventually I am going to expose her to HIV.
   b. Threatens my wife’s immortal soul by making her an active participant in sin.
2. Abstaining from sex so that my partner will not be infected or made an active participant in sin?

Avoiding the question is fun sometimes, but now is really not one of those times.

Your question indicates you just don’t get it. You are playing a numbers game when means and intent are what matters.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

No, thats not what I meant. My statement was that only way to reduce the use of HIV by the use of condoms is by using them as a contraceptive. This is not stating the intended effect that the individual desires, its describing the particular use of the condom. That use is inherently flawed.

Hmm? What it is being ‘used as’ is a matter of perspective- chemotherapy may reduce your ability to conceive, but you wouldn’t claim that it is an immoral means of fighting cancer because the only way chemo can be used to fight cancer is to ‘use it as a contraceptive’

Of course personal testimony is a form of evidence. Or should I break confidence with the people who told me? Or, should we just assume that you are just willing to disregard any evidence that you find contrary to your point of view?

You admit that this is a matter of personal preference? Some people may not like engaging in intercourse in a cave, but I wouldn’t say that means the cave ‘breaks’ sex. If I could find one person, just one, who prefers sex with a condom, does that mean a condom enhances the marital embrace? Should we have a vote?

Selective breeding is not altering nature. Again, its working with nature since you are unable to breed two things that are not in some sense compatible.

As for genetic engineering, I am not sure. It certainly makes me nervous, since I think there will be many unintended consequences.

Maybe you should tell me what your definition of ‘altering’ is.

Of course it is impacted. You are buying into the hype that our materialistic, permissive society is giving you.

Lets put it in simple terms, if using contraception did not alter the emotional message associated with the physical act of love, then why is it that the divorce rate for Catholics using contraceptions is essentially the same as that for non-Catholics but the divorce rate for Catholics utilizing NFP is tiny?

Correlation≠causation. Would you agree that those who are Catholic in name only are more likely to use contraception? Would you agree that those who are Catholic in name only are more likely to treat marriage less seriously in general?

To put it in simple terms, using contraception tells your spouse you are not willing to share your entire self with them. Just your pleasure.

Perhaps I’m alone, but I’m not at all offended when somebody tells me they’d rather me keep my bodily fluids to myself.

So let me understand this… you are arguing for allowing an intrinsic evil by arguing that you should deny charity to someone because their is a small risk of HIV infection?

Lets put this in perspective. The risk of you getting infected with HIV by riding with an HIV positive individual is probably tiny compared to the risk of you dieing by other means in that car.

The point of all of us who are arguing against using reducing the probability of infection as a reason for the Church to reconsider its position is that the reduction in probability is such that it merely gives the illusion of safety. If a couple where one is infected has “protected sex” regularly, after a few years there is a good chance that there is no longer an uninfected spouse.

I’m arguing against the argument you said was invalid (The ‘you can’t risk getting someone infected’ argument.)

I’m arguing against the argument you said was invalid (The ‘you can’t risk getting someone infected’ argument.)Then, perhaps, that particular argument against reconsidering the position would no longer hold true. It does not mean that the ultimate morality (i.e., condom use is intrinsically evil) would change in the slightest.

Again, you’ve already stated that you don’t agree with that argument.

My response was that asking that question is engaging in sophistry. You are trying to reduce this to a numbers game, when it is ultimately a game of function. If I say that a reduction in the probability of conception by 1% is acceptable, you will ask about 2%, 4%, etc.

Is that not a valid line of reasoning?

The point of the matter is that using condoms in sexual intercourse is evil because their mode of operation is to prevent the full expression of love between a husband and wife. If your hypothetical device only reduces fertility as a side effect of its function then it would be acceptable, if the reduction in fertility is the method, then it would not be acceptable.

–
Bill

Perspective. I say that a condom, as it exists today, has a primary purpose of preventing pathogens from passing from one person to another. As a side effect, sperm does not pass either. What makes the reverse perspective any more true?

 

[tjm190]

Which is why the Church would recommend abstinence in this situation. Because, even if I use a condom, it is still possible that sexual intercourse could kill my spouse.

As would anybody with the data and a calculator.

Of course not. There are times when abstinence is a gift of love to your partner. Its a sacrifice made for the benefit of the other person.

I mean lets, for the sake of the argument, assume I am HIV positive, which is more loving:

1. Having sex with a condom which:
   a. Still risks the health and life of my life since we know condoms fail and thus I know eventually I am going to expose her to HIV.
   b. Threatens my wife’s immortal soul by making her an active participant in sin.
2. Abstaining from sex so that my partner will not be infected or made an active participant in sin?

Hmm… so saying “I don’t want to share any of me with you” is a gift? (If a condom is an incomplete sharing, certainly abstinence is a lack of sharing) the current effectiveness of condoms is not terribly relevant- I admit that current effectiveness do not lead me to believe that condom use is a suitable course of action over long periods of time.

Your question indicates you just don’t get it. You are playing a numbers game when means and intent are what matters.

–
Bill

The intent is (probably) to reduce the probability of infection- the means are to stop the passing on of a a pathogen.