STDs and Marriage: What do you think about this question?

[OhioBob]

This question was posed by someone on the “Ask an Apologist” Forum:

If someone had an incurable STD (HIV, genital herpes, genital warts) and got married, what would be the church’s view point on using condoms to protect his/her partner? What if the couple wanted to have children?

ps, While condoms may have limited protection against genital herpes and warts, unprotected sex would cause severe spreading back and forth between the partners which could lead to serious problems.

This is the answer posted by Fr. Serpa:

Dear XXXX,

**Persons with contagious venereal diseases have no business getting married—period! To do so would be the height of irresponsibility. (emphasis added) ** Marriage is not a right. It is a vocation. One is called to marriage. The final sign that one has a vocation to marriage is similar to the final sign that one has a vocation to religious life. It is the approval of Christ’s Church.

A marriage is not complete until it is consummated. In consummating their wedding vows the husband and wife verify the unconditional “I do”of their wedding vows by means of their bodies. Every time they have such intercourse, they verify their sacramental union.

To contracept is to deny the “I do”. There is no unconditional act of love in contraception. It is the conditioning of the act so that the act is closed to the possibility of creating new life. It is limited to taking pleasure. It transforms an unconditional act of love to a conditional act of selfishness.

No one has the right to afflict a spouse with desease, let alone future children!

I would suggest that you read: “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. It is available through our on-line catalogue or through our toll-free order number: 888 291 8000.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

With all due respect to Fr. Serpa, I am having trouble with part of his response. I agree with Fr. Serpa’s opinions regarding contraception and I am not advocating it even in the case of one partner having an STD. I also agree about the sacramental role of marriage and the Theology of the Body reference.

However, my diagreement lies in the blanket statement about people with incurable STDs having “no business getting married” and it being “the height of irresponsibility”.

While he is certainly welcome to his opinion, I thought the answer could have been framed as such. His response seems to imply a formal Church discipline on the issue that I had never heard before.

It just seems to be a rather extreme position and I was curious about what people thought about the issue…

 

[Bernard_Jones]

It would depend on the situation. I would think that it could be a wonderful thing for two people who had HIV to marry, so long as the emotional and behavioural issues that had presumably encouraged immoral and irresponsible behaviour had been resolved. These days an HIV positive mother can, with good care, expect to deliver healthy children.

In the situation where the health of the couple would be seriously compromised, however, I suppose that one might have to question one’s vocation.

 

[chimakuni]

I was taken aback by Father’s response. There are many STD’s that can be controlled through medication - herpes comes to mind. One does not need to contracept in order to have a marriage partner who is controlling herpes with oral medication. I do believe that people who are going to be married need to be extremely open about any medical conditions.

 

[The_Hidden_Life]

I think Fr. Serpa was responding based on the information that such diseases were “uncurable” and that theoretically the only protection offered would be condoms. I don’t think he would say that an infectious disease whose symptoms could be controlled by medication would be a prohibitor to marriage. From my limited understanding of such STDs, I do think it would take some understanding that at certain times self-control would be required to abstain from the marriage act if the infected partner was in a temporary state of active infection. Obviously this doesn’t apply to HIV/AIDS. I don’t know the specifics of all of the infectious diseases mentioned but the bottom line question is: why would you want to risk hurting your beloved spouse in this way? Condoms, after all, are not 100% effective. A married couple that later was faced with one spouse becoming infected would also be called to celibacy if the infection was that contagious.

 

[Tom]

Bernard Jones:

I would think that it could be a wonderful thing for two people who had HIV to marry, These days an HIV positive mother can, with good care, expect to deliver healthy children.

You sure about that? I was under the impression that the HIV would be transferred by the blood of the mother. I’ve heard of children being born with HIV, have they cured this?

 

[Bernard_Jones]

Tom,

I am a layman, but I understand that HIV is transmitted mother-child either during child birth (when blood can mix) or via breast feeding-not in the womb. Anti-retroviral drugs cut the transmission rate enormously (note the debate about supplying them to third world countries at the moment), and I suppose that a C-section would be even more secure.

Any doctors out there?

 

[Scanner]

I am a doctor but I am way out of my league and would defer to an infectious disease specialist/internist for reliable information (I am a chiropractor).

I believe HIV is transmitted via blood to blood contact although saliva to blood is possible (kissing with an open sore in the mouth) although extremely, extremely rare. Where there are very thin mucosal membranes is where I believe infection is most likely to occur (rectum, vagina). In the case of a fetus, I beleive it is the umbilical cord/placenta where infection occurs but I could be wrong. The mother’s blood is in constant exchange with the fetus’ blood but at the placental level. However, I recall my OB/GYN class that there is some barrier there but at this point it gets fuzzy (otherwise, there would be 100% transmission).

What I found a bit harsh about the letter was the lack of consideration that an HIV positive person (or Hep. C positive, another sexually transmitted disease) could have been infected by other means, such as a blood transfusion. In that, it isn’t anyone’s fault that he/she contracted the disease. It isn’t due to promiscuous sexual behavior. I can recall a dentist infected a patient in the mid 80’s; I beleive it was confirmed. (and this was a time before universal precautions was eminent)

Condoms could provide a married couple with as close as a normal sexuality existence as possible.

 

[The_Hidden_Life]

Many unfortunate things that happen to us in life are “not our fault.” This doesn’t mean we don’t have to act morally when faced with these very difficult situations. Otherwise, the sexually-active homosexual that argues he “didn’t ask to be gay” because he was “just born with it” would be correct in persisting in sin since a genetic trait is also “not his fault.” (Not that I am arguing that homosexuality is genetic; it’s just an argument often used.)

To received infected blood is a tragedy, but all the same, the consequences, though unintended, must be dealt with morally. Does the man who becomes blind insist on being able to drive a car because it wasn’t his fault that he was struck with blindness? No, he must deal with the effects of his disability morally. For a blind man to drive a car would be to endanger others.

 

[Scanner]

Okay, I’ll bite since I am being baited.

When a person goes blind, we don’t forbid him to use a cane to get around because “canes are morally evil.” When afflicted with a disability, you use as many tools possible to lead a normal life.

 

[OhioBob]

I wasn’t thinking about allowing contraception in the case of HIV when I started this thread. In fact I’m not really questioning Fr. Serpa’s answer regarding contraception.

I was thinking more along the lines of other “incurable” STDs (herpes, etc.) that while technically incurable, are episodic and manageable. Maybe Fr. Serpa was thinking solely about HIV. If so, I can more readily understand his answer.

 

[The_Hidden_Life]

OhioBob, I think you’ve hit on the answer to your own question there.

Scanner, I’m not sure I get why you’ve made this leap in “logic” or why you think my comments were baiting you. To equate the helpfulness of a blind man’s cane to the use of a condom by infected persons is ridiculous. If you understand Catholic teaching on openness to life and the unitive function of the marriage act, you must realize that bringing a condom into the picture harms the marriage rather than enhancing it.

A condom is not a helpful tool the way a cane is. The primary purpose of a condom is to thwart the procreative function of the marriage act. Secondarily, it offers some protection against STDs. The primary purpose (contraception) is a moral evil and as we all know you can’t commit an evil act in hopes of a good outcome.

Besides this, of course, condoms are not 100% effective at either preventing pregnancy or stopping transmission of infection. Why would you want to marry someone knowing you couldn’t absolutely protect them from your incurable disease if you consummated the marriage? The best way to protect them would be to abstain totally.

This doesn’t mean that the infected person can never love anyone. Of course he can, but not in the particular intimate physical way of marriage. Hope this helps. I am trying to explain, not dangle bait for argument.

 

[LauraL]

I consider genital herpes a strong indication that God is calling me to live the second half of my life as a single, celibate woman. Granted, I could be wrong, there could be a devout Catholic gentleman around who once upon a time had some problems of his own…

For now, however, these are the considerations I’m looking at:

Many STDs are uncurable. I do not want to inflict a dangerous or inconvenient or uncomfortabld disease upon someone I love.

Even if the Church approved condoms, they are not very good against viral infections… like… HIV and herpes. So forget that option, we’re still in the ballpark of “personal responsibility.”

Some STDs are “invisible” or “silent,” meaning that the carrier can be completely unaware of being infected or infectious. I contacted herpes through a blind infection; I have no way of knowing right this minute that I am not “shedding” the virus, even though I have no known symptoms. That means that, for me and for many many other people, counting on Acyclovir or some other medication to protect a loved one is the moral equivalent of spitting straight up.

It just is NOT worth the many many risks involved. I concur with the good Father on this one – celibacy is the only truly responsible way to go for someone not already married.

On a positive note – and perhaps I should start another thread on this – I am finding my decision to remain celibate amazingly liberating and joyful. Yes, I am earnest about this – I am thoroughly enjoying learning to live solely for God without having to accomodate a husband. This is also further indication that He can take these bizarre and unwelcome circumstances of our lives and use them for our good and for His glory.

May God bless all who wrestle with this issue, and give you peace.

 

[aeddyblouin]

First–kudos to Laura and your decision to remain celebate. The peace you feel may be the best indication that you are following God’s will.

Now about herpes. . . I have two very dear Catholic women friends who both are married with children, and both have herpes. They both manage their deseise without medication–outbreaks are rare as they both have done reasurch on what foods to avoid. Certain amino-acids make outbreaks more common (all I know off the top of my head is chocolate is bad–and so are some kinds of beans I think). Both of these women have of course been honest with their spouses before marriage, and both have had vaginal child birth since there was no outbreak at the time, and so no danger to baby. When they do have the rare outbreak they abstain from relations.

About using condoms if one partner is HIV positive–I don’t think you are even allowed to get married in the church if you know of any reason that would prevent you as a couple from conceiving children. I remember this being one of the questions DH and I were asked by our priest. So on that basis alone a new marriage to an HIV person wouldn’t fly. For a person who contracts the disease after marriage the only option I see is to live as brother and sister. The worldly view may see this as harsh and tragic–but in the eternal view it may be freeing and sanctifying.

I don’t know anything about warts.

All of this is even more reason to remain chaste before marriage, and marry a virgin. . .

Allison