Why do most people ignore the Church's teaching on contraception?

[Rau]

There’s an article on the “Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS” at Wikipedia.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS
The above article also lists some cardinals and bishops who dissent from the church on the issue of condom use to prevent the spread of HIV.

Most of the relevant Wiki reference links are inaccessible so can’t get the full context. Undoubtedly there are those with actual, or apparently, contrary views. But the “dissenters” I looked at are not dissenting about the immorality of the acts, but trying to judge which of the “evils” in play are the lesser. Agree to / ask for sex and put another’s life in danger, or agree to / ask for sex and commit a (or another) sexual sin. It is apparent that the Church can condone neither, and any propositions about which evil should be chosen will no doubt generate claims about the Church endorsing condoms.

 

[whm]

There’s an article on the “Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS” at Wikipedia. I found this statement kind of interesting: “In addition, various members of the Church hierarchy have pointed out that condoms have a non-zero risk of transmitting AIDS.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

That’s like saying, “By wearing a seat belt, there is a non-zero risk of being killed in a car accident, so there’s no reason to wear a seat belt when your drive your car.”

Or how about, “If you brush your teeth, there is a non-zero risk of getting a cavity, so why brush your teeth?”

The above article also lists some cardinals and bishops who dissent from the church on the issue of condom use to prevent the spread of HIV.

I understand you are using AIDS as foothold for your justification of condoms and ABC in general. In my opinion it is absolutely irresponsible if not criminal for somebody with HIV/AIDS to knowingly engage in intercourse with another person. Condom or no condom. And with ones spouse??? Thats love???

 

[PhiloMed]

I understand you are using AIDS as foothold for your justification of condoms and ABC in general. In my opinion it is absolutely irresponsible if not criminal for somebody with HIV/AIDS to knowingly engage in intercourse with another person. Condom or no condom. And with ones spouse??? Thats love???

When someone has a suppressed viral load and the partner is taking PrEP the risk of transmission is almost infinitesimally small to be essentially non existent. One might be more likely to smother their partner to death during sex.

The world of HIV is not what many here seem to think it is. I have had many patients who use this method comfortably understanding potential risks, though very small. I’ve also had female partners of male patients conceive children.

Really, it’s not such a bleak world and does not mean a life of abstinence.

If you want to talk about contraception, fine. But keep the main thing the main thing. The HIV arguments always come up but really are not realistic in developed countries in 2016 unless you want to delve into the difficulties of treating HIV in developing nations.

 

[loumeland]

**Not by name, but it is my general sense that most theologians question the current doctrine. ** (I realize that is weak authority, but its what I have.) Certainly many clergy do so privately. It has been difficult recently for those that disagree to do so publically. Forty-ish years ago there was plenty of public discussion of the topic. Maybe public discussion will be allowed again with the apparent new openness to such discussion. There are a couple of theologians that post here regularly, maybe they will be kind enough to give their perspective on the sense of their field.

So they’re questioning Christ?!? (I speak as a fool).

Is it a sin to state that the Church needs to re-consider and re-examine certain positions in order to better align herself with her fundamental Gospel message?

 

[Rico_S]

No that’s not quite right. The Church talks about the ‘nuptial’ meaning of the body but that’s not speaking about the state of marriage itself. Everyones body has a nuptial meaning. That’s what they were made for. Fornication is one sin and then contraception is an added sin. Natural law dictates that the creative capacity of the body exists regardless of the marital status and that every child is a cause for rejoicing in and of itself regardless of the status of the parents. So despite fornication, contraception is another offense against God and nature.

i’ll be honest, I don’t follow you hear. It doesn’t make sense to say, the marital embrace is the expression of the one flesh union of marriage, and removing it from the context of marriage is a mortal sin b/c it shatters the meaning of the act, but if you are going to go ahead and sin and have sex out of wedlock you must do it correctly so it retains its meaning or you are compounding your sin? So if talking to your daughter you find out your daughter is having sex with her boyfriend and is using coitus interruptus as a birth control method, I would imagine you would first clearly try and steer her toward abstinence, but if she refuses that, it is incumbent upon you to guide her toward making sure he finishes correctly, b/c the meaning of the act is distorted? Otherwise she is compounding her sin by using coitus interruptus,

 

[LongingSoul]

i’ll be honest, I don’t follow you hear. It doesn’t make sense to say, the marital embrace is the expression of the one flesh union of marriage, and removing it from the context of marriage is a mortal sin b/c it shatters the meaning of the act, but if you are going to go ahead and sin and have sex out of wedlock you must do it correctly so it retains its meaning or you are compounding your sin? So if talking to your daughter you find out your daughter is having sex with her boyfriend and is using coitus interruptus as a birth control method, I would imagine you would first clearly try and steer her toward abstinence, but if she refuses that, it is incumbent upon you to guide her toward making sure he finishes correctly, b/c the meaning of the act is distorted? Otherwise she is compounding her sin by using coitus interruptus,

Living outside Church teaching makes for murky waters but doesn’t change the nature of sins.

In your scenario, one sin is not compounding the other. They’re separate sins although one embedded in the other in a way that dictates the treatment. Like a doctor would attend to an intense infection curing that before attending to any other surgery.

 

[whm]

When someone has a suppressed viral load and the partner is taking PrEP the risk of transmission is almost infinitesimally small to be essentially non existent. One might be more likely to smother their partner to death during sex.

The world of HIV is not what many here seem to think it is. I have had many patients who use this method comfortably understanding potential risks, though very small. I’ve also had female partners of male patients conceive children.

Really, it’s not such a bleak world and does not mean a life of abstinence.

If you want to talk about contraception, fine. But keep the main thing the main thing. The HIV arguments always come up but really are not realistic in developed countries in 2016 unless you want to delve into the difficulties of treating HIV in developing nations.

I didn’t bring up the red herring of AIDS. Thanks for sharing the information on drug related prevention of transmission. However, according to the CDC there are 50,000 new cases of HIV per year in the US, with and estimated 17,200 being non drug injecting, heterosexuals. Still seems to be a significant problem in the US. As you also point out it is a bigger problem in underdeveloped countries (most of the world’s population) were there is not access to expensive AIDS drugs.

For me, I would not knowingly risk my spouse if I carried a dangerous STD regardless of how small the risk is. I certainly wouldn’t ask my spouse to take a drug to lower their chances of contracting a disease so that I could enjoy some sex. Absolutely not relying on condoms which have a very real chance of failure (which is what we were discussing).

 

[Thorolfr]

For me, I would not knowingly risk my spouse if I carried a dangerous STD regardless of how small the risk is. I certainly wouldn’t ask my spouse to take a drug to lower their chances of contracting a disease so that I could enjoy some sex. Absolutely not relying on condoms which have a very real chance of failure (which is what we were discussing).

Almost nothing in life is risk free. Just driving a car down the road has a risk of being hit by another driver. Should someone therefore refrain from driving a car?

And some couples where one of them is HIV positive but has a suppressed viral load through HIV medications and the other has used pre-exposure prophylaxis have decided to have unprotected sex not because they want to “enjoy some sex” but because they want to conceive a child and have a family.

A new pill could enable people living with HIV to conceive children through sex without risking the health of their HIV-negative partner.

HIV and pregnancy is not a topic we hear a lot about in Australia. But the incredible success of antiretroviral treatment (ART) means most Australians diagnosed with HIV assume a long and healthy life, along with the milestones of sex, relationships and family.

In 2012-13, 108 children were born to HIV-positive mothers, up from 50 in 2004-05. While we don’t have the data for children born to HIV-positive fathers, there are likely to be many more.

The well-managed use of ART means mother-to-child transmission of HIV is rare in Australia.

For a person living with HIV, however, achieving a pregnancy is not without its complications. Condoms are central to safe sex – the main protection against transmission of HIV – but of course condoms also protect against pregnancy.

For heterosexual people in a sero-discordant relationship (where one person is HIV-positive, the other HIV-negative), options for conceiving children have tended to be either expensive or risky. At the expensive end are fertility treatments, such as sperm washing and in vitro fertilisation.

At the riskier end, many couples take a chance on sex without a condom. If the HIV-positive partner is on ART and the virus has been suppressed in their system, then recent studies suggest this can be a relatively safe option.

But a new drug could make this risk virtually negligible. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a course of a combination ART drug called Truvada that HIV-negative people take to prevent them becoming infected.

theconversation.com/people-with-hiv-can-conceive-naturally-without-infecting-partner-or-child-40559

 

[whm]

Almost nothing in life is risk free. Just driving a car down the road has a risk of being hit by another driver. Should someone therefore refrain from driving a car?

More like taking your car for a ride knowing that the seat belt doesn’t work. There is something different about your car compared to the average car… I am saying, that I wouldn’t do it.

And some couples where one of them is HIV positive but has a suppressed viral load through HIV medications and the other has used pre-exposure prophylaxis have decided to have unprotected sex not because they want to “enjoy some sex” but because they want to conceive a child and have a family.

Well I guess you rendered you HIV tie-in to justify condoms moot. … I still wouldn’t do it.

 

[Thorolfr]

Well I guess you rendered you HIV tie-in to justify condoms moot. … I still wouldn’t do it.

Not really moot since a couple where one of them is HIV positive wouldn’t want to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the uninfected person all the time. These medications do have side effects and are expensive. So I suspect that such couples would usually only rarely have unprotected sex with PrEP when they wanted to conceive a child and would otherwise use protection (i.e. a condom).

 

[clem456]

Because it’s difficult to practice.

 

[Rau]

So they’re questioning Christ?!? (I speak as a fool).

Is it a sin to state that the Church needs to re-consider and re-examine certain positions in order to better align herself with her fundamental Gospel message?

Such a statement is certainly presumptuous if the “position” in question is its teaching on a matter of faith and morals. Did Christ not establish a Church and give it teaching authority with a promise that what is is loosed or bound on earth would be loosed or bound in heaven?

If the “position” relates to some secular legal position adopted on some matter, then no, your comment may be entirely in order.

 

[PhiloMed]

Not really moot since a couple where one of them is HIV positive wouldn’t want to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the uninfected person all the time. These medications do have side effects and are expensive. So I suspect that such couples would usually only rarely have unprotected sex with PrEP when they wanted to conceive a child and would otherwise use protection (i.e. a condom).

No that’s not how it works.

I prescribe it for three months at a time. Assuming they continue to have an HIV+ but suppressed partner I continue to prescribe on a Q 3 month basis with monitoring.

It’s really not as complicated as you all are assuming. It is safe and well tolerated.

 

[Thorolfr]

No that’s not how it works.

I prescribe it for three months at a time. Assuming they continue to have an HIV+ but suppressed partner I continue to prescribe on a Q 3 month basis with monitoring.

It’s really not as complicated as you all are assuming. It is safe and well tolerated.

I wouldn’t say that HIV medications are completely safe over long periods of time. I know a number of people with HIV who have suffered kidney damage, for example, from taking tenofovir, one the three medications in Truvada. Almost no medications are without side effects.

 

[PhiloMed]

I wouldn’t say that HIV medications are completely safe over long periods of time. I know a number of people with HIV who have suffered kidney damage, for example, from taking tenofovir, one the three medications in Truvada. Almost no medications are without side effects.

Truvada has two medications in it.

And yes, tenofovir has been associated with renal impairment but that is the reason for monitoring.

Never the less, prep isn’t typically just used intermittently in cases of monogamous discordant couples.

 

[TMC]

So they’re questioning Christ?!? (I speak as a fool).

Is it a sin to state that the Church needs to re-consider and re-examine certain positions in order to better align herself with her fundamental Gospel message?

Of course not, it is rather the duty of Catholics to do so.

 

[Rau]

Of course not, it is rather the duty of Catholics to do so.

Catholics should anticipate the Magisterium will teach in error, and then point this out. That’s our duty is it?

 

[clem456]

Catholics should anticipate the Magisterium will teach in error, and then point this out. That’s our duty is it?

Not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you being sarcastic?

 

[Rau]

Not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you being sarcastic?

Yes. Paraphrasing the other poster.

 

[Abu]

Originally Posted by loumeland
So they’re questioning Christ?!? (I speak as a fool).
Is it a sin to state that the Church needs to re-consider and re-examine certain positions in order to better align herself with her fundamental Gospel message?
TMC #1075
Of course not, it is rather the duty of Catholics to do so.

The reality is that neither dogma nor infallible doctrine may be questioned and non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. (See post #175)