[quote="choose_to_love, post:12, topic:203006"]
Jermosh, since you are the one, apparently, asserting that the use of a condom within marriage to prevent the spread of disease is licit, perhaps you could show us some authoritative Church document which supports this interpretation, rather than readers having to prove that canon law does not permit it.
How do you reconcile your position with HV 13: ". . . an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will." and
HV 14: " . . the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children" and " . . to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general."
There are plenty of links on this issue from theologians, bishops and cardinals about using a PPD in a marriage in the case of HIV. Google them if you want, there are opinions on both sides of the issue.
But lets take the case of therapeutic use of the "pill", it can be morally licit, and there is no need to abstain from sex during this time in a marriage. How is this any different then using a PPD? In fact, the risk of creating a physical evil such as an untended abortion is removed.
The passages you quoted have no recognition with using a condom as a PPD, only as a contraceptive.