Condoms??


#1

Ok, here’s an argument I heard today, speaking with a friend.

If a person has, say, AIDS because their mother had AIDS and they did nothing wrong and gets married, how can they have sex?

I replied that they can’t. Abstain, or go ahead without a condom.

The retort was that the said person didn’t want to give their spouse AIDS.

And so I said, abstinence.

The reply was, but they really, really want to have sex, what then? Would God really do that to a person, make them not have sex? Can’t they just use the condom?

I didn’t know how to reply, can anyone help me? Is there even a reply to this? I know this is a worst-case scenerio, but I’m sure it’s happened somewhere.


#2

There was a pretty lively debate on this exact subject within this thread:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=41405&highlight=condoms

I argued that one must abstain (I believe that this is the Church’s position too). Check it out!


#3

God does not make us do anything, or as has been said: God does not give permission, we take permission. The fact is that sex with a condom is not really sex–it’s mutual masturbation. This AIDs from mother scenario is very cute, but really it is a rather lame attempt to get the camel’s nose in the tent. That is, try to find a somewhat outlandish exception, get us to concede, then logically there is nothing stopping the exception becoming the norm.

Scott


#4

Since it’s possible to contract AIDS from one sexual encounter and condoms have microscopic holes that the AIDS virus can swim right through, I would say no.

If I had AIDS or other STD I would never risk putting someone at risk by having sex with them. I mean, I wash my hands almost cumpulsively when I have a cold so I minimize spreading it around. I would be devastated if I spread something that was deadly or incurable.


#5

[quote=Blood Rain]Since it’s possible to contract AIDS from one sexual encounter and condoms have microscopic holes that the AIDS virus can swim right through, I would say no.

[/quote]

From a moral standpoint, "**Legitimate intentions **on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399).


#6

The spanish bishops gave the answer that women could wear condoms if their husband was suspect of aids of course Rome made them retract that one.

There coudl be a case of the Spanish Bishops using Aquians argument of double effect to permit condom uses in some circumstances just as we use double effect to sometimes permit abortions for pregnancy that would resulte for death for both mother and baby.
But Rome and especially this pope does not agree with this and holds to no condoms no matter what.
But it is a legitamate point to be debated but the teaching remains the same as of now.


#7

[quote=Maccabees]The spanish bishops gave the answer that women could wear condoms if their husband was suspect of aids of course Rome made them retract that one.

There coudl be a case of the Spanish Bishops using Aquians argument of double effect to permit condom uses in some circumstances just as we use double effect to sometimes permit abortions for pregnancy that would resulte for death for both mother and baby.
But Rome and especially this pope does not agree with this and holds to no condoms no matter what.
But it is a legitamate point to be debated but the teaching remains the same as of now.
[/quote]

Unfortunately they failed ro remember the last portion of the reqirement for double effect…The course of action must be truly necessary…ie no other means to achieve the good end.

Matt


#8

Matt, I don’t think they forgot that. I would assume they would posit the good end being obtained as engaging in conjugal relations without contracting disease, for which good end the means of using condoms would be necessary. The question would be, ISTM, whether this means is intrinsically evil or not. If the Pope and doctrinal officials in Rome say it is, I’m reasonably confident that they would be right.

What occurs to me is that using condoms here may be intrinsically evil because you can’t separate the blocking of the virus from the blocking of the sperm. It’s one blocking action if you will that blocks both things. It’s not as if the blocking of the virus causes the blocking of the sperm. And the blocking of the sperm can’t be separated causally from the blocking action itself, the blocking action is the blocking of the sperm along with the virus and other things. But I could be wrong.

If there were a “condom” that blocked things in a way such that only the virus was blocked, then I think it would probably be OK.


#9

I’d say quit blaming it on God. They chose not to have sex because they did not want to share germs. They also chose to get married knowing that this was an issue. If they later mutually decide that having sex is preferable over maintaining quarantine, God’s not going to stop them; as married people they have authority over each others’ bodies.

Can’t they just use the condom?

Sure they can, but they do so against the clear teachings of the Church, some renegade confessors notwithstanding. Is this hypothetical couple Catholic?

I didn’t know how to reply, can anyone help me? Is there even a reply to this? I know this is a worst-case scenerio, but I’m sure it’s happened somewhere.

Sure there’s a reply. If they’re Catholic they are supposed to follow the rules. I am not a theologian but I’m guessing that means no condoms.
I have no doubt this scenario does occur in real life. In just the 100 or so tax returns I’ve done this year for H&R Block I’ve seen an incredible variety of family and living situations.

Alan


#10

[quote=Pro-Life_Teen]Ok, here’s an argument I heard today, speaking with a friend.

If a person has, say, AIDS because their mother had AIDS and they did nothing wrong and gets married, how can they have sex?

I replied that they can’t. Abstain, or go ahead without a condom.

The retort was that the said person didn’t want to give their spouse AIDS.

And so I said, abstinence.

The reply was, but they really, really want to have sex, what then? Would God really do that to a person, make them not have sex? Can’t they just use the condom?

I didn’t know how to reply, can anyone help me? Is there even a reply to this? I know this is a worst-case scenerio, but I’m sure it’s happened somewhere.
[/quote]

What if you gave them this scenario:

Suppose a guy has an accident and is left paralyzed from the waist down, he is therefore left impotent by the accident. He becomes and adult falls in love and gets married. They really really want to have sex, what do they do?

The answer is simple, if a woman only wants to marry a man she can have sex with then she should not marry a man that is paralyzed! True or false?

So it is also true that if a woman wants to marry a man that she can have sex with without contracting Aids, she marries a man that doesn’t have Aids!

Quite simple actually! :slight_smile:


#11

[quote=Pro-Life_Teen]The reply was, but they really, really want to have sex, what then? Would God really do that to a person, make them not have sex? Can’t they just use the condom?
[/quote]

Well, I really, really want a new TV. I can survive without it, but I really want it. It’s still not ok for me to steal it. As for giving up sex for God, look at priests.

Eamon


#12

[quote=martino]What if you gave them this scenario:

Suppose a guy has an accident and is left paralyzed from the waist down, he is therefore left impotent by the accident. He becomes and adult falls in love and gets married. They really really want to have sex, what do they do?
[/quote]

Impotence is probably not the best comparison because it can be a full-fledged impediment to marriage; that is, the Church might not marry him to someone at all if the impotence is really complete and irreversible (the marriage cannot be consumated).


#13

[quote=Pug]Impotence is probably not the best comparison because it can be a full-fledged impediment to marriage; that is, the Church might not marry him to someone at all if the impotence is really complete and irreversible (the marriage cannot be consumated).
[/quote]

I think its a good comparison because in both cases the woman has full knowledge before they marry that she will 1)not be able to have sex with her husband or 2) not be able to have sex with her husband without the possibility of contracting AIDS.

Is it then unfair that she should find herself in either position?


#14

Martino, I definitely see your point that in both cases she knew what she was in for. It is not unfair if she knowingly married a man with whom she cannot have relations (impotence) and as a result she cannot have relations. She can hardly complain. It would be unfair to her husband if she did complain. I completely agree about this.

I just got hung up because the scenario is impossible. The Church never will marry a permanently impotent man to someone if it is known in advance that he is that way. Don’t worry about me, I just get hung up in details now and then.:whacky:


#15

[quote=Pug]Martino, I definitely see your point that in both cases she knew what she was in for. It is not unfair if she knowingly married a man with whom she cannot have relations (impotence) and as a result she cannot have relations. She can hardly complain. It would be unfair to her husband if she did complain. I completely agree about this.

I just got hung up because the scenario is impossible. The Church never will marry a permanently impotent man to someone if it is known in advance that he is that way. Don’t worry about me, I just get hung up in details now and then.:whacky:
[/quote]

Thanks Pug–

The girl in my scenario as well as in original scenario is just plain out of luck…no body can help her at that point. She is in the situation she is in because of the choices that she made, so even though it may be very difficult for her, it still doesn’t justify using a condom, which is an intrinsically evil act.

That doesn’t seem like a good enough answer but there really is no moral alternative. The person asking the question in the first place is employing moral relativism. Everyone thinks that their situation should be an exception to the rule but there are no exceptions with intrinsically evil acts.


#16

[quote=Pug]The Church never will marry a permanently impotent man to someone if it is known in advance that he is that way.
[/quote]

Holy cow. Is that for real? What if a person has been castrated due to cancer?

Alan


#17

[quote=AlanFromWichita]Holy cow. Is that for real? What if a person has been castrated due to cancer?
[/quote]

I was just thinking the same thing - would they seriously not marry a guy for that. If it isn’t his fault, then why would the church deny him the sacrament of marriage when he did not choose impotence? Would they deny a woman marriage if it were not physically possible for her to have children as well? I would really like to know how this one works.

Eamon


#18

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.

The question would be, can you have a dispensation from this? What I have read in the past has indicated no. If I had to guess why not, I would guess because it nullifies marriage by its very nature.

Please be aware that if the man becomes permanently impotent later on in a marriage, maybe prostate trouble or cancer or war, this is no problem for the marriage. It is only the before marriage kind of impotence (antecedent) that can be trouble.

It seems like it would be a huge cross.

PS Eamon, your question is answered in the last section. Sterility is not a problem. Just total permanent inability to consumate.

Also, to be sure my citation is clear, it comes from the CIC on the vatican site here.


#19

[quote=Pug]PS Eamon, your question is answered in the last section. Sterility is not a problem. Just total permanent inability to consumate.
[/quote]

Thanks, got it. Sorry for not reading :o

Eamon


#20

[quote=turboEDvo]Thanks, got it. Sorry for not reading :o

Eamon
[/quote]

Ooops, I didn’t mean the other super long thread, I meant my post below in the third section of the canon that I quoted. I hadn’t posted it yet, but I just noticed your question pop up when I did the post preview, so I fixed my post with the PS so that you’d know to look in it for your answer. My bad.:o You didn’t miss anything (well, I don’t think I read that whole long thread either so maybe we both missed it…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.