What if a person will marry and the day after the wedding he will find out that he is (or why not she) are HIV-positive. Would the use of a condom be justified?
The use of a condom is never justified for any reason. However, if they have not consummated their marriage yet, their bishop can nullify their marriage. If they have, the other partner should hope they didn’t contract the HIV, but they should probably remain celibate for as long as the other partner tests HIV-negative. You can be celibate and in a marriage.
Condoms are effective at minimizing the spread of HIV.
They should be used to prevent the spread.
One would be called to continence in such a situation.
The Church’s teaching is clear that condoms are not a moral solution to such an issue. Condoms may not be used in any circumstance.
I believe the OP was looking for Catholic teaching on this.
Then why would they ask? Clearly everyone knows the catholic stance by this point.
If only that were true.
I offer that most of these are lightly veiled attempts to open an argument against the postion of zero tolerance for condoms.
If that were the intent why not stick to statements like if abortion is wrong condemning a child to live with HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, that have a lower chance of survival, is similar.
Was not looking to argue this just not sure why the OP doesn’t just come out and ask it.
NO! The use of condoms is not justified under any circumstances. In the situation you describe abstinence (continence) is the only solution.
How comes that the use of condom is immoral but leaving your partner for finding out he or she has an HIV isn’t?
What happened to the “in sickness and in health” thing?
I believe the poster you replied to misapplied the Church teaching to this circumstance.
Church Teaching: No bishop can nullify a marriage. A marriage is either valid, or it is not. If it is valid, no bishop can declare it otherwise.
The bottom line in the what if, is that the use of a condom during sex destroys the intended meaning of the marital act and, as such, it is an intrinsic evil. It is a evil means to a potential good end. As an evil means it can never be a moral choice.
The Pope (not a Bishop) can dissolve a valid, unconsummated marriage.
Perhaps the other poster was considering a case in which fraud or lack of disclosure was involved.
In general, such a case without fraud or other such circumstance would call for continence-- abstaining from sexual relations.
OK. Interesting. And I think I need to mention that it is a question that has nothing to do with me, not at all.
What I wonder about is the fact that there is no mercy what so ever. If we sin, we are absolved, almost no matter what the sin was. I think it is far from loving and understanding if a newly wedded couple, and the virus was transmitted from a let us say blood transfusion, should need to divorce/get a annulment for something they have nothing to do with. The Church teach love and comfort in almost every case. (And yes, I obey The RCC.) Use of a condom in wrong, for many reasons, among them not to father a child, not get any venereal disease if committing adultery/premarital sex, are valid reasons. But it feels so wrong that they have no chance of a life toghete as husband and wife. Please tell me where the mercy are in a case like this. It is a bit like if someone who are supposed to marry and then something happen and that something make it impossible to consumate the marriage, and we all know that a marriage not consumated is not valid. They can of course live like brother and sister, but if they feel they need the blessing and be married before living together. Love is strongest feeling we can have, and to denied that is in my mind not right.
Really? I disagree.
Mercy is to be found in God’s saving grace. None of deserves salvation, life, or anything else. If we end up in a situation where we are unable to have intercourse with our spouse, we receive grace through our service to the other, grace through our mutual striving for heaven, grace in the opportunity to love and care for each other.
And yet that sin has consequences sometimes. And even if we contract the disease through no fault of our own, it is someone else’s sin having consequences. The world is broken.
They don’t “need” to get a divorce or annulment. They can continue to live together in mutual continence.
It is not a matter of how we “feel”. It is a matter of doing what is right before God.
Please tell me why you think mercy should include allowing someone to commit a grave sin. Mercy is not looking the other way when there is a hard teaching. Jesus gave hard teachings, and some walked away. That was their choice. Jesus did not change the teaching.
No we do not all know that, because it is not true.
No one is denying anything.
As I did write, I respect you “1ke” and I am sure that you are right. And I maybe need to think a bit further before asking a stupid question. One thing though, the matter of consuming a marriage to make it valid, that came from an other Catholic web-site a long time ago, so I thought it was right because it was the moderator who did write that. (I did not take part of that debate, I reckon I get more stupid with every year I live.) But thank you for teach me that. It make my world much brighter because I thought it was cruel that for example a old couple, when it is more then obvious that “things” don’t “work” anymore could not get married if they so want. So something good came out of a dumb question, I feel better, I really do. Thank you and God bless, and thank’s for being on this forum.
No question is stupid and you are not stupid. How else are we to learn if we do not ask?
It appears that the OP was asking for a Catholic answer, given that this is a Catholic forum, and under our Moral Theology forum.
And for the record, it is not *’**if *abortion is wrong’. **Abortion ***IS *wrong.