Contraception and Aids

[Phazzan]

An interesting question was posed to Cardinal George Pell on an Australian radio station the other day. The question was in regards to the AIDS dilemma that is affecting the worldwide community, particulalry in Africa. The question was "if a mother of three children in Africa remains faithful to her husband, yet he doesn't and contracts AIDS in a extra-martial affair, should she be allowed to use contraception to protect herself from the disease?". The best Pell could answer was "no" but he did commend the bravery of the woman should ever such an event occur (and I'm sure it has).

So what is the Catholic Churches stance on a situation like this (hypothetically speaking)? Surely, there must be some way for this woman to protect herself from contracting this debilitating disease without sinning. I think for this woman to engage further in sexual intercourse without protecting herself in some way would be a sin in itself, because she would be exposing herself to the risk of contracting this disease, without taking necessary precautions for prevention.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

If there were such an event... why would the woman need/want to pursue further sexual intercourse with her husband?

And even besides the point... we are not animals, we don't need sex. Abstinence is not an unwise answer.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Fides_et_Ratio

[Madonna]

That's easier to say. I know of couples that have overcome unfaithfulness and restored their marriage. A huge part of being married is renewing the wedding vows through sex. It's beautiful. It's not "animalistic" to have sex. I don't think that the question even is that neither can control themselves. It's got to be rough not to be able to renew the oneness one has with his or her spouse.

That's a tough question. I don't know what I would say. The AIDS virus isn't always transmitted though. It would be rare that it wasn't. I say that if he still loves his wife and repents for his affair, the loving thing would not to expose his wife to his illness. They would probably have to live as brother and sister, but the choice is theirs.

[drewmeister2]

While I am not able to give you any document to back up what I am about to say, I do trust the person who gave me this information (a theology teacher I had a few years back, who was a Seminarian). He said that condoms do not protect against AIDS, because the fibers in the latex have big gaps, which allows the smaller AIDS virus to pass through. So you could still get AIDS, even with this form of contraception.

[Apotheoun]

She would not be required to have sexual intercourse with her husband, but neither may she do that which is objectively evil (i.e., using contraceptives) in order to achieve a good end. The ends do not justify the means.

God bless,
Todd

[Phazzan]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Dec 21 2004, 10:35 AM'] If there were such an event... why would the woman need/want to pursue further sexual intercourse with her husband?

And even besides the point... we are not animals, we don't need sex. Abstinence is not an unwise answer. [/quote]
Surely not, but I was under the impression if the husband wants se.x and the woman refuses she commits mortal sin, but perhaps there are times when the woman is within her rights to refuse sex.

[quote]While I am not able to give you any document to back up what I am about to say, I do trust the person who gave me this information (a theology teacher I had a few years back, who was a Seminarian). He said that condoms do not protect against AIDS, because the fibers in the latex have big gaps, which allows the smaller AIDS virus to pass through. So you could still get AIDS, even with this form of contraception. [/quote]

Though condoms protect against AIDS to an extent, they can fail, be used incorrectly and/or break. So yes, you can still get AIDS from using a condom, but the chances of contracting the disease are at a much lower risk. I don't think condoms are the answer though.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I did not intend to say that to sex was "animalistic" at all! Only that the thought that we need to have sex is animalistic.

What Apotheoun said was what I intended to get at... the woman cannot use an evil means to achieve a good end.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Dec 21 2004, 11:51 AM'] Surely not, but I was under the impression if the husband wants se.x and the woman refuses she commits mortal sin, but perhaps there are times when the woman is within her rights to refuse sex. [/quote]
The possibility of contracting AIDS would be reason enough to allow the woman to refuse sex. Not every request of sex is to be granted... only REASONABLE requests.

[Madonna]

I agree with Jillian. That sounds really sketchy. Women are not there to alleviate men's sexual urges.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Dec 21 2004, 08:51 AM'] Surely not, but I was under the impression if the husband wants sex and the woman refuses she commits mortal sin, but perhaps there are times when the woman is within her rights to refuse sex.

[. . .] [/quote]
This is not necessarily the case, the goods of marriage do not outweigh the woman's right to bodily integrity and good health; in other words, she doesn't have to kill herself in order to fulfill her husbands carnal desires. Moreover, if she is a mother, she has a duty to protect her health in order to raise her children.

God bless,
Todd

[drewmeister2]

Is it really a mortal sin if the woman refuses?

[Oik]

It is sinful for either spouse to use sex as a punishment. Withholding the marital embrace, unless for the correct reason, could be sinful.

[Madonna]

On the flip side, so is forcing sex.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Madonna

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='drewmeister2' date='Dec 21 2004, 01:00 PM'] Is it really a mortal sin if the woman refuses? [/quote]
It depends on why she refuses.

If a woman consistantly refuses to have sex with her husband, I think that would be considereed breaking the marital bond.


Hey Apotheoun what would be the church teaching on this?
Inquiring minds want to know.

[homeschoolmom]

Yeah, this is interesting...

[thessalonian]

Condoms are given way to much credit as a disease preventer. With regard to this question it is my belief that abstinance is the only reasonable answer. A husband who would risk his wife's life for his urges is most definitely not loving her. Further according to scripture agreed upon abstinance is totally permissible.

1 Corinthians 7:5
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

I most certainly would not see this as an exclusive situation (i.e. abstaining for prayer) under which abstinance is allowed. The thread's situation is quite permissible and even advisable.


Back to condoms. Anyone who wants to hear about their ability to stop disease should listen to Pam Stensel. With regard to STD in general they are only minorly effective as any contact in general transmits these deseases. Further the promoton of condoms and safe sex has given people a false sense of security, increasing the promiscuity in this country. Many STD's have no symptoms in some whom they infect. Cervical cancer is an epidemic. 1 in 2 people who are sexually active outside of marriage have an STD. Scary. So this promotin of condoms has to stop.

God bless

[HomeTeamFamily]

yea ive always been under the impression that condoms and other forms of birth control are not effective preventative measures against aids and other stds......

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:29 PM'] An interesting question was posed to Cardinal George Pell on an Australian radio station the other day.  The question was in regards to the AIDS dilemma that is affecting the worldwide community, particulalry in Africa.  The question was "if a mother of three children in Africa remains faithful to her husband, yet he doesn't and contracts AIDS in a extra-martial affair, should she be allowed to use contraception to protect herself from the disease?".  The best Pell could answer was "no" but he did commend the bravery of the woman should ever such an event occur (and I'm sure it has).

So what is the Catholic Churches stance on a situation like this (hypothetically speaking)?  Surely, there must be some way for this woman to protect herself from contracting this debilitating disease without sinning.  I think for this woman to engage further in sexual intercourse without protecting herself in some way would be a sin in itself, because she would be exposing herself to the risk of contracting this disease, without taking necessary precautions for prevention. [/quote]
Condoms do not protect people from HIV.

The pores in a condom are 50 times larger than the AIDS virus (HIV). HIV passes right through a condom.

A condom has the same chance protecting someone from AIDS as nothing at all... 1 in 5.

A condom ONLY protects people from 3 of the 63 known STD's.

"Safe Sex" is a lie put out by liberals to corrupt good young people.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 21, 2004 by ironmonk

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Even if a condom had an effective rate of 99% for preventing AIDS, it would still be unwise to have sex. Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber pistol? A reduced chance of a certain outcome doesn't reduce the severity of the undesired outcome. We're talking about a disease that will kill and can only be slowed down by a cocktail of drugs. Total abstinence is the only way to go.

[HomeTeamFamily]

[quote]Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber pistol? A reduced chance of a certain outcome doesn't reduce the severity of the undesired outcome.[/quote]

ooo i like that analogy!!!

werd up