Replies

Abstinence from an act that would most likely be fatal is not a hardship, it may be a challenge, but it’s not on par with abstaining form food, drink or shelter.

The article states that the men will not abstain. That would condemn their wives to exposure to AIDS.

So, the wives should just endure martyrdom? Just like that?

So, the wives should just endure martyrdom? Just like that?

I don't know, actually. I can’t help but feel less than enthusiastic about the use of condoms for anything. There are other solutions, this one happens to be both the easiest and the most socially acceptable. Doesn't mean it’s the right solution.

Dear sinkspur,

I think that part of the confusion is in who, precisely, commits the sin.

I remember reading once (if I recall correctly, the source was a document from the Vatican giving guidance to confessors on how to handle those who raise the issue of contraception within the context of the confessional), about contraception, that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, it is quite possible that the non-Catholic will refuse the Church's teaching regarding contraception. In this case, there are two issues: the right of even the non-Catholic spouse to the use of the marriage; and the immorality of contraception.

I remember reading that should the non-Catholic spouse absolutely insist on always and everywhere using a means of contraception, the Catholic spouse may not deny the use of marriage because of it. The Catholic spouse is obliged to raise the matter of the immorality of contraception with his or her spouse, and within the context of the marital relationship, try to persuade, over time, the non-Catholic spouse to accept the Church's teaching.

But the Catholic spouse did not sin by engaging in marital relations even though his or her spouse used contraceptive methods.

Even more so in a culture where men take the use of marriage often by force, it seems that the use of condoms by the man might be tolerated by the woman.

sitetest