Replies

A previous article posted here detailed discussions within the church, where church officials were telling MARRIED women, who had HIV+ husbands, NOT to use condoms. The statements were that (paraphrasing) 'latex condoms have pores 10,000 times the size of the AIDS virus, thus condoms offer no protection from AIDS'. This statement is absurdly false, and the church's false information 'will' (as in definitely) cause the needless deaths of thousands.

Condom use is not reserved only to the single people, and now condom use is no longer reserved for the purpose of birth control. Condoms are a form of protection (or saving your life) while partaking in sexual relations within a marriage.

It seems to me that a married woman with a husband who is HIV+ has bigger problems than the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is simply making a very direct, relevant point -- in a scenario like the one you mentioned, abstinence is the only way to prevent transmission of the disease. Condoms may reduce the odds of transmission, but they don't prevent it.

A previous article posted here detailed discussions within the church, where church officials were telling MARRIED women, who had HIV+ husbands, NOT to use condoms. The statements were that (paraphrasing) 'latex condoms have pores 10,000 times the size of the AIDS virus, thus condoms offer no protection from AIDS'. This statement is absurdly false, and the church's false information 'will' (as in definitely) cause the needless deaths of thousands.

Could you link the article or thread?

I would like to see it because I don't think the church has made such a statement.

Additionally, condoms may reduce the risk of AIDS transmission, however, this is meaningless. If they reduce the risk ro just 2% of unprotected sex, continous sex, with a condom, only delays the date of transmission it does not prevent it. In other words, if you keep indulging in behavior with a 2% risk factor each time you indulge, it is very likely your number will come up sooner or later.