The Missing Premise in the HIV-Condom Debate

In a recent article in this journal, "Condoms and HIV: The State of the Debate," William Newton argues that there are basically two issues around which parties dispute. The first is whether the use of a condom by a discordant couple amounts to performing a contraceptive act. At issue here is whether a couple's use of a condom to prevent disease transmission renders the act a contraceptive act. The second issue pertains to whether the use of a condom, apart from whatever the intentions of the agents are, is itself a failure to consummate a marital act. It is the second issue that I wish to address in this paper. I aim to argue that the Canon-Law argument, as I will call it, wishes to argue that because condomistic sex fails to consummate a marriage, the sexual act performed is immoral. I argue against this inference on two grounds: the first is that the conclusion succumbs to counterexamples, and second, the inference must rely on a premise that I show is false.