Dear Rachel:

The virtue of chastity belongs to the state of marriage too; it is not just for the unmarried.

In marriage, the virtue of chastity relates not only to fidelity to the marriage but also to the proper ordering of marital relations. The sexual faculty is not to be abused in or out of marriage. Marital relations are to be a mutual self-giving of one another to each other.

This means that using sex as a weapon (e.g., the wife's mad at me and is withholding sex to punish me) or using sex as a lustful demand or demand of power (e.g. my husband demands sex from me even when I do not desire it -- and perhaps even pressures me or forces me) VIOLATES this mutual self-giving and thus violates the virtue of chastity.

In the United States, in most jurisdictions, if a husband forces his wife to have sex he can be brought up on charges of rape or some other charge of sexual assault. If a person who knows he has HIV forces someone, even his wife, to have sex then other changes can be applied in addition to sexual battery.

Regardless of the state of civil law on these matters, the moral law in such scenarios remains the same.

If a husband contracts HIV (regardless of how) and insists that his wife have sex, she has the right, under God, to refuse. If the husband will not relent, then she as the right to separate from him to protect herself.

In the old days there was a legal instrument called a "Legal Separation." This legal document divided the property, appointed custody of children, assigned child support and/or alimony but left the marriage technically intact under civil law.

That procedure is rarely if ever used these days. Thus, bishops have given permission for a woman to divorce her husband with the understanding that as far as the Church is concerned she is still married and the "divorce," in the eyes of the Church, is nothing more than a "legal separation" to protect her rights and safety. She remains married under God, of course, unless and until such time the Church may determine that a Sacramental Marriage never existed in the first place.

There is no Catholic divorce. Divorce is not possible if one truly has a Sacramental marriage. No civil court, no priest, no marriage tribunal, no pope can terminate a valid sacramental marriage. But, one can be separated for the protection and good of the spouses and the children if necessary.

Thus, the solution to the wife in your story is that she needs to leave her husband to protect herself from sexual battery and worse. The Church will support her in this, even if it means a divorce to establish the protection of her rights under the law, as long as she understands that she remains married under God and the Church unless the Church determines a Decree of Nullity.

Barrier methods prevent pregnancy by preventing the sperm from meeting up with the egg (thus the barrier), and do nothing to prevent sexually transmitted diseases of any kind. The disease is transmitted from the contaminated semen through the membranes of the vagina. Only a male condom can prevent the semen from entering the vagina entirely (assuming no leaks, etc.)

But, even the use of a male condom does not actually protect one from the virus. I know the popular media and pro-sex people promote such practice as "safe-sex," but the virus is smaller than the spaces between molecules in the latex of a condom and thus it can potentially get through the latex to infect one's partner. The only "safe-sex" is "no sex."

The only way to truly protect herself is to run out the door to get away from her abuser, if she can.

In the event that she cannot get away from her husband who is, in essence, about to attack her, perhaps it can be morally licit to ask her husband to put on a condom (which is the only thing that might reduce chances of infection at least, but, as I mentioned does not guarantee prevention). Her motivation here is not birth control, but as self-defense against a diseased attacker. But, then she needs to get out and away from her husband as soon as possible.

By the way, I do not think the "openness to life of every marital act" applies to rape. This is not a "marital act" that even remotely relates to a "mutual self-giving," but is, rather, a brutal sexual attack.

That is my take on this, at least. I would have to consult with a moral theologian to get the nuanced particulars on the last two paragraphs.

One thing is for sure, however, that if one becomes pregnany from rape, a baby may not be killed by procured abortion or by "day after" pills and the like. Once life is created, regardless of how it came about, that life must be protected.

I hope this helps.

God bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary