Condoms and HIV

[Jordan_Francis]

I’ve been grilled lately by my non-Catholic and non-Christian friends regarding the Pope’s recent comments. I explain to them that, personally and practically speaking, I believe that, for people who are going to have sexual relations outside of marriage, condoms should by all means be used to prevent disease- that is to say, if they are adamant about behaving in this way. It is highly unreasonable to expect the Pope to make such a concession however. If we are going to act immorally, it is up to us to reason out the safest way. It is not the Pope’s job to guide us down that road.

However, I try to explain to them that when the Pope speaks his critics can not isolate his statements regarding condoms from the larger picture that Catholics have in mind and our understanding of the real place of human sexuality within marriage. From this perspective, even though condoms might alleviate suffering, they do not strike the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and viruses at their root- promiscuity. The Church sees the HIV crisis as the result, in no small way, of a great lapse in fidelity. Condoms, which promote promiscuity, then can only be part of the problem when looked at from more than the present moment. They promote the very attitude which made HIV such a force, even though they simultaneously shield many people from its affects.

My question, however, is how do I respond to the accusation that the Pope simply does not have the facts? He did, after all, make an empirically verifiable claim- that condoms worsen the problem of HIV in Africa. I have seen many people criticize him on that point in particular. If this is true, why do so many people think condoms largely stem the spread of HIV? Whose statistics and studies are we using?

Are condoms making the problem worse now? Or is it understood that they will, in the grander scheme, ultimately make matters worse?

 

[kennewickmike]

There is already a discussion thread on this at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=321110
There are lots of reasons there

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’ve been grilled lately by my non-Catholic and non-Christian friends regarding the Pope’s recent comments. I explain to them that, personally and practically speaking, I believe that, for people who are going to have sexual relations outside of marriage, condoms should by all means be used to prevent disease- that is to say, if they are adamant about behaving in this way. It is highly unreasonable to expect the Pope to make such a concession however. If we are going to act immorally, it is up to us to reason out the safest way. It is not the Pope’s job to guide us down that road.

But these friends of your have got to realize the insanity the world is preaching to us. This is a serious and deadly disease and we should in no way encourage it. For them to say lets look for the “safest way” is turning a blind eye to the sickening and perverse notion that someone would gladly use someone even if it meant spreading a disease to them. Showering condoms from the sky encourages the promiscuity, and in no way prevents or stops, rather the world has given them a false sense of protection.

If I had a contageous disease spread by air contact, it would be uncharitable (in fact a sin) for me to walk in public, yet they are encouraging people to fornicate, that means increase their risk if they don’t have the disease and have more sex if they have the disease. And AIDS isn’t the only STD, there are other prominent ones as well.

However, I try to explain to them that when the Pope speaks his critics can not isolate his statements regarding condoms from the larger picture that Catholics have in mind and our understanding of the real place of human sexuality within marriage. From this perspective, even though condoms might alleviate suffering, they do not strike the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and viruses at their root- promiscuity. The Church sees the HIV crisis as the result, in no small way, of a great lapse in fidelity. Condoms, which promote promiscuity, then can only be part of the problem when looked at from more than the present moment. They promote the very attitude which made HIV such a force, even though they simultaneously shield many people from its affects.

Amen, you see the picture very clearly.

My question, however, is how do I respond to the accusation that the Pope simply does not have the facts? He did, after all, make an empirically verifiable claim- that condoms worsen the problem of HIV in Africa. I have seen many people criticize him on that point in particular. If this is true, why do so many people think condoms largely stem the spread of HIV? Whose statistics and studies are we using?

Here is the problem, there are TWO issues being discussed and most people don’t see it.

1. The WORLD hears “condoms are bad” and says SCIENTIFICALLY that is false because they CAN (maybe not always) reduce the spread by BLOCKING the virus.
2. The CHURCH is saying “condoms are bad” BECAUSE they encourage a false understanding of sexuality and encourage fornication…the ROOT of why and how the disease is spreading. The Church is NOT arguing about how protective science has been able to make the rubber quality, how effective it is at BLOCKING the virus is a SEPARATE and IRRELEVANT issue in light of the TRUE understanding of sexuality and fidelity and chastity.

The issue is NOT about ‘science’ because it is obvious if you block the “act” the virus chances of spreading go down. The issue is playing the odds by encouraging fornication as long as you dont get infected, and further encouraging those infected to go out because the chance of them spreading it are reduced with condoms.

The WORLD/MEDIA does NOT want to hear about the issue of promiscuity, their ears are blocked and they are singing a different song. A song about pure hedonism and greed. If they gave a damn about Africans, they would be screaming about Darfur and other such injustices, but instead all we wear is ‘aids this’ and ‘aids that’ and ‘condoms this’ and ‘condoms that’. As Catholic Bill Donohue said in response to the media attack of the pope: Isn’t it time we learned condom worship is irrational?

Are condoms making the problem worse now? Or is it understood that they will, in the grander scheme, ultimately make matters worse?

You MUST show your friends there are two issues at work here. The issue is not “scientific” in terms of whether class-A grade-A super-thick quality Brazilian rubber can block the virus, that is obviously true. A plastic shopping bag could block the virus to a degree as well. Using any conceivable barrier reduces the chance.
The REAL issue is encouraging a generation of people to fornicate because they think they are ‘safe’ when engaging in dangerous behavior.

 

[edwest2]

Having sex is a choice made by each individual. The Church does not force anyone to do so. HIV is primarily transmitted through bodily fluids during sex. But really bad thinking is occurring:

Condoms are not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. The same is true with HIV.

Sex is designed for reproduction. That’s it. HIV/AIDS happens only because a person willingly puts himself at risk by choosing to have sex with (A) someone they don’t know, (B) a prostitute or (C) someone they do know but who has not been tested.

Abstinance is 100% effective against HIV and all other STDs. Period. Fact.

So if anyone wants to take a chance, they have to know that they are risking their own lives for some brief physical experience.

The reality is, too many people think sex outside of marriage is OK. What’s the big deal, right? HIV/AIDS is a big deal. Do they want to risk death for sex?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’ve been grilled lately by my non-Catholic and non-Christian friends regarding the Pope’s recent comments. I explain to them that, personally and practically speaking, I believe that, for people who are going to have sexual relations outside of marriage, condoms should by all means be used to prevent disease- that is to say, if they are adamant about behaving in this way. It is highly unreasonable to expect the Pope to make such a concession however. If we are going to act immorally, it is up to us to reason out the safest way. It is not the Pope’s job to guide us down that road.

However, I try to explain to them that when the Pope speaks his critics can not isolate his statements regarding condoms from the larger picture that Catholics have in mind and our understanding of the real place of human sexuality within marriage. From this perspective, even though condoms might alleviate suffering, they do not strike the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and viruses at their root- promiscuity. The Church sees the HIV crisis as the result, in no small way, of a great lapse in fidelity. Condoms, which promote promiscuity, then can only be part of the problem when looked at from more than the present moment. They promote the very attitude which made HIV such a force, even though they simultaneously shield many people from its affects.

My question, however, is how do I respond to the accusation that the Pope simply does not have the facts? He did, after all, make an empirically verifiable claim- that condoms worsen the problem of HIV in Africa. I have seen many people criticize him on that point in particular. If this is true, why do so many people think condoms largely stem the spread of HIV? Whose statistics and studies are we using?

Are condoms making the problem worse now? Or is it understood that they will, in the grander scheme, ultimately make matters worse?

The problem is that “they” do not seem to have the facts. The media does not want to report the facts. Condoms when used are only 80% effective even against pregnancy and then only when, they are high quality and are used properly. It is known that the HIV virus is smaller than the pores in many condoms. Many STD’s in addition to HIV are easily transmitted even when using condoms. So promoting condom use as the means to reduce HIV transmission is at best misleading and promotes engaging in poor behavior.

 

[allhers]

Condom fact sheet
hli.org/condom_facts_sheet_failure.html

 

[kabuchu]

One of the leading newspapers in my country-Uganda-published an article by a British “researcher” roundly condemning the Pope’s remarks. My apologetic sense prompted a quick letter to the editor in rejoinder. I do not know if it will be published—although my letters usually get published. Here is what I wrote in reply to the attacks on the Holy Father. Hope it helps.

POPE BENEDICT IS RIGHT ABOUT CONDOMS In your Thursday 19th March 2009 issue, Ela Soyemi unfairly attacks Pope Benedict over his statements in Cameroon to the effect that condoms are not the solution to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Research shows that in every African country where HIV infections have declined, the decline has been associated with decrease in the number of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of one year. In addition, decrease in premarital sex among young people has also been associated with decline in HIV prevalence.

Harvard researcher Edward Green and director of AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard pointed out that if AIDS prevention is to be based on evidence rather than ideology or bias, fidelity and abstinence programs need to be at the centre of programs for the general population. He notes that current responses to the AIDS pandemic have been driven not by evidence but ideology, bias and false assumptions.

Wide documentation shows that the critical factor that helped to bring down HIV rates in this country was not increased condom use but reductions in the number of sexual partners. Besides, a study conducted by the Health Ministry indicated that areas such as West Nile which have the lowest access to condoms had the lowest HIV prevalence rates in comparison to the rest of Uganda. Evidence shows that changes in sexual behaviour has been responsible for bringing down HIV rates in Kenya, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Thailand and Cambodia as well as urban areas of Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Zambia and Malawi.

Ela Soyemi’s advocacy for condoms is no longer supported by serious AIDS researchers and scholarship. The prestigious science journal “The Lancet” in an article published in December 2007 by Shelton James conceded that condoms alone have limited impact in generalized HIV epidemics like those in Sub-saharan Africa. Similarly, a 2004 UNAIDS commissioned review of evidence for condom use concluded that there are no definite examples yet of generalized epidemics that have been turned back by prevention programs based primarily on condom promotion.

An article in the Lancet of 2000 had already stated that massive increases in condom use had not translated into demonstrably improved HIV control in the great majority of countries. A March 2004 article by Norman Hearts and Sanny Chen in the reputable

Scientific journal Studies in Family Planning pointed out that between 1992 and 2001, condom sales in Cameroon—where the Pope made his remarks—increased from 6 million to 15 million yet the HIV prevalence tripled from 3 percent to 9 percent. They concluded that condoms are only effective among high risk groups such as prostitutes but not the ordinary folk.

Similarly, medical journalist Helen Epstein in a highly praised 2007 book “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West and the Fight against AIDS” conceded that condoms alone will not stop the virus since the evidence shows that increases in condoms still yielded higher HIV prevalence rates.

Evidence is stronger for fidelity and abstinence before marriage as having brought down HIV prevalence rates-- which is what the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies have been saying all along. The bias against fidelity and abstinence originating from the Western notion of sexual freedom obscured the reality in favour of a multi-billion dollar global AIDS industry as opposed to support programs that are low cost, home grown and which place reliance on simple behaviour change as opposed to medical services and products by the “medical experts”.