Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse

[miguel]

I don’t think that is a correct understanding of statistics. Saying that a condom fails 5% of the time does not translate to “the infection being passed 5 times out of every 100 sexual encounters.”

In this context, failure means exactly that. In a contraceptive context, failure equates to pregnancy. If you flip a coin twice, you could get heads two times in a row. You could get tails two times in a row. You could get both a head and a tail. Probability predicts half of the flips will come up heads. If you flip a coin 10 times, probability predicts you’ll get heads 5 times. You could get heads 4 times or 6 times. But the more you flip, let’s say 100 times, the closer you’ll get to the 50% predicted. Try it for yourself.

What it means is that with each and every sexual encounter, there’s a 5% chance of transmitting the virus.

This is another way of saying the same thing.

I’m just wondering why it’s illicit to use condoms, but ok to use the Pill for medical reasons.

It seems to me that the pill has been shown to have a legitimate medical purpose. But based on simple probability, I don’t think the same can be said for condoms.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

But what if the Holy Father did not look at this as a contraception issue, but as a disease prevention issue? Would it then be possible for the Church to advocate use of condoms in order to prevent disease, while the contraceptive effect of condoms was secondary?

Take the use of the Pill for medical reasons. The Church has no objection to its use for endometriosis, as long as the primary reason for using the Pill is not for its contraceptive properties.

Only someone with relativist ideas could truthfully think that the above is possible. The Church is not just against contraception…he is against sex outside of marriage, and all other immoral behavior, irregardless of how many people think that immoral behavior is acceptable.
What about what has been proven to be true about condoms failing one in every five times…so that they are not really safe in preventing diseases?

Would you have sex with someone who you know has aids if the person were willing to wear a condom?
Be honest.
You would not be willing to take the chance that the condom would fail to protect you. That is your intelligence at work.

So why is it alright to recommend to other poor, uneducated people that if the people with aids want to have sex with uninfected people, it is safe as long as they wear a condom?

It is immoral, inhumane and a LIE of the worst sort.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

How would this apply then to use of the Pill for medical reasons? If this is allowed, then why can’t condoms be allowed for medical reasons as well?

The church only allows the pill to be used by an unmarried woman. If there is even a chance that it could stop a pregnancy, the Church states that it cannot be used.

 

[miguel]

…It is immoral, inhumane and a LIE of the worst sort.

This is a classic case of how a lie spreads by repetition. How easy it is to be fooled. And the consequences in misery and death. It’s also a good example of why people should pay attention to the Pope…and Algebra class.

 

[Fran65]

Miguel,

You need to get an understanding of clinical trials and probability. 5% failure refers to all use. It does not refer to the use made by one individual over one year. It is not the same as palying dice. That analogy of probability of in relation to multicentre, global clinical trials really does belong in a mathematics class. We teach it to five year olds in our country (UK).

You are however right about how easy it is to be fooled.

Kathleen, I was using the qoute in reference to the ridiculous suggestion that a couple using the pill for therapeutic reasons cannot have sex. I was not using it to argue that condoms can be used. On that point, Humanae Vitae is clear.

(Whispers - doesn’t make it right though imo - oops - there I go again. I just can’t help using my God given intellect - and yes I know…hell, Church teaching, faithful, Pope…etc)

Anyone ever looked at the suffering, distress and torment created by the non use of contraception by married couples? Many people drive cars dangerously, many also die in them…maybe we should ban those too?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Miguel,

You need to get an understanding of clinical trials and probability. 5% failure refers to all use. It does not refer to the use made by one individual over one year. It is not the same as palying dice. That analogy of probability of in relation to multicentre, global clinical trials really does belong in a mathematics class. We teach it to five year olds in our country (UK).

5% seems falsely low because of the physical nature of the act. We are also not counting all of the cases of aids and spiritual damage caused by the contraceptive mentality that encourages sex solely for pleasure’s sake. When humans are tools which is the contraceptive mentality (have sex for “fun”) you can always get a new toy.

You are however right about how easy it is to be fooled.

And the largest scam is the evil that some people are simply “advanced apes” and cannot control themselves. The second largest scam is that chastity is a psycho-sexualk problem and not a virtue to be practiced.

It was not pragmatic logic to die on a cross to save the world and it does not seem pragmatic to pick up your cross and follow Him. And surprise, surprise, even just trying to follow Him is more peace and love fulfilling than all the sex and drugs in the world.

My Pope is telling the world there is a better way than the seeminingly pragmatic way. He is right. It’s his job to shine the light in Africa as well as the rest of the world. Hurray for the Pope!

(Whispers - doesn’t make it right though imo - oops - there I go again. I just can’t help using my God given intellect - and yes I know…hell, Church teaching, faithful, Pope…etc)

Well, if you are looking for a Church that challenges you to think rather than a feel good fun place or an authoritarian “grab an answer and like it or leave it” then you have come to the right place. The Catholic Church does have the Truth but She recognizes each person must find out for themselves the best way to Calvary with their cross. She gets dogmatic only against heresy, because She is chargesdd with the Truth.

That is Truth and Freedom.

If you are seeking a reasoned approach to God, the Church has been using the brightest minds of the world, some divinely inspired like St. Peter and Paul to better understand our Beloved. Chesterton is a great example of a laity defender and more is the openness of the Church with her encyclicals that seek understanding of the thorniest problems of our time in light of Truth.

The place to find the true Church is in her teachings which provide the responses to your questions, but those responses can only be understood by the Light on Calvary.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Anyone ever looked at the suffering, distress and torment created by the non use of contraception by married couples? Many people drive cars dangerously, many also die in them…maybe we should ban those too?

The genesis of the torment is a lack of authentic love which inspires chastity and ensures monogamy. If you want peace and love in marriage I don’t see how you will find it without practicing some chastity within marriage.

It is Lent, after all.

Oh my Jesus, have mercy on us all and lead all souls to heaven. Amen

 

[PRmerger]

Only someone with relativist ideas could truthfully think that the above is possible. The Church is not just against contraception…he is against sex outside of marriage, and all other immoral behavior, irregardless of how many people think that immoral behavior is acceptable.
What about what has been proven to be true about condoms failing one in every five times…so that they are not really safe in preventing diseases?

Just for the sake of argument, if a condom could be developed that absolutely prevented HIV from spreading to one’s partner (as well as absolutely prevented pregnancy), would you then advocate its use? (within the context of this discussion–the epidemic of AIDS in Africa)

You would not be willing to take the chance that the condom would fail to protect you. That is your intelligence at work.

I hope by “intelligence” you mean “logic”. Calling attention to someone’s intelligence (or implying there is a lack thereof) is insulting and has no place in this forum.

 

[FightingFat]

This today on Fr. Tim’s blog

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/03/auntie-joanna-ambushed-comes-out.html

Scary stuff, but you have to respect Joanna Bogle!

 

[miguel]

Miguel,

You need to get an understanding of clinical trials and probability. 5% failure refers to all use. It does not refer to the use made by one individual over one year. It is not the same as palying dice…

I realize failure rates are derived from clinical trials. But thank you. And from there, it is perfectly appropriate for me as an individual assessing my own risk to apply them to my own use of condoms (for the sake arguement). What else am I going to use?

 

[miguel]

5% seems falsely low because of the physical nature of the act.

You could be right. I’m throwing a round number out for discussion. I don’t claim it’s an accurate number. But it’s in the ball park of what’s being claimed. The main point is that it’s significantly greater than zero. I remember back in the 70s, before AIDS, the typical reliability claimed for condoms was about 80%. And this applied to contraceptive use. And it was usually compared unfavorably to the pill. After AIDS, it was back in favor, with suspiciously lower failure rates. But hey, technology improves.

 

[o_mlly]

Only someone with relativist ideas could truthfully think that the above is possible. The Church is not just against contraception…he is against sex outside of marriage, and all other immoral behavior, irregardless of how many people think that immoral behavior is acceptable.
What about what has been proven to be true about condoms failing one in every five times…so that they are not really safe in preventing diseases?

Would you have sex with someone who you know has aids if the person were willing to wear a condom?
Be honest.
You would not be willing to take the chance that the condom would fail to protect you. That is your intelligence at work.

So why is it alright to recommend to other poor, uneducated people that if the people with aids want to have sex with uninfected people, it is safe as long as they wear a condom?

It is immoral, inhumane and a LIE of the worst sort.

The Magisterium teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil; she does not teach that the use of condoms is intrinsically evil. The reason, I think, is that contraception imputes a disordered intention while the use of condoms does not.

Tough cases make for poor law both in jurisprudence and morality. However, such cases instruct us on the caution we should employ in proclaiming absolutes in law or morality. For instance, assume one of the married partners contracts HIV as a result of a tainted blood infusion. Marital sex has both a unitive and procreative purpose. Does our moral compass instruct us that this couple must abstain and forego both the unitive and procreative purposes of the sex act because of the health risk? Is the condom permissible if intended not as a prophylactic for conception but rather HIV?

Is there a parallel for the pill and the condom? Neither taking the pill nor use of the condom is intrinsically evil. In the case of hormonal treatment for disease, married women may take the pill and, pastorally, are encouraged to use the rhythm method to regulate their sexual activity to insure that fertilization would be naturally unlikely. Is there a parallel justification for the condom?

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[tassitus]

The Magisterium teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil; she does not teach that the use of condoms is intrinsically evil. The reason, I think, is that contraception imputes a disordered intention while the use of condoms does not.

Tough cases make for poor law both in jurisprudence and morality. However, such cases instruct us on the caution we should employ in proclaiming absolutes in law or morality. For instance, assume one of the married partners contracts HIV as a result of a tainted blood infusion. Marital sex has both a unitive and procreative purpose. Does our moral compass instruct us that this couple must abstain and forego both the unitive and procreative purposes of the sex act because of the health risk? Is the condom permissible if intended not as a prophylactic for conception but rather HIV?

Is there a parallel for the pill and the condom? Neither taking the pill nor use of the condom is intrinsically evil. In the case of hormonal treatment for disease, married women may take the pill and, pastorally, are encouraged to use the rhythm method to regulate their sexual activity to insure that fertilization would be naturally unlikely. Is there a parallel justification for the condom?

Peace,
O’Malley

In response I ask what man, if he truly loves his wife, would subject his beloved to the risk of HIV infection for either the unitive or procreative purposes of marital relations?

Out of love for my wife, I would abstain. Who on this forum would not?

Peace all.

 

[Abe16]

It seems that everytime the current pope says something, he upsets a different group of people. Whether it be women, muslims, jews, gays etc. John Paul II was a lot better at making the catholic position on issues a bit more palatable for the masses IMO.

As far as this whole condom/africa controversy, Pope Benedict speaks for the church and the church is against contraception. What were they expecting? At the end of the day, pretty much all non catholics don’t take him seriously anyway, so I don’t see the point behind all the outrage and indignation.

 

[o_mlly]

In response I ask what man, if he truly loves his wife, would subject his beloved to the risk of HIV infection for either the unitive or procreative purposes of marital relations?

Out of love for my wife, I would abstain. Who on this forum would not?

Peace all.

I think the morality must address the rights and obligations of both affected parties. Do not both husband and wife have a right to the benefits of the sexual act in marriage?

What if one’s wife does not agree to abstinence? Does the good husband impose abstinence out of love?

And, what if the infected partner is the woman? Would every man on this list deny his innocent but infected wife who desires the unitive benefits of sexual union? Is it morally permissible for the husband to impose abstinence out of selfishness – the intent to remain HIV free?

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[JimG]

Would you have sex with someone who you know has aids if the person were willing to wear a condom?
Be honest.

And the other question is: if you were an AIDS carrier, would you be willing to put someone you love at a deliberate 5% risk of acquiring a deadly disease?

 

[tassitus]

I think the morality must address the rights and obligations of both affected parties. Do not both husband and wife have a right to the benefits of the sexual act in marriage?

What if one’s wife does not agree to abstinence? Does the good husband impose abstinence out of love?

And, what if the infected partner is the woman? Would every man on this list deny his innocent but infected wife who desires the unitive benefits of sexual union? Is it morally permissible for the husband to impose abstinence out of selfishness – the intent to remain HIV free?

Peace,
O’Malley

Excellent questions, o_mlly. Are you, too, finding it FAR easier to ask these than to answer them?



I will at least offer my answer to your last question, which could also be applied to the wife: Is it morally permissible for the husband to impose abstinence out of selfishness – the intent to remain HIV free?

Yes, it is, though I would not label such an act “selfishness”. If I am wrong, we would be holding that one spouse could rightly demand an action of his/her spouse that would put him/her at grave risk of illness, possibly death, would we not?

I guess that also answers your first question, then: the spousal rights are not unlimited.

Peace all.

 

[TMC]

It is true and that’s why he said it. Once again the Church is on the side of moral truth. But also on the side of high school level probability theory.

I’m not sure what this comment means. My point was not that the Church is on the wrong side of moral truth, but that the Church hurts itself when, instead of arguing morality, it abandoms moral arguments and tries to make unsupportable worldly factual arguments to support its moral positions. Moral stands have to be taken based on morals. The Church is not against condoms because they don’t work well, everyone knows that.

That aside, lets use that high school math to consider if it is true that condoms increase the spread of Aids. As I understand it, the argument is that condoms fails sometimes - 5% of the time (or one in twenty) is the number being thrown around here - and that the use of condoms increases promiscuity. So although condoms block some Aids transmission, the increase in promiscuity more than offsets that benefit.

If it is true that condoms fail one time in twenty (which I don’t doubt), and that condoms increase promiscuity in Africa (I have no idea one way or the other), then high school math tells me that using condoms would have to increase promiscuity by more than twenty times for the promiscuity effect to overcome the 95% prevention rate. If the math is more complex than that, perhaps someone can explain it. Its hard to credit that the promiscuity effect of condoms is that high. Does anyone have a study that says it is?

 

[miguel]

I’m not sure what this comment means.

What it means is simple. If we’re talking about a married couple (implying frequent sex with each other), and one of the spouses has HIV, and the husband always uses a condom, HIV will sooner or later be transmitted to the other spouse, simply because condoms are not 100% reliable. And this is using the most rudimentary principles of probability theory. What they teach the first day a student is exposed to this stuff.

My point was not that the Church is on the wrong side of moral truth,…

I know that’s not your point.

…but that the Church hurts itself when, instead of arguing morality, it abandoms moral arguments and tries to make unsupportable worldly factual arguments to support its moral positions. Moral stands have to be taken based on morals. The Church is not against condoms because they don’t work well, everyone knows that.

Did the pope abandon moral arguements here? I don’t think so. But should he refrain from challenging the notion directly that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS, when simple probability demonstrates otherwise. I have no problem with him doing this. Most of the folks pushing this nonsense couldn’t care less about the moral arguements. So he gave them an arguement to chew on and they’re chewing on it. Good for him.

…So although condoms block some Aids transmission,…

They do not block transmission in a married couple having frequent sex. It will get passed from one spouse to the other. The probability of failure tells you that.

 

[Lrning]

But what if the Holy Father did not look at this as a contraception issue, but as a disease prevention issue? Would it then be possible for the Church to advocate use of condoms in order to prevent disease, while the contraceptive effect of condoms was secondary?
.

Condoms will never prevent AIDS. At best, they result in risk reduction. The Pope was talking about true prevention. Why should the Church advocate about how to live dangerously while reducing your chances of contracting a deadly disease?