Vatican newspaper article says condom campaigns increase AIDS risk

[_Abyssinia]

An article in the Vatican newspaper said that, on a practical level, condom campaigns increase the possibility of AIDS infection by promoting a false sense of security.

On a moral level, the article said, condom use by married couples goes against the church’s teaching about responsible procreation because it “deforms” the conjugal act.

The article was written by Father Juan Perez-Soba, a moral theologian who teaches in Rome at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. It appeared in L’Osservatore Romano May 24, three days before the start of a major Vatican conference that was expected to clarify church teaching on AIDS.

Father Perez-Soba said that although use of a condom may have some effectiveness against HIV/AIDS contagion in single acts, it cannot guarantee safety – especially throughout the sexual life of a couple. It is wrong, therefore, to say that condom use can prevent infection, he said.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1102045.htm

 

[Alan55]

I’d love to see the statistics that back up this contention. You can’t make up facts just because the truth doesn’t suit your theology or politics.

 

[HailMary90]

Interesting…

 

[Theophorus]

You can’t make up facts just because the truth doesn’t suit your theology or politics.

I agree, but you should tell that to the people who, when faced with increased levels of sexually transmitted disease and increased numbers of teenage pregnancies, respond by throwing more condoms at the problem. this article says nothing new. the current strategy of increased contraceptive provision linked with a decrease in the importance of sexual fidelity equals promotion of a false sense of security. Condoms fail FACT. whether the failure is human or mechanical they fail. Would you really want to risk infecting the person you love with HIV/AIDS? I wouldn’t.

 

[Barbkw]

Establishing a belief that condom use will protect against HIV/AIDs, condom usage by unchaste males will encourage increased numbers of sexual encounters and quite possiblity increased numbers of partners.

 

[stephe1987]

FACT: Condoms have a 1 in 12 chance of failure due to slippage and breakage.

You can pass out condoms all day long, but that doesn’t increase their effectiveness.

And when condoms break, there is no barrier, no protection against disease.

I guess common sense isn’t so common anymore. You’d be surprised how naive/brainwashed some people are. You tell people about this and they act like that is rare or it never happens.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

The head of a Harvard-based AIDs prevention centre says the Pope is “correct” to claim that condom distribution risks aggravating the transmission of HIV.

Also from that article

In an interview with the National Review Online, Mr Green said: “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’d love to see the statistics that back up this contention. You can’t make up facts just because the truth doesn’t suit your theology or politics.

An article in Science magazine in 2008 called had 10 AIDS experts conclude that “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub‐Saharan Africa.”
- see article “Reassessing HIV Prevention”

HIV incidence has been shown to rise, not fall, with increased condom use. In Cameroon, condom sales increased from 6 million to 15 million between 1992 and 2001, while the prevalence of HIV tripled, from 3% to 9%.
- "Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?ʺ Studies in Family Planning, March 2004

Changes in sexual behaviour have been shown to be more effective in reducing HIV transmission than condoms. Uganda has seen a 70% decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reduction in casual sex.
- Science 30 April 2004: Vol. 304. no. 5671, pp. 714 – 718

Reducing the number of sexual partners a person has provides more protection against HIV than condom use. As recognised by the Atlanta Centers for Disease Control, abstinence and fidelity are the most effective strategies against sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
- HPV Provider Survey: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices About Genital HPV Infection and Related Conditions. June 14, 2005

A UN AIDS report has found that even when people use condoms consistently, the failure rate for protection from HIV is an estimated 10%.
- *Boston Globe *, 22 June 2003, A19

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’d love to see the statistics that back up this contention. You can’t make up facts just because the truth doesn’t suit your theology or politics.

They are not made up facts. Condoms have a 15% failure rate.

There is empirical evidence to suggest that reliance on condoms is not the most effective anti-AIDS strategy. Research by Edward C. Green of Harvard University shows that programs emphasizing abstinence and marital fidelity have brought down infection rates more successfully than those which rely primarily on condoms. Green says that’s for three reasons: people often don’t use condoms correctly; they stop using them when they believe they know the other person; and condoms generate a false sense of security.

saltandlighttv.org/blog/?p=16366

In Botswana, Cameroon, and Kenya - they saw AIDS prevalence rise alongside condom distribution until they both leveled out. In Botswana today, where condoms are available nearly everywhere, one in six people is HIV positive or living with AIDS.

In Uganda, where abstinence is strongly promoted, the prevalence of AIDS has dropped and now affects less than six percent of the population. Quote BBC News who stated that Uganda has done extremely well in fighting AIDS because, in many parts of the country, its prevalence ‘‘was at least three times higher in the early 90s.’’

Similar comparison, made between Thailand and the Philippines, where AIDS broke out at the same time. Thailand’s approach promoted the distribution of condoms while the Philippines promoted abstinence. Twenty years after the outbreak, the prevalence of AIDS in Thailand is 50 times higher than in the Philippines.

m.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=18849

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’d love to see the statistics that back up this contention. You can’t make up facts just because the truth doesn’t suit your theology or politics.

I think you’re confusing what is actually being said by the article. It very clearly states that condom use in and of itself greatly (though not perfectly) reduces the risk of transmission. However, everywhere national condom campaigns have been used the general population’s rate of infection only temporarily decrees and then levels off and, in some cases, rise a little again. So it appears that on a micro level condom usage works, but on a macro level it is only somewhat effective.

The kinds of people engaged in high risk situations are not the type to always do so safely. Individuals engaged in prostitution, drug abuse, or culturally taboo sexual relationships are less likely to have their actions be well thought out and carefully planned…

 

[mlund]

The part condom campaigns don’t point out is that even with a 3% failure rate if you have sex daily then after one week you’ve subjected yourself to a 20% likelihood of failure and exposure to any potential diseases your partner has.

Having more sex because the myths about condom use make you less nervous about exposure to HIV/AIDs actually makes the situation worse. These people don’t need condom campaigns - they need better instruction in Mathematics. Taking 5 bullets out of a fully loaded revolver does not make Russian Roulette safe in any way, shape, or form.

• Marty Lund

 

[Dirichlet]

Actually, you don’t need to mention the failure rate of condoms to make this argument work.

What happens here is a common pattern in so-called “risk reduction” policies: people take the efficacy of some risk-reducing artifact for granted (e.g. condoms) so they engage more in risky behaviors, and end up negating the efficacy of said artifact.

If you are into mathematical proofs, Prof. Alexander Pruss (Catholic mathematician and philosopher) has some interesting thoughts about it: alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2010/12/risk-reduction-policies.html

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Alan55;7905200[:

I’d love to see the statistics that back up this contention. You can’t make up facts just because the truth doesn’t suit your theology or politics.]

You don’t remember the Harvard professor who said the same thing last year when Pope Benedict XVl made this claim and was criticized by the press ? This Harvard professor ( I think he is at their School of Public Health ) said the Pope was correct , that when people use condoms they feel an increased sense of security and engage in more and/or riskier sexual activity . It’s similar to the person who orders the chef’s salad and diet cola for their lunch entre and then feels entitled to order the cheesecake for dessert . It’s a form of compensation/rationalization . It may be called , " risk compensation " .

So , in reality , the author is not making anything up !

 

[edwest2]

Here is more:

christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/marchweb-only/111-53.0.html

I would ask: If we cannot control ourselves, who will? What prevents the individual who knows his neighbor is dying of AIDs to do something over and over that he knows will eventually harm him?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dirichlet]

You don’t remember the Harvard professor who said the same thing last year when Pope Benedict XVl made this claim and was criticized by the press ? This Harvard professor ( I think he is at their School of Public Health ) said the Pope was correct , that when people use condoms they feel an increased sense of security and engage in more and/or riskier sexual activity . It’s similar to the person who orders the chef’s salad and diet cola for their lunch entre and then feels entitled to order the cheesecake for dessert . It’s a form of compensation/rationalization . It may be called , " risk compensation " .

So , in reality , the author is not making anything up !

I remember this “incident,” precisely because the PC police went against the poor man for agreeing with the Pope. Of course, no counter-argument was offered. He just dared to consider the validity of a view contrary to what the zeitgeist professes.

Thoughtcrime is a real thing these days.

 

[Holly3278]

I agree. Condom campaigns do increase HIV and AIDS risk. And why is that? It’s simple. The only truly effective way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is to be abstinent. Those who use condoms are inevitably going to spread the virus at one point or another because condoms are not 100% reliable. They never have been and they never will be. Even if you could make a condom that was 100% safe, you’d still have to account for user error. And besides that, using condoms and other contraceptives is morally wrong anyway. It doesn’t matter if you are using it to prevent the spread of disease or not. The use of contraceptives such as condoms is morally wrong.