The known facts? That AIDS is terminal? That is is spread by sex? That condoms fail pretty frequently actually? The most accurate thing you said in your post is that it’s not my decision to make, thankfully it’s not. Because I don’t have AIDS.
He was talking about HIV infection, not AIDS specifically which is a syndrome associated with later stages of HIV infection. Also, “terminal” refers to a phase of a disease, not the disease itself. HIV infection is a chronic infection. AIDS is an advanced phase of the disease. “Terminal” is the phase of AIDS (or any other disease) when death is imminent. Some people with HIV will go on to die of other causes than their infection. Also, AIDS is a blood-borne pathogen that is transmitted by the exchange of or contamination with body fluids. Sex is perhaps the most common means of transmission, but not the only one. Google Dr. Lucille Teasdale.
But, semantics aside, I agree with you that condoms are not an a completely effective means of preventing HIV infection.
The failure rate of condoms is fairly known and relatively constant. It is safe to assume that with millions of daily acts of coitus with condoms, a finite number will result in condom failure, and a finite proportion of that number of that number will result in HIV infection, and a finite number of HIV-infected people will die of it.
As a result, by “promoting” condom use, you are actually condemning a fairly predictable number of people to death, should they follow your advice. Condoms are no better than a roulette game although the odds are slightly better than one in six.
It is the reason the Church could never promote condom use to fight HIV. She cannot promote an act that will lead to certain death for some who follow her advice. She can only promote what is known to be virtually 100% effective, abstinence. We know compliance with that is a pipe dream, but the choice then becomes the choice of the individual. Responsible behaviour starts at home.
Condoms may make some sense as a epidemiological means of
reducing the overall infection rate. However the Church is in the business of counseling individuals in what is known Truth and on behaviours that lead to salvation, not in the business of weighing relative outcomes.
But, big caveat here… we have to include cultural factors into the equation. In some cultures males are rather dominant. If a non-infected wife is, for all intents and purposes
forced to have coitus with her infected husband, would she be sinning in insisting, and perhaps convincing him, to don a condom prior to violating her? Or that in the heat of the moment she manages to slip one on him without him noticing in the heat of passion?
In an area where economic conditions are so harsh that women feel compelled to turn to prostitution to survive, should they insist their johns use condoms? Common sense says yes as it is the only real weapon they have to hopefully retard their infection with HIV, even though they are so ineffective that eventually most prostitutes in their area will become infected.
Unfortunately the world is not such a neat place where everything goes as it should. Sometimes plain common sense must prevail over a theological truth that is so far from the harsh reality of very miserable lives that it is almost irrelevant.
I think in such a circumstance it becomes a legitimate act of self-defense.
