Condoms don't protect against AIDS, says Catholic Church

Interesting that noone's touched my post...

E_S

 

I got a post you can touch.

 

E_S

 

*saw that coming*

 

Let's stay on topic, please.

 

Tadji:Condom's effectiveness wouldn't be a subject if they didn't exist. If people had a truly healthy attitude towards sex, their use would be invalidated.

ani-padme:That's perfectly true. It's also a moral argument. If people had the morally correct attitudes about sex, there wouldn't be a need for condoms. That has nothing to do with the effictiveness of condoms in preventing STDs and prgenancies. Unless I'm misreading you, you're saying that if people weren't doing the wrong thing, or wanting to do the wrong thing, condoms wouldn't be around...which makes condoms immoral. Not ineffective. Not dangerous.

You are reading me correctly, and you're right, the Church's statement would be a fallacy, as scientific studies do show a measured amout of protection.

That said, I'd like to see the full context of the Church's statement, and will try to find it.

Stackpole made the observation that the Aids epidemic is still happening despite the presence of the church's teachings on condoms. There are three possiblities that I can think of: 1) The church's teachings are being ignored by the general populace. 2) There are no condoms anywhere to be found or 3) The spread of the virus is occurring in areas that have not been affected by the church's teachings on the issue, and therefore not fully understood, or even known. If I understand it correctly, there is a high rate of marital infidelity amongst certain African nations. Could these be areas where the issues of morality, with regards to marriage, are different from that of the Catholic (and indeed Christain in general) viewpoint? If so, this could be a real source of the problem for the spread of Aids, again pointing to a very irresponsible attitude towards sex in general. Mind you, this is all speculation, and should be taken as such.

ani-padme:Please -- and I'm sincerely asking -- if there is some clarifying information somewhere, can you link it here or send it to me in a PM? I certainly don't want the Catholic Church to be saying what I think they're saying, or promoting what I think they're promoting. It would be much better if that's not the case.

Agreed. No one likes to be lead by disinformation, or information known to be counter to logic and established scientific evidence. This is why I'd like to find out more.

 

Often times I wish the Catholic Church would stay out of this realm. Sure, the Church teaches that sex is meant for procreation, and beyond that is a sin. But, since the Sexual Revolution in the 1960's and the spread of AIDS in the 1980's, it has become stupid not to use protection.

I love the message that the Church is sending. I was thinking about this in my Religion class today when hearing my Jesuit professor talk about Church doctrine. This Church doctrine basically states to the developed world that sex is one thing, when it's another, and in the developing countries, where the AIDS problem is worse, it tries to steer them away from lowering their birthrates, which the World Bank advocates as one of the fundamental necessities of emergence.


As a Catholic myself, I'm ashamed to say this, but the Church should stick to the faith at times, and let some social justice issues go. But that's just the way I see. Some social justice issues I completetly agree with, others are just so out of tune with the consensus of most people.

 

Some social justice issues I completetly agree with, others are just so out of tune with the consensus of most people.

Interesting point.

However, could it be true that the people's consensus fluctuates and changes over time (going from position to a radically different one, and then back again)?

 

It absolutely changes over time. Look at America for instance. The views on so many social issues has changed over time, just as the national consensus has changed over time.

 

Hi All,

I went searching through the story, as was reported by the London Guardian, and found something that may shed a bit of light, or it may not.

The following was a statement made from the Cardinal of Nicaragua to Mr. Bradshaw, the reporter covering the story:

CARDINAL OBANDO Y BRAVO: Now studying genetics we were told that AIDS can be transmitted
through the doctor's surgical glove which is less porous than a condom.

If this is in fact true, then who made this claim? Obviously, this cardinal is relying upon information provided by someone else. Why isn't that source contacted, or even mentioned again?

The reporter's response was this:

BRADSHAW: Clearly these extraordinary claims are being made by influential Catholics across the world,
so we asked the Pope's spokesman on the family whether they are also the official view of the Vatican.

Is it the position of the Vatican that the virus, the HIV virus can pass through the condom?

Cardinal ALFONSO LOPEZ TRUJILLO
Pontifical Council for the Family
Yes, yes, because this is something which the scientific community accepts, and doctors know what we are
saying. You cannot talk about safe sex. One should speak of the human value, about the family, and about
fidelity.

With this in mind, is the cardinal lying outright? If so, what's to gain? The Church in it's mission has every interest in preserving life on this earth, not in seeing it destroyed. It is the Church's position that abstinence is the only effective method in preventing the spread of HIV by sexual means. This is logical, and an undisputed fact.

Padawan915:Often times I wish the Catholic Church would stay out of this realm. Sure, the Church teaches that sex is meant for procreation, and beyond that is a sin.

This is not entirely true, Padawan. Sex, for pleasure's sake, within the context of marriage, is not sinful. Not every act of sexual intercourse reults in a child, nor was it meant to. The church puts no such qualifications upon sexual expression within the married context, insofar as pleasure is concerned.The couple is encouraged to enjoy each other sexually, as a means of expressing their love for each other in an extremely intimate fashion. God didn't leave out phyical pleasure from the design of sex, otherwise, who'd want to have it?

But, since the Sexual Revolution in the 1960's and the spread of AIDS in the 1980's, it has become stupid not to use protection.

The sexual revolution is one of the main reasons that the situaion is as atrocious as it is.

I love the message that the Church is sending. I was thinking about this in my Religion class today when hearing my Jesuit professor talk about Church doctrine. This Church doctrine basically states to the developed world that sex is one thing, when it's another, and in the developing countries, where the AIDS problem is worse, it tries to steer them away from lowering their birthrates, which the World Bank advocates as one of the fundamental necessities of emergence.

Strange, as I understand it, the Church's doctrine on sex is consistent no matter where it's taught. The question of how it's taught, and by whom, is a different issue entirely. Can you be more specific in what you're being taught, because this might bring up a whole new subject into light...

As a Catholic myself, I'm ashamed to say this, but the Church should stick to the faith at times, and let some social justice issues go. But that's just the way I see. Some social justice issues I completetly agree with, others are just so out of tune with the consensus of most people.

Padawan, there's nothing shameful in speaking your mind. I've been a practicing Catholic all of my life, and I have tons of questions regarding my own faith, and why I believe what I believe.

The church is involved in social issues because religion is a social institution, and forever intertwined with the interests of it's members. It cares for people, and wants to see everyon

 

So when are we gonna see some cardinal calling for a ban on surgical gloves?

 

Excellent post. I definitely understand where you are coming from. The thing I've come into conflict recently is these different strands of Catholic intellectual thought, which has really challenged my faith of late. However, I do not deny the fact that the Church is a social institution, along with a religious one. I think that the Catholic Church is the one whose social justice commitments are among the purest in intention in the world. However, it just irks me in the face of scientfic evidence that the Church says that condoms don't protect against AIDS. With the epidemic in Africa, the Church is taking a very unpopular stance. However, this is something that Catholics have to reconcile with faith. I think that's what it all comes down to. Or at least I think so.

 

Ami-padme and tadji, here is an article I found describing where some of the Church's information came from, which seemed quite relevant to our inquiry

The Wall Street Journal Europe
(Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Scientifically Proven Against AIDS: Abstinence
By Pia de Solenni

Every 14 seconds a young person is infected with HIV, according to a U.N. Population Fund Assistance report recently released. Given that the Catholic Church provides 25% of HIV/AIDS care world-wide, many of these young people will be cared for by the Catholic Church. No state, government, or individual matches this commitment. Yet the BBC in its program "Sex and the Holy City,"
which aired last night, all but implicated the Church and Pope John Paul II in the spread of HIV throughout the world. The Catholic Church's well-known teaching on condoms appear to baffle BBC producers and their ilk because it is based on moral teaching that has become irrelevant for many. At the same time, however, the wisdom of this precept has been confirmed by science. Or perhaps it's better to say that science has not been able to confirm the wisdom of condoms.

In June 2000, (lest we forget, while Bill Clinton was still president) the U.S. National Institutes of Health sponsored a workshop to survey the scientific evidence on condom effectiveness. The final report, released on July 2001, concluded that the consistent and correct use of male condoms provides an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission between women and men. The same report revealed a lack of adequate data to confirm that condoms protect against other
sexually transmitted diseases.

Assuming a scenario in which condoms are used consistently and correctly for every sexual act, there's still no guarantee that the condoms themselves are in fact effective against HIV infection. According to the CDC, only latex or polyurethane condoms provide a barrier against HIV. There are many other type of condoms available throughout the world. In 2002, Tanzania reportedly
rejected 10 million condoms provided by UNFPA because they were defective. Quite simply, they leaked. Fortunately for the Tanzanian people, the government tested the condoms before they were distributed. UNFPA apparently thought it was enough to provide the condoms without any type of quality control.

While the BBC and condom advocates would suggest one type of behavior change, namely correct and consistent condom usage, the Catholic Church proposes another type of behavior change: abstinence, monogamy and fidelity. Here again, science weighs in on the side of religion.

Botswana and Zimbabwe are ranked among the top countries world-wide for HIV prevalence. Yet both countries are condom-friendly and make condoms readily available. In 1991, Uganda also had an HIV infection rate of more than 20%. By 2001, however, the rate was only 6%.

A 2002 Harvard study conducted by anthropologist Edward C. Green and Vinand
Nantulya, an infectious-disease specialist, revealed the cause of the discrepancies between Uganda's HIV infection rate and those of other heavily infected countries. Uganda had begun a program focusing on abstinence and fidelity instead of condoms. While the rate of HIV infection in every other country continued to escalate, Uganda's fell dramatically. (Lest there be any concern over the researchers' religious zeal, Mr. Green describes himself as a
"flaming liberal" who does not attend church.)

Science doesn't stop with HIV infection. CDC and NIH data confirm that condoms offer little or no protection against human papilloma virus, which has been linked to cervical cancer in women. In the U.S., 75% of the population of reproductive age is estimated to be infected with HPV and more women die from cervical cancer than from AIDS.

When the Catholic Church proposes abstinence and monogamy, perhaps to the dismay of the BBC, the church is not being anti-science, but rather affirming what science already tells us

 

Padawan915:Excellent post. I definitely understand where you are coming from. The thing I've come into conflict recently is these different strands of Catholic intellectual thought, which has really challenged my faith of late. However, I do not deny the fact that the Church is a social institution, along with a religious one. I think that the Catholic Church is the one whose social justice commitments are among the purest in intention in the world. However, it just irks me in the face of scientfic evidence that the Church says that condoms don't protect against AIDS. With the epidemic in Africa, the Church is taking a very unpopular stance. However, this is something that Catholics have to reconcile with faith. I think that's what it all comes down to. Or at least I think so.

Padawan915, if you were referreing to my last post, then thank you kindly!

I, too share in your frustration regarding the teaching of Catholic Doctrine nowadays. It seems that some priests will fiat their own agenda instead of sticking to the Cathechism. While their intentions may be good, they are essentially going against their own vows. It's also quite easy to take something completely out of context and bend it to one's own interpretation. Holy Wars have sprung about because of such misinterpretations (The Catholic Church included).

If you feel that you are being taught contradictory themes, then pick up a copy of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church". It is there that the Church's teachings are spelled out in no uncertain terms (indeed, the language of the Catechism may seem a bit harsh in it's presentation, but at least it's honest, true to Scripture and completely no-nonsense in it's message).

That said, I can see why the Church is saying what it is. Condoms are not 100% effective, and there's no sure way to tell who makes up the 10% of the populace for which condoms will fail. Therefore, they are dangerous. Even if condoms were 100% effective, the Church would still advise against their usage because of the artificial barriers they put up to contraception.

Having read the rest of the story in the London Guardian, I'm of the mind that the Church is relying upon the same information that the Cardinal of Nicaragua is, as was quoted in my last post. This cardinal is saying that the scientific community agrees that condoms are more likely to transmit the AIDS virus because the latex used in condom manufacturing is more porous than surgical gloves. Unfortunately, no scientific evidence is given to support that claim. It a fundamental purpose of good journalism to investigate any claim made in this fashion. It's simply even handed reporting. Mr. Bradshaw, however, seems content to leave any of this evidence untouched. Playing into the hands of the companies that make condoms? Who knows. It IS a huge industry though (no pun intended)...



EDIT: For the record, I posted the above statements before reading Irish_Jedi's timely introduction of the Wall Street Journal Europe's article. Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks the BBC, and Mr. Bradshaw in particular, have an agenda to fulfill...

Thanks, IrishJedi49, for the info. It's much appreciated!

 

Wait, I'm confused. I admittedly didn't see the programme, as I don't have the BBC over here, but who was saying condoms are the only way to prevent STDs? I agree, abstinence is the best method, followed by condom use (I still don't get how anyone can **** up something so simple), but who was saying it's condoms or nothing?

That's what the Wall Street Journal implies the BBC wanted to say, specifically with this line: 'When the Catholic Church proposes abstinence and monogamy, perhaps to the dismay of the BBC' and the following paragraph.

 

If I understand it correctly, there is a high rate of marital infidelity amongst certain African nations...If so, this could be a real source of the problem for the spread of Aids, again pointing to a very irresponsible attitude towards sex in general. Mind you, this is all speculation, and should be taken as such.

I definitely think it's a real source of the problem, and I absolutely think there needs to be more sexual responsibility throughout the African nations where HIV/AIDS is a huge problem. There's also an air of denial about it -- at least in my (limited) experience, there seems to be a mistaken attitude in Africa that Africans are more traditional about sex than Westerners. I think that mostly stems from the perception that sex is much more prevalent in our popular culture than in Africa, but to extend that to the actual behavior of Africans is a fallacy, and a deadly one, as it keeps many of the issues around sex and HIV/AIDS shrouded in ignorance, shame and denial. It's a big problem, IMO.


Thanks TadjiStation and irishjedi for sharing what you found.

Cardinal ALFONSO LOPEZ TRUJILLO
Pontifical Council for the Family
You cannot talk about safe sex. One should speak of the human value, about the family, and about
fidelity.

TadjiStation: It is the Church's position that abstinence is the only effective method in preventing the spread of HIV by sexual means. This is logical, and an undisputed fact.

The only 100% effective method? Then I agree with that. The Cardinal in the first paragraph sound like he's saying what I think the Church should be saying/means to say -- that safe sex is irrelevant from their POV because they are focused on people following the proper moral course on sexuality.


The Catholic Church's well-known teaching on condoms appear to baffle BBC producers and their ilk because it is based on moral teaching that has become irrelevant for many.

Again, if they keep the moral and the scientific separate, no worries, at least not from me.


The final report, released on July 2001, concluded that the consistent and correct use of male condoms provides an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission between women and men.

Honestly, an 85% protection rate in Africa would be pretty damn good. Which is why I object to the Catholic Church saying that condoms are as dangerous as cigarettes. Is it 100%? No. Is it a high percentage? Yes.


Assuming a scenario in which condoms are used consistently and correctly for every sexual act, there's still no guarantee that the condoms themselves are in fact effective against HIV infection.

Doesn't this contradict the quote just above? The question of whether non-latex/polyurethane condoms are effective against AIDS is a good one. It's a good thing that the poorly manufactured condoms didn't go to market in Tanzania. But they seem to dismiss the scientific study they just mentioned while given no reason to doubt it other than it was commissioned while President Clinton is in office.



If abstinence is working in Uganda -- fantastic. The Church can preach the same thing in other countries in Africa all day long, as far as I'm concerned.



Nothing in those two articles you both posted is as inflammatory or as flat-out incorrect as I believe the initial article of this thread to be, though I still have questions and concerns. But I do appreciate gaining some additional context.

 

Honestly, an 85% protection rate in Africa would be pretty damn good. Which is why I object to the Catholic Church saying that condoms are as dangerous as cigarettes. Is it 100%? No. Is it a high percentage? Yes.

The church didn't exactly say that condoms were as dangerous as cigarettes. They said that they weren't effective in preventing the spread of HIV, and in light of more of the context provided, that is more true in many cases (not in all) than not. Therefore, they should be treated in much the same way as cigarettes. That may be splitting hairs a bit, but the message is still clear. Condoms can promote a false security in those who use them. Add that to the improper usage of condoms in general, as well as the usage of non-latex or polyurathane condoms, and no guarantees can be made at all.

The other side of this issue is what how people take abstinence vs. the usage of condoms. I offer this paragraph from the WSJ article:

A 2002 Harvard study conducted by anthropologist Edward C. Green and Vinand
Nantulya, an infectious-disease specialist, revealed the cause of the discrepancies between Uganda's HIV infection rate and those of other heavily infected countries. Uganda had begun a program focusing on abstinence and fidelity instead of condoms. While the rate of HIV infection in every other country continued to escalate, Uganda's fell dramatically. (Lest there be any concern over the researchers' religious zeal, Mr. Green describes himself as a
"flaming liberal" who does not attend church.)

If abstinence is working in Uganda -- fantastic. The Church can preach the same thing in other countries in Africa all day long, as far as I'm concerned.

As long as those who accept abstinence (and more importantly, marital fidelity), the results in other African nations will reflect those of Uganda, I'm sure.

Nothing in those two articles you both posted is as inflammatory or as flat-out incorrect as I believe the initial article of this thread to be, though I still have questions and concerns. But I do appreciate gaining some additional context.

As do I. The scary thing about the initial article is that many people will read that and continue in their misconceptions about the Church's teachings on the issue. That article does not represent fair and unbiased reporting, as far as I'm concerned, and that concerns me.

That said, I've enjoyed this discussion thus far, and appreciate and respect your viewpoint, ami-padme.