When most feuds last for decades and even centuries, I find it hard to believe that fresh news is better news. So I am usually content to read the morning paper in the evening or the next morning at breakfast. So what sparked my interest in Friday’s paper on Saturday morning?
Unprecedented pontiff bashing has taken hold in the press – prompted by Pope Benedict XVI’s criticism of the use of condoms in anti-AIDS programs, made on his arrival Tuesday for a weeklong tour of Africa.
“This is one of the most horrifically ignorant statements made by a world leader since former President George W. Bush’s promise to ‘smoke ‘em out’ in reference to terrorist leaders including Osama bin Laden,” said Bonnie Erbe, a PBS host and columnist. (from here)
Curiously, this Washington Times article never stated exactly what the Pope said. After a little research I determined that all that mattered is that Pope does not support the sacred condom as the sanctified solution to the AIDS virus. Instead, the Pope believes self restraint is necessary.
What did the Pope say? The Vatican did not publish the transcript of the Pope’s remarks in English (see here, via the UK Telegraph here). Fortunately, the Catholic News Service (CNS) did provide a transcript (here) of the Pope’s remarks. The Pope’s remarks came when he answered the questions of journalists aboard a flight to Cameroon. Here is the pertinent section of the CNS article.
Lest it be taken out of context, here is the exchange that took place on the pope’s plane. The question’s premise was “The Catholic Church’s position on the way to fight against AIDS is often considered unrealistic and ineffective,” and the pope responded:
“I would say the opposite. I think that the reality that is most effective, the most present and the strongest in the fight against AIDS, is precisely that of the Catholic Church, with its programs and its diversity. I think of the Sant’Egidio Community, which does so much visibly and invisibly in the fight against AIDS … and of all the sisters at the service of the sick.
“I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money — which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, (money) doesn’t help.
“One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.
“The solution can only be a double one: first, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; second, a true friendship even and especially with those who suffer, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices and to be with the suffering. And these are factors that help and that result in real and visible progress.
“Therefore I would say this is our double strength — to renew the human being from the inside, to give him spiritual human strength for proper behavior regarding one’s own body and toward the other person, and the capacity to suffer with the suffering. … I think this is the proper response and the church is doing this, and so it offers a great and important contribution. I thank all those who are doing this.” (from here)
Is it not remarkable that there is such an ideological edge to condom use that even these remarks sparked outrage?
Cartoons And Posters
In the first row below, we have three cartoons. In the second we have a couple of posters. These cartoons seem to be largely representative of what is available on the Internet. From conventional wisdom, it seems that quite a few cartoonists have learned that the Pope is an idiot. Yet the more condoms we pour into Africa, the more people die.
Now consider the posters below (from here and here). Do they teach people to use condoms or that it is perfectly okay to engage in casual sex?
It may make sense for a married man and woman — two mature adults — to use a condom for birth control. What I seriously doubt is that it makes sense to use a condom to protect children and relative strangers from each other. Why would anyone who loves their child choose to teach their child to depend upon the small, thin membrane of a condom to protect themselves from a few moments of frivolous sex? Is it that difficult to understand that love and the acceptance of responsibility must come before sex?
If you don’t believe how one-sided the cartoons actually are, check out this list from The Cartoonist Group.
Using condoms can reduce the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases with a high success rate. We know that without a doubt. All anybody has ever said is what we already know.
What the Pope has said seems to be that we can rely solely upon the spiritual reawakening, “humanization of sex,” and the resulting self-restraint of the African people to stop the spread of AIDS and HIV. This is nonsense. Even the most religious of people can admit that, in practice, self-restraint doesn’t always happen. That’s where condoms come into play, and to claim that distributing condoms increases the problem is utterly absurd. That is why the Pope’s claims are counterproductive, dangerous, and most of all, morally reprehensible.
It’s not that anybody isn’t willing to let the Catholic Church try to “reawaken” the population and “humanize” sex. That’s fine and dandy, if it works. If it doesn’t, then condoms are the scientifically proven failsafe.
lneely – Human perfectibility in this lifetime does not seem likely, but the Pope did not rest his argument upon human perfectibility. The Pope rested his argument upon the improvement of people’s character and behavior.
Consider the elimination of smallpox. Not everyone was vaccinated. However, enough people were vaccinated. Because enough people received a vaccination, the plague cease to spread.
Love is a simple concept that people can understand, and love is a powerful concept. And most people learn sooner or latter that sex without love is neither right nor satisfying. If only to stop the spread of disease, it would be better if people learned sooner rather than latter.
Condoms cannot be the solution. Condoms are small, floppy, thin, and frail. Condoms can be made work in the laboratory, but they should not be expected to work for children or for the people of low tech societies. To rely upon condoms instead of teaching ethical behavior is foolish and inexcusable.
Let’s take your example of smallpox. The Pope’s statement that condoms increase the problem can be compared to saying that the smallpox vaccine will only spread the disease and that the spread of smallpox is a moral issue, not a medical one. The Church is known for similarly ludicrous statements, but such opinions were far more convincing when there were no better explanations. A good example: disease was long attributed to evil spirits and witchcraft before the germ theory of disease was proven.
The religious opposition to the use of condoms and other forms of contraception is a stance for which the Catholic Church is infamous. It isn’t the first time that the Papacy’s narrow-minded and dogmatic view on reality has been evident, and it certainly won’t be the last. The reason for the backlash is because the Pope is viewed as doing little more than asserting the religious dogmas of his church without regard for the fatal consequences that doing so will inevitably have. Is that opinion wrong? I don’t know, but I’ve yet to see any reason why it is.
Anyhow, I don’t see it as wishful thinking to say that when enough people take the necessary precautions in controlling a disease — be they vaccinations, or safe sex practices, or whatever the most effective method for controlling a disease may be — the disease will cease spreading at pandemic levels. While teaching sexual restraint and responsibility can certainly be a helpful contribution, it is not a substitute for effective prevention. Just as a seemingly insignificant pill or a few injections during childhood can save a life, so can a small, floppy, thin, and frail sheet of latex.
Is it the solution? Probably not, but neither is the Pope’s proposition. Neither of these band-aid fixes are 100% effective, nor are they a cure. However, they can complement each other, and putting them into action I think would result in a noticeable improvement within the next decade.
lneely – In actual fact, the “similarly ludicrous statements” you refer to have little to do with reality. At the time these statements were supposedly made, church clerics were the most well educated people in Europe.
Most ignorant opposition to science and technology comes from the fear of change, not religious belief. The Pope’s opposition to condoms is based upon a full awareness of what condoms do and how they work.
The issue here is not birth control; it is the spread of disease and it is ethical. Just handing out condoms encourages and condones casual sex, and that is foolish no matter what your position on birth control.
Tom, you’re right even though you’re not proving it. However, lucky for you the Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard, has got your back. Check out this article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E
In it Green actually has the audacity to support the pope. And I quote: “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.”
Also, coming directly from the field in Kenya, Travis Kavulla provides added credibility to the Catholic Church’s position in the following article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzJlNzBiNWRlM2IyYzFjZThjNmUwOTcyN2JlZWI0NTY
He notes that Uganda is the only country in Africa were the AIDs control program has succumbed to ultraconservative Christian influences like the Pope’s. However, shockingly Mr. Kavulla also notes that after Uganda implemented there abstinence approach to the AIDs virus, “Uganda saw a 60% reduction in casual sex . . . equivalent to a vaccine of 80% effectiveness, according to a review of the policy published in the journal Science.” Which made Uganda the first African country to post a decline in the HIV infection rate.
Money isn’t enough. Just throwing condemns at the problem isn’t enough. Both of these articles note that we need to start treating people as people. The idea that we can just provide them with “protection” and the thereby alleviate the AIDs problem is dehumanizing, it makes them seem like animals. As the Pope says we have to recognize that Africans are people and that the only way to stop a sexually transmitted disease is to get them to recognize that they need to stop having careless sex (including sex using condemns).
Please read the articles in full they both present an interesting and all to often under-represented position. Especially the article by Mr. Kavulla, it is quite interesting.
Tony – Thank you for the research and the articles. I must admit I did not prove my case as well I might have.
Sometimes I fail to put myself in the shoes of others. Empathy is more difficult than we realize. I suppose the failure to be empathetic may also explain the reason so many people think condoms can stop the spread of STDs, particularly AIDs. Instead of considering how the people they give the condoms to will regard them, they only consider the matter from their own point-of-view.
Careless sex is always a problem, but not having contraception, education and choices is always a problem. Again, I promote balance. People will always have sex.
I don’t really believe statistics, especially those coming out of a place we don’t know much about, where there are disconnects and no central government or organizing group. I also don’t believe stats when religious groups go in and preach their own philosophies.
Don’t get me wrong. I TOTALLY appreciate these faith groups helping the poor and trying to reduce illness. I just think presenting only one view isn’t good.
Tom, I agree with your last statement. I also understand where Catholic people are coming from and I think the church does some amazing things for the disadvantaged. I don’t think I have to be Catholic or pro-sole-abstinence-only to believe that.
That said, please don’t go into the issue of abortion which I loathe–but I don’t believe that issue is being handled correctly by ANY group.
“Careless sex is always a problem, but not having contraception, education and choices is always a problem. Again, I promote balance. People will always have sex. ” kgotthardt said it better than I did.
I think we might be misunderstanding each other, so let me make a quick addition and I won’t belabor this any longer. Just so we’re clear, I don’t think the Pope is necessarily wrong with the statement that careless sex is a problem in Africa, and that it should probably be curbed. In fact, I would have the “audacity” to agree with most of his statement. Despite my undoubted “token liberal” status here (Ha!), I do believe in personal responsibility. I have no qualms, however, with accusing any person — even, nay especially, the Pope — of stupidity and ignorance if they try to claim something that is the opposite of the truth.
Tony, “throwing condoms at the problem” was never the point. Including condoms in the solution, however, is, and if the Pope actively tries to undermine those efforts, he should be condemned. That’s all I’m saying.
It strikes me how we each define casual or careless sex may be at the root of our differences of opinion. Sexual intercourse is highly intimate and personal. We should never engage in it casually or carelessly. Yet people, for the benefit of momentary pleasure, do. Why? The answer to that question fills books.
Imagine a person who engages in sexual intercourse casually or carelessly. Don’t you wonder how that person could sincerely care about their own safety or that of someone else? Can such an attitude — or malaise of the spirit — be cured or elevated with a condom? How? If the answer is no, then what is the most likely “benefit” of distributing condoms?
To me, careless sex means, “I do it with as many people as I can and I don’t use protection.” It’s an emotional and physical carelessness that often stems from some kind of personal issue.
To me, if you are going to be that way (and that’s really your business, not mine), at least don’t infect anyone!
Isn’t anyone who is going to do it with as many people as they can unlikely to use protection? Isn’t that why this matter is first a moral problem and, second, a technical issue?
“Isn’t anyone who is going to do it with as many people as they can unlikely to use protection?”
Not necessarily. Promiscuity has nothing to do with whether or not you wear a condom. Many people who “sleep around” use protection every time. Trust me on this one
BTW—”trust me on this one” doesn’t refer to ME! LOL!
Look at the references provided by Tony. The protection afforded by a condom is minimal, at best. However, I suppose some protection is better than none. So, I suppose we can agree that most of the the sleep-around survivors use condoms. The same people probably also exercise a little more discretion as to who they sleep with.
That said, I suspect sleeping around is like a great many other ills. There is much talk about sex which the young imitate not fully understanding why their elders think the talk foolish. Why don’t they understand? It is the way we educate. We provide the technical details of an education without providing much understanding of the moral imperatives. Too often, we don’t even try.
When we teach an adolescent about sex without any instruction about the responsibilities involved, we have set that kid up for trouble. This is akin to handing someone a gun without explaining which end the bullet comes out.
Here is an example. When I was in college, I had a roommate who slept around. He was “careful.” He kept track of the times he got STDs; he did not want to suffer permanent damage. Who did he sleep with? Well, I knew of one “girl friend”; he did not take her seriously, but she took him seriously. How did I learn this? When she called for him, I answered the phone. She was drunk and persistent, but there was nothing I could do. He was not interested. He had used her. She knew it, but she could not accept it.
Unfortunately, the young woman did not fully appreciate the emotional implications of having sexual intercourse until she had had sex intercourse. Yet the knowledge of the problems involved is very old. As the Apostle Paul explain better than I could, when two people couple they become one flesh (1 Corinthians 6:12-20).
Condoms have been proven effective in preventing AID’s.
http://aids.about.com/od/hivprevention/a/hivprevent.htm
Brazil has been very successful in reducing AID’s in that country through the use of condoms.
http://www.thebody.com/content/world/art19320.html
Proven? In just one country? We don’t have a worldwide AIDS problem? I guess Brazil is the only place where everyone is smart enough to use condoms appropriately.
I am preoccupied with other activities at the moment. Would anyone else like to comment on Brian’s references?
Brian – Well, I guess no one else had time to do the research. One thing to consider is that the news article you reference on Brazil was somewhat dated. This link to the CIA World Factbook shows the prevalence of AIDS in Brazil. It is not extraordinary one way or the other. Does that have anything to do with condoms? If statistics of the following sort are to be believed, I doubt it.
What works in theory does not always work in practice.
While condoms and the elaborate rituals you linked to may work in theory, it is much easier just to tell kids they are not allowed to have sex. Of course, parents do have to be willing to behave like parents.