In the recent threads here in GDand especially in The Pit about John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and numerous articles in both the MSM and alternative press, I’ve seen a lot of criticism of the Roman Catholic Church for its position against condom use and the contribution of that position to the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
The argument seems to be that since AIDS is rampant, and condoms are the most economic and effective method to prevent the spread of AIDS, the Church is being at least irresponsible and at worst complicitous in the deaths of millions of people to the disease.
If I’ve understood this argument correctly (and maybe I haven’t), this is a completely bogus complaint against the RCC. Here are some reasons I find this accusation absurd:
Condoms are pretty (but not completely) effective in preventing the spread of AIDS. However, abstinance or marital monogamy, which the church advocates, is much more effective. If African Catholics followed church teaching, they would be less likely to get AIDS, not more likely.
Then comes the argument that abstinance/monogamy is not realistic or practical. But do we believe that Catholics in Africa are ignoring the teaching of the Church in this area, but strictly following the prohibition against condoms? If someone doesn’t care what the church says about promiscuous sex, why do we believe they care what the church teaches about condoms?
What about the epidemic of rape in Africa, where some people believe that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS? – Again, will the church changing its teaching on condom use make these rapists more likely to use condoms? No - these rapists clearly do not put a whole lot of stock in what the church teaches or they wouldn’t, you know, rape little girls.
‘The RCC doesn’t care’ - nothing could be further from the truth. There are many, many Catholic churches, hospitals and agencies ministering to AIDS victims in Africa and around the world. Not providing condoms != not caring or making real efforts to help.
It’s just dumb. The best, most reliable way to stem the spread of AIDS is to create a culture of sexual responsibility (abstinance / monogamy) - which the church is doing. Changing church teaching on condom use won’t force people to actually wear them, so its impact on the spread of the disease is debateable.
I can only think of two conclusions:
If what the RCC says actually influences people, it should continue to advocate marital monogamy or abstinance as the most effective way to prevent AIDS.
If what the RCC says doesn’t influence people, saying that condoms are OK is not going to make a difference in their use anyway.
Disclaimer: I am not Catholic, and I don’t personally have a problem with condom use. But I applaud the RCC for taking a consistant ethical and moral position.
There is another aspect of condom use besides perventing AIDS. Birth control is probably the most amazing thing ever invented in terms of increasing human happiness and improving quality of life. It has allowed women to work and have the same dreams and oppertunities that men do. It allows families to plan how large they will be and when, and lessens the blow of crushing poverty by not adding a steady stream of hungry mouths.
And the RCC forbids this…why? The only reasons I can think of is that they are not too in to women (the church is an actual physical patriarchy- think about it) and puts the creation of huge broods of little catholics above the quality of life of it’s own people.
Your argument falls apart at your first point. The Church’s stance on abstinance or martial mongamy will not prevent a person from getting AIDS via blood by products or unclean instrutments. Since blood screening and education on preventing AID via these methods is virtual non-existant in Africa, a person has as much chance of catching AIDS via these methods as they do through infidelity.
Condom use if it’s primarly goal is to prevent transmission of disease within married couples is allowed.
So if AIDS can be caught in other means besides infidelity and condom use is permitted in the prevention of disease in the context of marriage, can you think of a third conclusion?
Please see this excellent post by Roches. And yes, certainly abstinence and marital monogamy are effective, unless your spouse happens to be HIV positive. But is there any reason why advocating condom use in conjunction with monogamy and abstinence cannot be taught? Being a good Catholic is one thing, but let us not be credulous, here. AIDS and HIV in Africa have reached pandemic proportions. Saying “no, no, mustn’t do!” clearly isn’t working. Condoms assist in reducing the spread of these viruses. Why not use every tool at our disposal to save lives? That is the important thing, right?
The church has the largest missionary force there. The representatives most people see are from the RCC or the American Red Cross (which is also church based). My largest beef is that the church is spreading disinformation and saying that condoms actually increase risk of spreading HIV. Both the CDC and the WHO have come out and decried this statement, but the church is still preaching it, and people are listening.
even sven – I can understand the birth control argument. I actually agree that the church doesn’t do anyone any favors by prohibiting married couples from using artificial birth control. So, I agree with you there. I am mainly protesting the accusation that the Pope is responsible for millions of AIDS deaths because he won’t allow the Roman Catholics in Africa to advocate condom use or distribute them on the street.
That’s tragic, but infections via blood transfusions or tainted instruments wouldn’t be prevented by condom use either. I don’t see how that contributes to the RCC’s culpability in the epidemic.
I think I had heard this, but had forgotten. Again, that would seem to be a point in the church’s favor.
Correct, but the Church’s stance on condom use is based on sex and morality…not the prevention of disease. By removing weight of sexual conduct from the equation, you are left with the prevention of disease…and the only two ways to prevent disease within married couples is abstinance or condoms. Since condoms are permitted, the Church does it’s followers a disservice by not informing them of ALL their options. Instead they deny that a. condoms are effective and b. they say that condom’s primarily function is to promote sex as opposed to prevent disease.
Therefor while the father is infected, by using condoms he will reduce the risk to infecting his wife, who will in turn reduce the risk of infecting her children…less infected people. However if the father obeys the Church, thinking, “Hey I don’t cheat on my wife, I don’t need those evil, AIDS spreading condoms”, he will eventually infect his wife…and the disease will continue to spread.
That’s where the Church takes the hit, by lying about the effectiveness of condoms and ‘forgeting’ that condoms can be used within marriage, they condemn their infected followers to dead.
Holmes, I think you make a good point. But the criticisms I have been hearing are not “The Catholic Church won’t remind married couples that it’s okay for them to use condoms with each other to prevent the spread of disease.” That would be good for them to do, I’m sure, but I don’t think that’s what people are asking for.
Maureen, I think you’re saying the same thing - that condom use should be promoted in conjunction with abstinance & monogamy. If the church’s official position is that condom use is acceptable to prevent the infection of one’s spouse, than isn’t that what they are doing?
Now if the church is teaching people that condoms are entirely ineffective to prevent AIDS - do you have a cite for that? - it would be wrong. Is that their offical position? If the church really believed that, why would they bother to permit them for married couples?
Let me put it this way. If the church said “The appropriate context for sex is within a lifelong monogamous marriage. In this context, condoms are appropriate to prevent a person from AIDS from infecting his or her spouse. Any other context for sexual intercourse, or the use of a condom or other artifical means of preventing conception, is a sin and contrary to the teaching of this church” – would that make people less angry? I understand that this may not be the message that is given, but isn’t this approximately the official position of the church?
First, Maureen’s link show that the church seems far more interested in preventing condom use than in realistically reducing the number of cases of AIDS. Care for patients does not make up for this - a manufacturer spewing carcinogens in the air is not absolved because he donates to the local hospital.
Your proposal probably wouldn’t be acceptable. If condoms are always used, even in a marriage, the possibility of having children is eliminated through artifical means, which if I understand it is unacceptable. The right thing to do would be to seperate abstinence from disease prevention. No one is arguing that they shouldn’t teach abstinence, or that it is not the only perfect prevention. But here the best is the enemy of the good. Why not teach that here are the acceptable situations for sex, and that every time you have sex you should be protected (except if both partners have been tested as being disease free.)
It won’t happen, because condoms are considered bad, and because of the unsupported assertion that teaching about condoms increases sexual activity.
The Bush administrations sex education strategy is really no better, but at least they’re not spouting lies about condoms.
If there are two paths to safety, a bridge and a tunnel, and most of the people who attempt the bridge end up falling off, it’s pretty damned irresponsible to send them over it.
The Catholic Church has been lying about the effectiveness of condoms across the world and in some instances telling people that the condoms are contaiminated with AIDS. That is completely unacceptable and is causing the deaths of people that the Catholic Church is responsible for. The Catholic Church can continue its inneffective teachings if it wants to but people can legitimately point out that they are not concerned about the lives and suffering of AIDS victims. For an orginization that claims to be concerned about a culture of death it is hypocritical for them not to save the millions of Africans that they could.
Let’s compare this situation to the dangers of driving an automobile. Certainly a large number of people die from automobile accidents. Lets say we have an orginization that advocates abstaining from driving your car. Certainly if everyone followed that practice no one would die in traffic accidents. But how reasonable of a solution is it? You can live your life without a car but it will be a much less enjoyable existance than one with a car. In fact it is such an integral part of modern life that it is nigh on impossible to give up. The number of deaths prevented by this orginizations teachings would be negligible.
Now if we have a second orginization that advocates safety features in cars. They want to provide people with seatbelts to use in their car, safety training for drivers and proper roads. Certainly not everyone will use their seat belt, nor will everyone practice safe driving. However the majority of people that hear this message will and the roads will be safer for it. The number of deaths on the roads will dramatically decrease as a result of their program.
Now to answer the question of which message is more effective depends on what you are asking. If you are asking which program followed to the T will be safest obviously its the first. If you mean which program is most effective at preventing deaths the second beats the first by a longshot. I would contend that the second meaning of the question is much more important than the first.
To bring the analogy back to AIDS its obvious by watching human behavior that sex is just as important in human life as driving. The Catholic Church is advocating the first program and it is just as ineffective. If they wanted to save lives they would use the second program but that is not their primary goal.
It hasn’t happened yet in this thread but in other ones like this people argue that people need to take responsibility for their action. Certainly there is an aspect of personal responsibility for their action. However if we are trying to come up with an accurate description of the causes of the AIDS epidemic in Africa a personal choice argument is woefully lacking. A more accurate description would attribute poverty, lack of education and lack of condoms for the epidemic. To me while the individual holds responsibility for their actions the enviroment they live in deserves as much if not more of the blame.
It is absolutely not debateable. It is an indisputable fact that condom education is an effective tool to combat AIDs while abstinence education isn’t.
The RCC certainly influences people but it does not hold enough sway to convince people to abstain from sex. It certainly has enough sway to convince them to use condoms during sex. Just becuase I can’t move a boulder doesn’t mean I can’t pick up a stone.
Well, first of all thank you for the link. I agree that spreading disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms, which the article appears to document, it pretty bad. And, frankly, I don’t see why it would be necessary even from the church’s perspective. So, I will concede that point.
However, concerning the use of condoms in general – I don’t see how the RCC could look the other way, or encourage condom use outside of a marriage, without compromising pretty basic core doctrines about human relationships and sexuality. To say that it’s too hard for people to follow the church’s teaching on abstinance is not a good enough reason for the church to lower its standards. It reminds me of the G.K. Chesterton quote, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” I guess I’m trying to say that, aside from the misinformation about condoms I conceded above, the church’s uncompromising position on birth control is in and of itself not a significant contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic. I know the culture is different, but I doubt those who are spreading the disease through sexual promiscuity are forgoing condoms out of respect or fear of the church.
So I am angry about the misrepresentation of the effectiveness of condoms, but not exactly disappointed that they are not being handed out by nuns on the street.
Thanks for helping me understand the situation a little more fully.
13 posts! This has got to be the most quickly resolved GD criticzing the RCC to the satisfaction of the OPer I have ever seen. OMG. I wounder if is due to the fact that Skammer seems much more reasonable then most people defending this point. That said, Skammer, I do not think you fully grasp the seriousness of the issue, but that is a point for a diffrent thred, some other day.
I disagree. The lack of sexual education and unavailibility of condoms are a significant if not the biggest factor in the epidemic of AIDS in Africa. The Catholic Church is the staunchest and most vocal opposition to proper sexual education and making condoms readily availible. Certainly they are a factor in fostering the enviroment that allows AIDS to spread. They are the most significant cause of the largest contributing factor of the AIDS epidemic. In my book that marks them down as a significant contributing factor.
Again you tie this to promiscuity. It’s not that simple. Who do you think is donating and receiving blood to/from the blood banks? Pimps and hookers? No it’s average people who have no idea they are infected or don’t realize because of the Church’s lies, how to protect themselves. They in turn infect each other and the cycle continues. It has to stop.
This isn’t a cultural issue, its one of poverty. The West was lucky that we were able to protect our blood supply quickly or we would be in the same boat. You don’t think there’s lots of people in the states having unprotected sex? I promise you, our culture is the one the promotes promiscuity, yet we have AIDS under control. Why? We don’t as a nation listen to Church, yet why don’t we have the percentage of AIDS victims here?
Remember in the early days, lots of “innocent” people got AIDS through blood products. Can you imagine what this nation would look like if the Church was able to convince the CDC, not to recommend condoms as a preventative measure or we were unable to secure our blood supply, or create guidelines to prevent infection? Would you want to receive blood that had a maybe 50% chance of being screened for AIDS?
The only way to break the cycle is to ensure that the next generation isn’t infected and that won’t happen if average people, keep infecting each other. If they follow Church doctrine, they will keep doing it, regardless of their promiscuity. It doesn’t matter, if your a whore or a madonna, if your blood is tainted and you donate it and pass it to someone else.
They can do it, they won’t do it; knowing full well that they are condeming millions, I mean millions of people to death, including those who believe the church has their best interest in mind. African Bishops
I’m glad you see our side a bit clearer, but please, don’t give the RCC a pass on their contribution to this tragedy.
It seems to me that the RCC’s position is similar in a sense to pure Communism, pure anarchy and pure libertarianism. They’d all be wonderful situations if humanity were perfectable - but the whole basis of Christianity, I thought, was that man is not perfect. If men could go out there and never sin, why need Jesus? Yet that is what the RCC is asking them to do.
After all, if all followed the Bible’s precepts not to steal, we wouldn’t need locks, would we? But someone claiming locks were not necessary because people should obey the Ten Commandments would be considered a madman. Why is the church any different?
I wounder if is due to the fact that Skammer seems much more reasonable then most people defending this point. That said, Skammer, I do not think you fully grasp the seriousness of the issue, but that is a point for a diffrent thred, some other day.