Thoughts on condoms and AIDS
Mark Shea (who, by the way, is one of my favorite Catholic apologists, and whose blog, “Catholic and Enjoying It,” is always good reading!) points to an interview in Tempi in which Professor Edward Green, the head of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard and a self-proclaimed agnostic and social liberal, defends the Pope’s assertions that condoms have only made the AIDS crisis worse. Some highlights:
[W]e cannot have complete Sexual Freedom and effective prevention at the same time[...]sexual behavior must change in basic ways for HIV infection rates to decline
[...]
[The media] reacted as they did for a number of reasons, starting with the deep-rooted belief that condoms work much better than they actually do. We cannot really blame journalists for being ignorant of the evidence, especially when leading experts keep saying that condoms are the number one weapon we have against AIDS. And yes, people including scientists are influenced by vested interests (most American money for AIDS prevention goes through family planning or reproductive health organizations.) A factor usually overlooked is the ideology of sexual liberation. Those of us who work in AIDS don’t realize how much the values and ideology of sexual freedom and liberation influence our thinking. It helps explain why until very recently, faith-based organizations were largely excluded from AIDS prevention even though FBOs run many of the hospitals, clinics and schools in Africa. It also explains the strong emotional reactions we see when the AIDS establishment is challenged.
Those who insist that the Pope is contributing to the suffering of millions of Africans by refusing to endorse condom use need to ask themselves if they are truly interested in resolving the crisis, or simply in scoring political points against the Catholic Church and ensuring that the philosophy of complete sexual license is not undermined. It seems to me that the argument over condoms is a red herring that allows us to ignore the bigger issues that need to be addressed on the African Continent, and that could be addressed if the West had the political will: greater availability of very expensive drugs to treat AIDs, malaria, and other widespread diseases; clean water; investment in infrastructure to promote economic growth; and conflict resolution and prevention.
Comments are closed.
I think there is pretty much general agreement that the approach Professor Green advocates– the so-called ABC approach — is the best in a great many situations. But the C in ABC is for condoms. If you interpret the pope’s remarks to mean (as Green seems to) that merely distributing condoms in Africa won’t help, and might even hurt, then of course the pope is right. But of course the pope’s real position is that condoms should never be used under any circumstances. That is not at all Green’s position. In his Washington Post piece of a few months ago he said:
Clearly, the pope would have opposed condom use in Cambodia and Thailand.
Green is advocating a pragmatic approach. Use condoms where they work, and emphasize other approaches where condom use will not solve the problem. The pope would rule out condom use anywhere, even in cases where it would be most effective.
Dr. Green is probably a better authority than the Pope on the techincal effectivness of condoms. The Pope’s views might be taken to heart better if he would cease his opposition to the repeal of laws calling for the imprisionment of gay people.
I have to agree with David Nickol. The pope’s position is not that condoms in Africa may be less helpful with regard to fighting the spread of AIDS than everyone has generally assumed would be the case. His position (as I understand it) is that condom use is immoral in Africa and elsewhere and regardless of their intended purpose (AIDS prevention or otherwise). That isn’t a position which has any empirical basis, and for people (like myself) who don’t subscribe to Catholic theology, it seems to be generally harmful.
To Kurt:
What is the imprisonment issue?
David, Kurt, and ockraz:
I think discussing the Church’s teaching on contraception could be very interesting. Let me ask you all this: what is your understanding of why the Church opposes contraception?
With the proviso that you asked for my understanding (so that an honest answer will be honestly wrong)- the impression I got from talking to my mother’s parish priest is that the church takes a teleological view of sexual activity. It has a divinely sanctioned purpose, which is to provide husbands and wives with children and (maybe- this part was fuzzy) intimacy. Anyway, it is a sin to engage in sexual activity that frustrates that purpose. I understood that to apply to contraception and masturbation and non-vaginal sex. I also understood this to be the reason that homosexual activity is forbidden.
Michael,
I am not sure that contraception is the issue here. It remains an open question as to whether it is licit for a married couple to use condoms — without contraceptive intent — to prevent the transmission of the AIDS virus. The study mentioned in this article has been submitted to the pope, but if anything has come of it, I haven’t heard.
My understanding of why the Church forbids contraception is that the Church believes in something called “natural law,” which tells us that sexual intercourse within marriage has two purposes — unitive and procreative — and that it is a violation of natural law to attempt to thwart the procreative aspect of intercourse by interfering with the possibility of the transmission of life. So not only is it wrong to use contraceptives, it is also wrong for a wife to perform oral sex “to completion” on her husband, because that would be nonprocreative sex. Nevertheless it is licit to use NFP, because nothing is being done to thwart procreation in any particular act of intercourse.
I think there are arguments that contraception can also interfere with the unitive aspects of intercourse, turning partners into objects for sexual gratification, putting up barriers between the couples, and so on.
That is how I understand the arguments.
Condoms, by all accounts, were an intrinsic factor in the successful anti-Aids program in Uganda.
The Congolese bishops started saying “We say No to condoms!” after the Pope’s visit. Cultural resistance to condom use is regarded as one of the factors thwarting anti-Aids efforts in that country.
The Church is one of the few or perhaps the only organization in Africa big enough to promote Aids education effectively. That it has refused to take this role and actually become an agent of miseducation is truly frightening.
The extraordinary huge numbers for Aids fatalities in Africa must be laid in part at the door of the Church.
“That it has refused to take this role and actually become an agent of miseducation is truly frightening.”
What ever happened to the principle of the lesser of two evils? Is condom use as great an evil as death from HIV/AIDS? It would seem so, judging from all the commotion.
Condoms are only one of the instruments in the tool box of AIDs prevention. But it is an important one and should be used to the extent that it is effective.
Another question: Has the role of prudential judgment been substantially reduced in Catholic intellectual circles in recent decades? It seems to be so.
What I detect is a trends towards theocratic authoritarianism where passages in the Bible or the Catechism are used as templates for conduct, quite apart from any circumstances or intention. This destroys the concreteness of ethics and politics as practical disciplines. Eventually, it will lead to wide-spread hypermoralism and undermine the integrity of a nation.
The extraordinary huge numbers for Aids fatalities in Africa must be laid in part at the door of the Church.
The Church isn’t exactly promoting behaviors that lead to the spread of AIDs either. Let’s get a little perspective here. The types of behavior that lead to the spread of AIDS are all outside the boundary of what the Church would consider good conduct.
“The extraordinary huge numbers for Aids fatalities in Africa must be laid in part at the door of the Church.”
What a preposterous and outrageous statement.
The Church has never encouraged the sort of promiscuous sexual activity, to say nothing of the sex trade involving prostitutes and slaves, that are primarily responsible for the spread of AIDS.
The kind of people who are inclined to have sex when they know they might possibly be infected with HIV don’t strike me as the kind of people likely to use a condom every single time – which is what they would have to do in order for condoms to be effective.
It is far less realistic to expect people to always use contraception than it is to teach people from a young age what the true purpose of sex is.