As we’ve explained on this blog, contraception is a sin and always has been. Therefore the Catholic Church condemns use of the birth control pill, the patch, and condoms as it has since the birth of the Church in 33 A.D.
This now is spilling over into Africa. In Africa, as most are aware, there is a severe AIDS crisis; current estimates suggest 10% of the population is HIV-positive and it is now the leading cause of death. So the call is for the Catholic Church to approve the use of condoms to fight the AIDS crisis in Africa. Is this logical? In other words, if the Church approved the use of condoms, would it help stop the AIDS crisis?
There are some inherent myths in the African AIDS crisis that must first be dealt with. Such as:
- Myth: Most of African AIDS is transmitted sexually. Truth: Perhaps as much as 66% is transmitted through contamination primarily in medical or dental procedures.
- Myth: Condoms work. Truth: Condoms can’t stop the HIV virus – even conservative estimates put condom failure to stop AIDS at 10%.
- Myth: Catholics are spreading AIDS. This myth comes from the fallacy that the Church can stop the AIDS epidemic. Truth: The countries with the highest incidence of AIDS/HIV have a tiny Catholic population. Can the Church convince non-Catholics to use condoms?
- Myth: Abstinence can’t work in Africa. Truth: It is working extremely well in Uganda, where the AIDS epidemic is actually subsiding (see below).
There are many myths out there, which tend to skew against reason and against Christ’s Church. The truth is, the Church can help stop the spread of AIDS and HIV by teaching abstinence, rather than distributing condoms.
I recently read this article by Brian Saint-Paul that addressed it well. A few highlights:
One approach, of course, would be to explain the Catholic moral/theological position on why contraception is inherently evil. But while absolutely true, that approach isn't terribly convincing to a non-Catholic, let alone a non-Christian. After all, logic and philosophy are easily dismissed as abstractions when human life is involved.
But the debate over condoms in Africa need never get to that point. In fact, the whole matter can be settled without ever bringing in moral theology. You see, the fatal flaw in the pro-condom argument is both simple and devastating: Condoms aren't working to stem AIDS in Africa.
Take for example a March 2004 article in the medical journal, Studies in Family Planning (cited by the Zenit News Agency, June 26, 2004). Titled "Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?," the piece was a meta-review of the scientific literature on the question.
The results shocked condom advocates. In the article, researchers Sanny Chen and Norman Hearst noted that, "In many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use." In fact, they continued, "No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom distribution."
This is good advice for anyone who is sexually promiscuous: condom’s have a high propensity to fail in preventing disease. He goes on:
But while condoms clearly won't solve the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa (or anywhere else), there is an approach that will: abstinence. Indeed, in African nations — where HIV/AIDS is transmitted almost exclusively through sexual contact — abstinence is the obvious solution.
And better yet, it has been proven effective.
Uganda at one time had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Starting in the mid to late 1980s, their government instituted a program to teach abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one's partner afterwards. They only reluctantly advised condoms for high risk groups (like prostitutes) whom they knew would not accept the other two approaches.
Billboards, radio announcements, print ads, and school programs all promoted the virtues of abstinence and fidelity to prevent HIV/AIDS.
The results were astonishing.
In 1991, the prevalence rate of HIV was 15%. By 2001, it had dropped to 5%. It was the biggest HIV infection reduction in world history.
Among pregnant women, the drop was even more dramatic (as reported by CNS News, January 13, 2003). In 1991, 21.2% of expecting mothers tested positive for HIV. By 2001, the number had plummeted to 6.2%. Compare this with the 2001 numbers from Kenya (15%), Zimbabwe (32%), and Botswana (38%). All three countries focus on condom distribution, and all three countries continue to see their rates rise.
Go read the whole article – it’s one of the better articles addressing this problem.
God bless,
Jay
Great post Jay, many people believe the myths that condoms stop aids, that contraception improves marriages, and that married clergy solves the vocation crisis.
Your talk of contraception and Africa does remind me of one exception to the rule against using contraceptives. Namely, someone expecting to get raped may licitly use contraceptives.
Considering that rape is standard practice during war time, this exception is unfortunately more than hypothetical. For example, this terrifying situation occurred in the 20th century with women (including nuns) in Africa during civil wars and such.
Jay,
Actually, the government in Uganda did give out free condoms and made efforts to educate the people of Uganda. They have been held as potential model of African nations because of their proven decline in HIV/AIDS prevalence.
God Bless
SandT,
In Uganda, they only distributed condoms to "high-risk" professions, such as prostitutes. For the regular population, they focused on abstinence before marriage.
By the way, often those like Planned Parenthood push the myth that Uganda did it with condoms, rather than abstinence, but this reflects their agenda, rather than the actual events.
Take a minute and read the article I linked to at the end - he goes into this a little more.
God bless,
Jay
SandT, the Uganda program worked like this: ABC
A: Abstain
B: Be faithful
C: Condom
Condom was given the lowest priority of all options. Other countries just tried condoms and received there was no improvement. So what we have is one country different from all the rest and the only things separating its program from the rest was abstinence and faithfulness. Pretty clear evidence that condoms dont help a country battle aids.
All,
Uganda is a country that has been in revival for at least 10 years. Turning to the Lord is the cause of their decline in HIV/AIDS. More and more Muslims come to Christ in that nation everyday. Banks play gospel music, Judges take time out to pray in the middle of the day. Prayer is promoted in school and Jesus Christ is a name that people can talk about in public without reservation. A pastor from Uganda, named Jackson Senyonga came as a guest speaker to our church and gave the testimony of how God answered their prayers. Yes, abstinence is a big reason for the decline, and yes condoms were used and did indeed help. But through faithfulness in God could the discipline to do the other 2 be achieved.
God Bless
Came across this and was appalled at the ignorance shown.
Fact: Uganda saw a rise in Condom use AND monogomy AND abstinence. Not just any one of them.
Fact: Abstinence ONLY works if people don't have sex. Once they do (and abstinence programs have a very high failure rate. 88% in the US and shown to only delay sex, and when they do they don't tend to use protection thanks to the myths spread about condoms).
Fact: condoms are a very effective method of preventing STDs and pregnancy (IF educated on their use which is prevented by a lot of the pro-abstinence teaching).
Read
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/uganda0305/
for some of the criticisms.
People are dying while pseudo-moralitiy is jammed down their throat by people like you lot.
Jay: it is you who is pushing a myth. Also they distributed condoms widely, not just to high risk professions. Get your facts straight.
The church driven program on this stuff is inadequate for the following groups of people:
* ones having sex
* ones going to have sex
* gays/lesbians and other "degenerates" that don't fit into the mould of the church
* people married with one already with HIV (which by your reasoning if they are married MUST NOT use condoms)
* anyone with HIV/AIDS
Please educate yourself a little more on reality. The concept of "just say no" doesn't work. People DO have sex whether you like it or not and banning/discouraging condoms is killing real people (not some "every time there's sex should be life" fantasy).
It's not too far a stretch to say that the catholic stance on condoms might be one of the largest mass murder of people. 25 million so far, but 40 million infected worldwide currently.. How many more because condoms were not available or "a sin"?
regards,
Nathan
Gee Nathan...I guess we are all just a bunch of uncontrollable animals who act out on any and every sexual impulse we might have.
So much for self-control, will-power, reason, morality, and, most importantly, love of God.
You see some of us are realistic enough and informed enough to "believe". I guess in the end you, me, and every other human being will find out who is right. The way I see it is we can choose to believe and live in accordance with God's law or we can choose not to believe and reject His law. God has clearly said that it is sinful to engage in premarital sex, homosexual acts, and life-preventing sex...so don't you think, that being the case, that He is able to give us the grace to live lives of virtue and self-control? Is not human will-power and reason able to recognize something as wrong and say "no, I will not engage in that activity"? Or, as you imply, are we just senseless animals who need to satisfy all sexual urges...because we can't help it?
I lose nothing by striving to live a moral, God-fearing life. If I believe falsely in God, when I die I'll never know it. However, if my belief in God is well-founded, I have everything to gain. For the one that choosing not to believe, if he/she is right they'll never know, but if they are wrong...they'll will know for all eternity that they were wrong. Think about it...
In terms of abstinence, what are you talking about? How does abstinence fail to protect the one who uses it? You're whole argument is based on the idea that those who attempt to practice abstinence simply, in time, can't mantain their self-control.
As far as the "church program" and who it doesn't serve...all I can say is that those individuals are choosing to reject God's law...so why shouldn't they live with the potential ramifications? These same programs offer a better way, a way that recognizes the dignity of the human person, a way that seeks to love and sanctify...how is this a "bad" or "unrealistic" way?
It's sad to me that there are so many in this world who seem to have no regard for the "lost" dignity of man, who want to reduce man to a base animal, and a mindless, soul-less, creature with no eternal future. My question is why? Why do so many not desire to live by a higher law and strive to be one with the God that created us and loves us?
I guess in the end we all have to choose...our goal is to educate as many as we can so that they can "choose wisely".
In Christ,
Joe
On a related note, Martin Sempa who gave much direction to the highly successful campaign to control HIV, avoided the Toronto AIDS conference because of the seething hostility to his message he was likely to find there. If people were really interested in fighting HIV and AIDS, they would be embracing Mr. Sempa's message of fidelity to marriage - not spitting on it.
In fighting AIDS/HIV, marital fidelity can work, has worked, does work. No other program has helped to control the spread of AIDS. Perhaps it is condom-pushers who are forcing their worthless ideologies on others at the cost of millions of lives.
If you're going to use the bible as the guide then by that measure incest (lot and his daughters, how dodgy was that!! Referenced in the new testament too as a virtuous man), suicide and slavery are fine. Women are lower life forms than men and should never talk in church. It also says that idols or symbols should not be worshipped, yet catholics seem to like praying those statues of mary a lot and christians to their crosses.
So let's get back to reality.
How does your idealogy cope with the following situation (since you missed answering that):
* married couple, one is HIV positive.
"God has clearly said that it is sinful to engage in premarital sex, homosexual acts, and life-preventing sex..."
Where has he *clearly* said all that? And what is "life preventing sex", as in using condoms to prevent transmission of HIV? I don't think either HIV/AIDS or condoms were around back then, so where this ban on common sense comes from.
If you regard infecting people with AIDS as murder, which is the greater sin?? Using condoms for sex which may not even result in a child, or infecting someone new who WILL DIE from a virus.
"You see some of us are realistic enough and informed enough to "believe"."
Well actually, you're talking supersition and the ignorance of reason when you're talking "belief". Have you informed yourself about biological facts of virus transmission or indeed on conception? About reality for women in Africa rather than pseudo-morality from US middle aged males from the bible belt?
If this was any other topic then you'd be considered insane, but under the guise of "religion" you get allowances made by lots of people.
To paraphrase an example I heard:
* I believe that there's a diamond the size of a house buried in my backyard
* The belief that the diamond is there gives my life purpose and guidance
* I wouldn't want to live in a world without that diamond
Face facts: condoms prevent STD transmission and pregnancy. They are 97% effective when used properly (discarding when sex education has not been allowed to show proper use).
If you think that contraception is a sin, what about murder? Or allowing infection of millions of people due to prevention of techniques.
What about the menstral cycle? Allowing an egg to go unfertilised is surely a sin.
Your comment "so why shouldn't they live with the potential ramifications?"
How hypocritical of you, where's the compassion/love for all man regardless.. Only intolerance.
"God-fearing life"
This is the part where you have missed "the point of life" I think. If god created the world for you to live in, surely he/she/it would want you to enjoy life, explore the planet and just be good to one and other. Fearing god is about the worst reason to do something ever. It's like torture or wife beating: sure you get obedience and have bullied someone into doing what you want, but it's hardly on a good moral footing. The bible has many references to "love god": how can you love something you're in fear for your eternal life from?
Your same arguments were used by your church to justify witch burnings, persecution (of scientists/engineers). The only reason you're alive today in your current state of long life expectancy and electrical powered home is because religion was overcome to advance science.
Isn't god the only one who should judge people? I believe that's one of the key messages you are ignoring.
People like you take it upon yourself to delve out "morality", persecution and judgement like you're some god him/her/itself! Isn't that a fairly major sin?
I agree with the idea that abstience and marital fidelity does help BUT so does condom use for the other majority of cases.
Fact: abstinence for the general population has a pretty low success rate. 9/10 who pledge abstinence in the US will have sex before marriage.
As for "no other program has helped control the spread of AIDS". What about condoms and the gay community? It has had a great success there because people were educated about the dangers and chose to use condoms. Also in developed nations condoms are pretty much the single cause of drop in HIV and other STDs infections.
Fact also: for people choosing to have sex abstinence has a zero percent effectiveness against STDs. You can go on about self control all you like, but fact is that people have desires to have sex with someone they care about or are in love with (but may not be married).
There is no "condom pushing" there is giving people the choice to use them. It does not ban or contradict the option of not having sex, it gives another option and one which will work if the person chooses to have sex.
The religious driven version of this is to take away or prevent condom usage. This means that if (and most likely WHEN) someone has sex, it means there are no options to do things in a safer manner. This applies to everything really, there's absolutely no difference between christian/catholic trying to push their ideals on people via laws to remove choice and Islamic sharia law.
Choices are always good, removing choice is generally a bad thing. You would be most upset if I banned you from practicing your religion, but by my reckoning that would save lives in this case. Yet by your rational you would be quite happy for noone to have any choice but to follow "the word of god" as you see it.
If your choice is the correct one: why are you so against providing options? Taking away someone's freedom to make their own minds is a sin if ever there was one.