HIV/Aids: Catholic Church in Condom Palaver

AllAfrica ^ | Chioma Obinna

[narses]

The Catholic Church has been accused of warning people in African, Asian and other countries with high rates of HIV infection that condoms do not protect against the transmission of the virus, the claims come just a day after a report revealed that a young person is now infected with HIV every 14 seconds.

According to BBC report, "cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns in four continents of the church have been quoted as saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms but latest warnings were made in a Panorama programme called 'Sex and the Holy City' by one of the Vatican's most senior cardinals Alfonso Lopez Trujillo who allegedly suggests that the AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon and could pass through net formed by the condom.

Trujillo, President of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, called on governments to urge people not to use condoms.

His words "These margins of uncertainty, should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do, with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

In swift reaction to this claim, the World Health Organization (WHO) has condemned the comments and warned the Vatican to desist from putting lives at risk with such utterances.

A spokeswoman to WHO was quoted as saying that" Statements like this are quite dangerous"We are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people and currently affects around 42 million. "There is so much evidence to show that condoms don't let sexually transmitted infections like HIV through. "Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong."

Also reacting, Catherine Hankins, Chief Scientific Advisor to UNAIDS,, argued that the statements by Catholic Church are totally incorrect saying that Latex condoms are impermeable. She added that latex condoms are not only good but can perfectly prevent HIV transmission from one person to another during sex.

According to her, " "It is very unfortunate to have this type of misinformation being broadcast, "It is a concern. From a technical point of view, the statements are totally incorrect. "Latex condoms are impermeable. They do prevent HIV transmission."

Meanwhile, several anti - AIDS campaigns have also condemned the call by the Vatican arguing that condoms are straightforward and effective way of preventing HIV transmission and to suggest otherwise is dangerous.

However, the claim by the Catholic Church is already having effect on the condom distribution activities of some anti HIV/AIDS programmes.

Efforts to get a reaction from Catholic Secretariat in Lagos were unsuccessful as at press time.

[Snidely Whiplash]

So when you say wear a surgical glove, try asking a surgeon who just isn't ready to die yet. No brainer since 1988.

That's really great. When referring to surgical gloves, I was talking about HPV, though, not HIV. And I wonder - what DO health care types do about barriers against HIV? Do they simply not worry about it, and go barehanded? Somehow I doubt it.

I suppose the CDC are a bunch of liars, so it shouldn't surprise me that they'd maintain that condoms are effective against the spread of HIV.

Snidely

[CobaltBlue]

The simplest way to prevent pregnancy in Africa is Depo-Provera or Norplant. Norplant lasts for five years. Depo-Provera needs to be renewed every three to four months.

I don't think you need to worry that condoms are a stalking horse issue for Protestantism. Putting a little rubber thingie on the end of your John Thomas won't turn you into a Protestant.

Catholic priests and nuns lying to people about health care issues in order to advance Catholicism will do it, sure as you're born.

[honeygrl]

"Honeygrl, the kind of sex that these people practice is, forgive me, ANAL. The only kind of sex that is known to transmit the HIV virus. Yes, it's a fact."

You calling it a fact does not make it so. Prove it.

"Don't take this the wrong way, but for a pressured, young mom you have a lot of spare time to ignore the vital information that is being offered to you here."

And what I do with my time is absolutely none of your business. And on that note, this is my last reply to you on any thread. You've proven yourself to be unentertaining to debate.

[Solson]

Where's the lie?

As far as Protestantism is concerned, when you guys deal with Sola Scriptura as a fallacy, come talk to us...

[CobaltBlue]

No idea what you mean by "when you guys deal with Sola Scriptura as a fallacy, come talk to us..." because I don't know who you are or what you believe.

I do know that not all Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, only fundamentalists, so there is no Catholic/Protestant dichotomy vis-a-vis Sola Scriptura, only fundamentalist/non-fundamentalist.

I am Roman Catholic, but I don't agree with the position of the Church on using contraception. Given that contraception is never 100% effective, there is always the chance for conception if that is God's will.

[Unam Sanctam]

Sorry, I should have phrased that more accurately, but even if government studies are true (and I for one do not exclude the possibility of political bias in these studies), even a 1% risk of transmission is not "perfect prevention" and is Russian roulette. The study that you cite claims "6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years" are reduced to "0.9 seroconversion per 100 person years" by condom use (I'm not sure if that includes breakage or slippage or incorrect use, which if not would increase the risk even more), and thus use of a condom can produce an 85% reduction in the risk of transmission. But what about the remaining 15%? That is NOT 100%. That is NOT "perfect prevention," as Catherine Hankins, Chief Scientific Advisor to UNAIDS is cited in the article as calling it. That is NOT "safe sex".

[Unam Sanctam]

You keep accusing the Church of "lying", but you have not cited a single instance of a "lie". The term "safe sex" is a lie, by your own admission, since you admit condoms are not 100% foolproof.

[TradicalRC]

I am under the impression that the two of you call yourselves Catholic. Try to be more civil. Name-calling shows a certain lack of refinement that I would like to see among my fellow Catholic Freepers.

[TradicalRC]

Contraception is not optional in the Catholic church. It is part and parcel of Catholic belief. You may be a good protestant, however as a Catholic you are only nominally so.

[CobaltBlue]

The statistics don't mean that 15% of people using condoms will get HIV. It means that 85% fewer people will get HIV using condoms than would if they did not use condoms.

People with HIV don't transmit it 100% of the time, especially not via vaginal intercourse.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Nobody "gave" it to you prick. You went out and took it. Go bugger a sheep.

Waahhh! Waaahhh! Perhaps your momma should hold your hand and help you while you're on FR, since you can't seem to think straight or form a coherent thought on your own.

Read back carefully, if you're able. The original argument, in which YOU weren't involved unless you're a sockpuppet for someone), got nasty when (N)arses suggested I was a bigot. I didn't sling a bit of mud before that. As for yourself, you jump into a dogfight, then whine when you get nipped. Boo-hoo.

It's amusing to me that some Catholics will take any disagreement with the policies and politics of the Church to be proof of the complainer's bigotry and hatred towards Catholics. This is the same behavior that the so-called "civil rights" movement (cf. Al Sharpton et. al) engage in all the time, and are rightly pilloried for. Sad, really. One would hope that the Defenders of The Faith would be above that.

Snidely

[CobaltBlue]

No, of course condoms are not 100% foolproof. One could argue that abstinence isn't 100% foolproof either since a significant number of allegedly abstinent priests engage in sexual relations, themselves.

The real issue here is that the Church is opposed to condoms because of the belief that condoms promote sexual promiscuity. The way to prevent sexual promiscuity is behavioural modification, and it's not always perfect. People do sin.

If they're going to sin, they should use condoms.

Period, end of message.

[CobaltBlue]

Actually, the Catholic church is full of human beings who have free will and make their own choices and God will decide in the end who was right and who was wrong. Not you.

The Church has been wrong about things in the past, and it is wrong about contraception now.

[Gophack]

The problem with condoms is that they provide a false sense of security. "Hey, I'm wearing a condom, I can't get AIDS." It's BS. It's a lie.

The fact is, that condoms do little to stop the spread of AIDS. If a condom is used EXACTLY right, it has a less than 90% success rate. So if you have sex ten times using a condom, one time you could get pregnant. Or get AIDS.

Handing out condoms and encouraging people to have sex using them will do little to stop AIDS in Africa. Particularly considering that it's the cheapest condoms that are being distributed there. And we're expecting illiterate people to learn how to use them 100% accurately.

Our time--and our money--would be better used teaching these people how to be farmers, how to stop bloody wars, how to create a workable society so that prosperity can come to them. They would be better served if we educate them, rather than treating them like animals who can't control their sex drives.

May God bless the Catholic Church and its stand for the Truth.

[Romulus]

According to the NIH, if a condom is ALWAYS used for vaginal intercourse, the risk of seroconversion is .9% in 100 person years.

But you conveniently overlook the very next sentence: Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users.

In other words, "always" users of condoms are exposed to 15% of the risk run by "never" users. Is that a chance you'd take for yourself?

That's miniscule.

Is it minuscule? How many sexually promiscuous men are there in Africa? Shall we say (conservatively) 50 million? And what's the duration of their sexual promiscuity? Let's be ridiculously conservative and say it's just 10 years. That's 500 million "person years". 0.9% of that is 4,500,000 instances of seroconversion. Now, with luck, not every instance of serocoversion is going to result in infection. But best case, we're still talking about hundreds of thousands of new AIDS cases over the next 10 years. You still like those odds?

And of course, as far as condom failure is concerned, "seroconversion" is just lagniappe. The real action's where it always was, in breakages and slippages. According to the very study you've cited:

Approximately 3% of couples who reported using condoms consistently and correctly (considered "perfect use") are estimated to experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of use (123), based on results of one rigorous controlled trial as well as modeling based on rates of condom breakage and slippage. In a recent well-controlled randomized clinical trial of monogamous couples using latex male condoms for contraception over six months, the pregnancy rate during "typical use" was reported at 6.3%, with a 1.1% pregnancy rate during "consistent use" (45). Most of these couples had experience using condoms. However, based on estimates from National Surveys of Family Growth (123), 14% of couples are estimated to experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of "typical" use, a failure rate that includes both inconsistent (non-use) and incorrect use, as well as breakage and slippage. Failure rates in the second year of typical use are about 50% lower (167).

Not such good odds, are they? Remember, these are pregnancy rates - as you must know, pregnancy is actually rather difficult to achieve, requiring near-perfect alignment of the stars. Mere transmission of semen is not enough for pregnancy - but more than enough to transmit the AIDS virus.

Your own study is a damning indictment of the view that condoms can save lives, and its implementation would be a death sentence for millions.

[Romulus]

I am Roman Catholic, but I don't agree with the position of the Church on using contraception.

Then you're an ex-Roman Catholic.

[CobaltBlue]

According to a recent article in the National Catholic Reporter, sexual misconduct by African Catholic priests is not at all uncommon.
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/040601/040601d.htm

This is another situation where the priests tell the people one thing and do another.

If Catholic priests can't be abstinent, how can they expect the people to do what they can't do?

[CobaltBlue]

75% of American Catholic women use birth control regularly.

[CobaltBlue]

The official position of the Church on schism is to stay within the Church and work to change it.

Accusing people who don't agree 100% with the Church of being Protestants and trying to force them out is contrary to the official position of the Church.

For example - nobody went to hell for eating meat on Friday. That was a mistake, and it was retracted.

Eventually the Church saw the light on Galileo.

And eventually the Church will see the light on contraception.

[Romulus]

The Church is not a democracy, so your point is meaningless.