Replies

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".

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.

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.