It seems to me that to people not ignorant of basic ethics and not infatuated with their own conclusions, the, ahem, obvious observation is that, gee, after all these years the miraculous condom has not worked as advertised, as promised by the scientists. There's a phenomenon! People don't do what the soi-disant scientists say they should. But the scientists don't seem to look at this as data to consider but as stuff to blame on Catholics. (Okay, I'm exaggerating a little.)
There's a kind of contradiction: On the one hand people are viewed as such non-moral actors that advocating chastity is looked upon as ludicrous. And the so-called scientific view is that the one way to consider this is that it's mere data: Whatever the rules, whatever their OWN (professed) values are, people have multiple sex partners, especially people of the guy persuasion. So we should just deal, live with it, get a clue.
Okay an observation is made: people are unchaste. Fine. (We call it the fallen nature of man, but that's just us.)
Now the scientists have a new suggestion: when you have sex, use a barrier device, preferable a condom (portable, inexpensive, easily deployed, works a lot of the time.)
The OBSERVATION is people don't use 'em. And what is the response of the scientists? While mocking and despising the Church's teaching and repeated advocacy of chastity as clearly futile, they — well, looky here! — persist in teaching and repeated advocacy, but add abuse of those who disagree. WE are ludicrous and worse for advocating one thing, THEY are brilliant and good for ... teaching and advocacy. Advocating chastity as well as many of us would like (some think the very notion to be sick at best) doesn't work so we are stupid. Advocating condoms doesn't work as advertized so the people are wrong and we just have to advocate more.
Have you read Mary Eberstadts article yet? It's short, Catholic (so it's stupid, shouldn't be a problem for a smart scientist), and entertainingly written. I observe that the hypothesis that there might be social consequences, ultimately lethal consequences, to reliance on Artificial Birth Control (which we, coincidentally call 'ABC') is not something to be considered but something to mock, by the scientists who profess a bias free approach to data. What a surprise! The bias is evidently so strong that an articulate presentation of anecdotal observations supporting the conjecture is not even read. (A friend wouldn't read it because it came from the Hoover Institute &8212; they're conservative so they couldn't possibly have anything worth saying.)
(In the US we have readily available condoms. How's the STD rate here? How about pregnancy outside of marriage? How about the divorce rate? And yet the scientific promotion of condoms including prophecies that all these would decline.)
Okay. I actually do see that your approach is more nuanced. Of course, when making a nuanced presentation, I find it best not to give it a vanguard, flank, and read guard of eager abuse, but again,that's just me. But I'm beginning to wonder if presenting a clear and persuasive argument in such a way that it might actually be entertained is really the goal here:
The very same Dr Green knows that there's a difference between the Pope's bogus claim that condoms "increase" HIV infection rates.....and the claim that condoms are not a good "primary intervention method."If you KNOW this, then I suppose you can give me a citation, a recent quote in which he says this? Say, a quote after the quote which supported the Pope?
I am aware that for more than 20 years groups like The Hunger Project have approached churches and, with the goal of eliminating hunger, have presented an argument that where the birthrate is low, hunger is also low; and therefore we should promote condom use. Now the stakes are higher. I see that. But I also see that ALL the promises made by those who support Artificial Birth Control have come up bankrupt. Since Griswold v. Connecticut all the things which contraception was going to reduce have increased. Those there are data, but somehow those data don't get a seat at the table.
And yet WE are called immoral and stupid, while the so-called scientific view is presented with increasing vituperation. We've gone FROM arguing the facts THROUGH arguing the law TO pounding on the table.
Basta.
Of COURSE condoms are not a miracle cure-all. Never said as such, Dr Green never said as such. That’s why my approach is not “toss condoms at the problem.”
.....but they will save lives that abstinence-only tosses aside.
That’s why the “best” approach.....the approach that has worked in Africa and will continue to work is a multi-pronged approach.
Teach abstinence, teach monogamy.....teach the consistent use of condoms. THAT is what worked in Uganda because it addresses the specific problem IN Uganda.
It wouldn’t work in SE Asia because their problem is different....is created by prostitution, not simple polygamy or promiscuous sexual relations. THERE, condom use BY PROSTITUTES, has worked well in lowering infection rates. Teaching guys that use prostitutes’ services that they shouldn’t be having sex outside of marriage or at all....is not going to work very well.