It is common sense that the Pope’s decrying of the effectiveness of condoms against HIV / AIDS is illogical. What is not so easily perceived is that it is because of dogma, rather than any adherence to biblical standards, that the Catholic Church maintains this view.
In 1633 the Catholic Church accused Galileo of heresy: He was made to recant his view that the earth revolved around the sun and kept under house arrest until his death. Nearly 400 years later (in 2008) Pope Benedict XVI praised Galileo’s contributions to astronomy. What irony that Benedict XVI continues to permit, even perpetuate, pseudo-scientific arguments against condoms. Benedict XVI portrays himself as progressive and scientifically minded, but in truth he commits the same mistake as that made in 1633 by Pope Urban VIII: He allows Catholic dogma to obscure the truth.
So what has the Pope, and the Vatican, said about contraception and condoms?
Way back in 2005 the Pope was quoted as saying
“It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality.”
More recently, in 2009, the Pope said that
“HIV / AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”
Indeed, the website of the Vatican states that
“there are studies showing that HIV/AIDS cases increase as the number of condoms distributed also increases.”
Pretty bold assertions. Is there any scientific basis to them?
Clearly the above statements are hypotheses, i.e. they are propositions, offered as an explanation for something. A hypothesis can be either a working hypothesis, or it can be accepted as fact. A working hypothesis is just an idea that needs investigating before we believe it. The moon is made of blue cheese and suchlike.
After forming a hypothesis (which we do just from observation – the moon looks blueish and cheesy for example) you test it by performing an experiment and analysing the data from that experiment. You interpret the data, perhaps form new hypotheses, retest and subject the whole shebang to peer review. Accepted, this is an over simplified description of scientific methodology, but the principles described are sound.
So what of the aforementioned Vatican statements? Clearly they’re working hypotheses. There is no experiment, no control group, no peer review and no logic. Accepted, it would be nigh on impossible to devise any kind of experiment that would not be unethical. There is however one way of evaluating these statements without any experiment: By using logic.
Let’s just take one statement and turn it into a formal logical form:
‘…HIV/AIDS cases increase…’ when ‘…the number of condoms distributed also increases.’
Removing the grammatical structures – substituting ‘A’ in the place of ‘HIV/AIDS cases’ and ‘B’ in place of ‘the number of condoms distributed’ leaves us with ‘A increases as B increases’. In logic it pays to remember that correlation does not automatically imply causation. What does this mean? Let’s use an oft cited example of spurious correlation to make a point: Ice cream causes drowning.
Is this a ridiculous hypothesis? Well, let me inform you that studies prove that cases of drowning increase as the rate of ice cream sales also increases. It is obvious, you would tell me, that the real reason for the increase in drownings is that more people swim in the summer – which is also the time in which more ice cream is consumed. Whilst there is a correlation between the two sets of statistics, there is no causation!
Does what the Pope says matter?
Ok, so these Vatican claims are not logical. But it would be illogical to learn Mpongwe – unless I’m going to go and live in Gabon. Shouldn’t we live and let live?
Well, it’s not as simple as that. Words and deeds have implications, and when you wield influence on the scale that the Pope indubitably does, your words matter a great deal.
Some of the areas with the highest rates of HIV infection are also the areas in which Papal statements are more likely to be heeded (Eastern Europe and Africa for example). It is for this reason that statements discouraging the use of condoms have such negative implications.
The Catholic position against contraception has led to national legislation and local pressures against the provision of contraceptives, which has created significant problems relating to family planning. It has also resulted in hardship for those struggling to obtain condoms and sex health information, and raises the risk of individuals having sex without them. The Catholic Church has been a significant factor in the stance taken by the Polish government against the use of contraceptives. The United Nations states that in Poland
“women have no access to affordable contraception.”
Indeed the statistics for Poland show that only 49% of women ‘in union’ between the ages of 15 and 49 currently use contraception as compared to, say, the United Kingdom where the statistic for the same demographic is 84%. Even within the United Kingdom, an example of a nation dominated by Protestantism rather than Catholicism, the Catholic Church retains an influence. This was demonstrated recently by the blocking, by Catholic leaders, of contraceptive advice for circa 30,000 Scottish schoolgirls.
The Pope’s proposed alternative to condoms:
Catholic proposals to combat the spread of HIV focus on the promotion of abstinence and faithfulness (in tandem with the rhythm method); on first hearing an admirable teaching. It is also a teaching that fails on various levels.
Firstly, it is a teaching that fails because one cannot assume that just because a couple are married they are protected from HIV. In fact, married women in some of the southern African countries, particularly married adolescents (a common phenomenon in Africa), have a higher risk of being infected with HIV than unmarried women. In the all too common case that the husbands of these women are not faithful and themselves contract HIV, their wives – even if themselves entirely faithful, also become infected. Moreover it is not a safe assumption that a woman has any say in who she marries. Around the world women have been sold for cattle and betrothed in childhood or against their wills: It is therefore not always possible for women to choose a faithful husband, or even a husband who doesn’t have HIV. (Of course, in western countries there is also much infidelity in marriage).
Secondly, teaching abstinence and faithfulness whilst at the same time teaching that the use of condoms is inherently wrong presumes that people are uniform in their acceptance of any teaching: This is evidently not the case. Many people will accept (whether as myth or belief), because of the teachings of the Catholic Church, that they should not use a condom or that condoms will be ineffectual in preventing HIV infection. However, many of those same people will maintain an active sex life, thereby putting themselves at risk.
In short, the Vatican’s insistence that a combination of abstinence and faithfulness is a sufficient response to a global AIDS epidemic is clearly insufficient.
What does the bible say about condoms?
So why is the Catholic Church against the use of contraceptives? Is there something in the bible forbidding their use? In fact the bible says little on contraception. One of the fundamental problems for the Vatican stems from the fact that they suggest any method at all for controlling procreation. In proposing the rhythm method it is implicit that the Catholic Church accepts sex is not meant only for procreation: an idea that is clearly taught in the bible, which also shows sex to be for intimacy (see Song of Solomon 2:3-6) and pleasure (see Song of Solomon 1:2). Whether it is the rhythm method or a condom surely the outcome is the same: That a couple have intercourse without having a child! To suggest, as the Vatican does, that the rhythm method is natural and condoms ‘unnatural’ is to allow dogma to get in the way of truth: You are “open to the transmission of life” in neither case. However, it is not the purpose of this blog to debate the biblical basis for the position that the Catholic Church takes; this debate has been carried out elsewhere. A further point worthy of some debate, but also not looked at here, is whether it is wrong biblically (and when condoms allow us to avoid this) to deprive each other of sex for prolonged and regular periods (which is the reality of the rhythm method if there is to be any hope of avoiding a pregnancy before it is intended). The bible teaches that couples should not deprive each other of sex except perhaps for a time for prayer (see 1 Corinthians 7:5).
It’s easy to criticise…
And when doing so it’s helpful to propose an alternative. So here is mine:
The Vatican must find an approach to the global AIDS epidemic that deals with the realities of the world. How about publicly advocating in favour of condom use? Deal with accusations of complicity with corporations by advocating non-profit, fair trade and generally ethical condom distribution. Deal with accusations of biblical compromise from conservative Catholics by giving public teaching on what the bible actually says.
Two consequences of this approach seem obvious:
One: That many more people around the world would start using condoms. People struggling with the rhythm method would be free of the worry inherent in that unreliable method, and the guilt brought about when they turn to other forms of contraception. Changes in government policies to allow and promote the use of contraceptives would surely lead to reduced HIV infection rates, as would the boost in stature and worldwide acceptance of condom use brought about by any public endorsement by the Vatican.
Two: The considerable good done by the many Catholic charities worldwide would not be hampered by a stance which runs contrary to much of the work that those organisations attempt.
The Catholic Church could do great good in the world by simply letting go of an unhelpful tradition. Without any hint of a compromise on adherence to biblical truth, the Catholic Church could support condom use and in so doing, significantly reduce the rates of HIV infection worldwide.
Condom_diary 