« ...and thanks for the fish! | Main | The Jesus Chronicles »
May 07, 2005
The Pope and AIDS
Let's hope that Pope Benedict XVI quickly realizes that the worst sex scandal in the Catholic Church doesn't involve predatory priests. Rather, it involves the Vatican's hostility to condoms, which is creating more AIDS orphans every day.
....
Nobody does nobler work throughout the developing world than the Catholic Church. You find priests and nuns in the most remote spots of Latin America and Africa, curing the sick and feeding the hungry, and Catholic Relief Services is a model of compassion.
But at the same time, the Vatican's ban on condoms has cost many hundreds of thousands of lives from AIDS. So when historians look back at the Catholic Church in this era, they'll give it credit for having fought Communism and helped millions of the poor around the world. But they'll also count its anti-condom campaign as among its most tragic mistakes in the first two millennia of its history.
"The Catholic Church helps increase AIDS in the world," said Roseli Tardelli, a Catholic who is editor of the AIDS News Agency in Brazil. She added: "That's wrong. God doesn't like it."
Now that more than 20 million people worldwide have died of AIDS - a toll greater than three Holocausts - there is growing pressure within the church to reconsider its position on condoms.
"If I were pope, I would start a condom factory right in the Vatican," one Brazilian priest told me. "What's the point of sending food and medicine when we let people get infected with AIDS and die?"
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Oh, for heaven's sake . . . as if people out fornicating have this atavistic scruple implanted by the Church NOT to use a condom, a scruple they rigorously obey even in the midst of their fornication.
"I'm going to hire a prostitute for her services, but I'd better not use a condom because the Church tells me I'll go to hell if I do."
Posted by: Cornelius at May 8, 2005 12:02:33 AM
"God doesn't like it"? That's ... rather final-sounding.
This whole meme is getting really, really old - nobody ever really has any new arguments - but one thing I'm curious about; HOW COME NOBODY EVER SEEMS TO ASK ACTUAL AFRICANS ABOUT IT? (And Latin Americans, in this case). I don't mean activists, or activist clerics, but an ordinary Catholic-on-the-street in an affected African or Latin country. I don't remember seeing an article yet that talks to non-activists laymen about the issue, though I've probably missed a couple. Are we supposed to assume that they're happy to let their betters speak for them, or just maybe journalists aren't particularly interested in hearing new opinions when they've already gotten such a lovely stick with which to beat the Vatican?
Posted by: Sonetka at May 8, 2005 1:00:43 AM
I ran into a guy claiming to be an African on the "Catholics Against the Pope" blog who was repeating this "meme." He seemed like a somewhat Westernized African, if in fact that's what he was. Deriding his fellow African Catholics for being priest-ridden and backward, repeating that century-old cliche about religion having great sway on the uneducated, etc. I didn't think he thought critically about what he was repeating, and it seemed something he had picked up unconsciously, so I tried to snap him out of it. Dunno if I helped or hurt at all.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at May 8, 2005 4:22:21 AM
Andrew Bolt did a terrific job of dismantling this "meme" in the Heral Sun:
The Pope spoke the truth
Posted by: Joan at May 8, 2005 4:35:30 AM
I saw Bill Clinton and another man whose name I can't remember on the Today Show. They were talking about an AIDS project they are working on in Africa.
They said that the Catholic Church's stance on condom use does not have that great of an effect on the situation in Africa. In fact, they said, the Catholic Church is doing a great amount of good there. It is the Catholic Church that is there in the hospitals, clinics, etc. working with these sick people.
I was very pleasantly surprised to hear these two men acknowledge this. I wish I had a transcript of that so I could get the quotes right.
Posted by: Meggan at May 8, 2005 6:41:50 AM
It is incongruous to suggest that fornicators eschew condoms out of obedience to the teachings of the Church.
Posted by: catholic at May 8, 2005 7:20:18 AM
"The Catholic Church helps increase AIDS in the world," said Roseli Tardelli, a Catholic who is editor of the AIDS News Agency in Brazil. She added: "That's wrong. God doesn't like it."
Thanks for keeping us posted.
Posted by: Richard at May 8, 2005 8:16:01 AM
as if people out fornicating have this atavistic scruple implanted by the Church NOT to use a condom
Consider a migrant mine worker in Southern Africa. He is promiscuous when he is away at work, and when he returns demands intercourse from his wife.
For the wife, refusal means violence, and maybe abandonment and utter poverty.
Obviously the husband should refrain from adultery. And he should refrain from intercourse with his wife if it puts her at serious risk. But he won't.
So: Is it a sin for the wife to ask her husband to wear a condom if he insists on marital intercourse?
Is it a sin for her to not resist intercourse-with-a-condom, even if resisting threatens her life and livelihood, and that of her children?
And: If the wife can encourage her husband to wear a condom...why shouldn't public health officials reinforce this encouragement through pro-condom public health campaigns?
Posted by: Rick at May 8, 2005 8:42:08 AM
"What would Jesus do?" said Didier Francisco Pelaez, a seminarian in São Paulo. "He would save lives. If condoms will save lives, then he would encourage their use."
Even some senior Vatican officials are catching up with reality. One step came when Cardinal Javier Lozano Barrágan, the Vatican's top health official, said last year that condoms might be permissible if a husband had H.I.V. and his wife did not.
"My life belongs to God, and God would not want me to allow somebody to be infected with the virus," she said. "So God will forgive my violation of church rules."
Well, I think Jesus would probably treat them as human beings with the capacity for self-control. As a friend of ours who studies at JPII said, the whole condom for AIDS in Africa discussion (I guess Latin America too) doesn't do anything to address the question of the human person. It doesn't get to the root of the problem.
Moreover, I think that in all in discussions of this sort (i.e, discussions of condoms, AIDS and the Church's teaching) I wonder if we are forgetting another important moral consideration. In fact, I think it is the most important moral consideration that never ever seems to enter into anyone's calculus. Isn't it immoral to put one's spouse (or even one's sexual partner) at risk of a mortal disease? Even if a condom will reduce the risk considerably how could one ever put
one's spouse at the risk of such a disease? Therefore, before asking what a married couple (or a non-married couple) who wants to have sex should do in such a situation, shouldn't we ask the prior question: Should this couple even be having sex? I for one think that the risk, however small it might be, of transmitting a mortal, albeit less deadly or concerning these days in the West (see for example Andrew Sullivan or Magic Johnson), of passing such a disease onto one's spouse leads to a moral duty not to engage in sex. The same of course would apply to any sexual partner. So the question of
whether condoms can or cannot be used is beside the point.
Of course this is a dilemma. But I think the dilemma isn't even been framed in the right manner.
And I also agree with those who find it a bit laughable to suggest that people are disregarding the Church's teaching on fornication, adultery, etc., but regarding it concerning contraceptives.
Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at May 8, 2005 8:54:40 AM
This sentence: Even if a condom will reduce the risk considerably how could one ever put one's spouse at the risk of such a disease?
should read as follows:
Even if a condom will reduce the risk considerably how could one ever put one's sexual partner at the risk of such a disease?
I think the principle is applicable in a non-marital context.
Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at May 8, 2005 8:59:15 AM
Is sex within marriage immoral if it is POSSIBLE that a husband has the HIV virus? I would suggest yes. But this takes Catholic moral theology to a new level of irrelevance that no one had yet suggested.
Someone should tell Catholics in the developing world that more than 85% of Catholics in the West use condoms or even more intrusive forms of contraception. The Church does not have much to say to you, except to let nature take it course. Which can mean an early death, if you are gay, or your husband is a truck driver who visited a prostitute, or your mom is infected.
If you think about this for too long, you begin to think the Church has blood on its hands. I am off to Mass now, to say my prayers.
Posted by: George at May 8, 2005 9:30:29 AM
Condoms, even if used properly, which they rarely are with 100% effeciency, are notoriously unreliable in preventing the spread of STDs. The explosion of STDs is not the fault of the Church but rather the fault of those who propagated the myth that sex can be free of serious long term consequences. If anyone has blood on his hands, cue the melodramatic music, it is Hugh Hefner, Planned Parenthood, the porn industry, etc.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at May 8, 2005 9:38:02 AM
Rick, asks "Is it a sin for the wife to ask her husband to wear a condom if he insists on marital intercourse?" This boils down to: Is it a sin for the wife to ask her husband to sin to avoid the consequences of her husband's previous sins?
How many sins must be compounded before sin becomes righteousness? The world's answer is: "What's a sin?"
The Church should not adopt the situational ethics seeming advocated in Rick's posting.
Posted by: catholic at May 8, 2005 9:46:20 AM
While I disagree with Donald McClarey on many things, he is right on this one.
Posted by: catholic at May 8, 2005 9:48:28 AM
Consider a migrant mine worker in Southern Africa. He is promiscuous when he is away at work, and when he returns demands intercourse from his wife.
For the wife, refusal means violence, and maybe abandonment and utter poverty.
Obviously the husband should refrain from adultery. And he should refrain from intercourse with his wife if it puts her at serious risk. But he won't.
Doesn't this assume that third world people deserve much less out of marriage? Good grief, it seems like there are two approaches to this situation:
Modern: Divorce the punk.
Old Fashioned: Have your family publically castrate or kill him.
Simply giving in but begging the guy to wear a condom is accepting the worst of all possible worlds.
Posted by: Scotus at May 8, 2005 10:17:33 AM
Rick says,
"Consider a migrant mine worker in Southern Africa. He is promiscuous when he is away at work, and when he returns demands intercourse from his wife."
Why does this sound like a plot from a Hollywood movie? Perhaps because American working-class men are so often portrayed as philandering wife-beaters?
Hypotheticals are very manipulative. Here's my contribution to the genre: "A wealthy African oligarch contracts HIV from a child prostitute while visiting Bangkok. Should his wife, a woman from another very rich family who beats her servants and is quite promiscuous herself, be able to insist that her husband wear a condom?"
Shouldn't an African solution to HIV manifest itself in African solutions? I hear Muslim polygamy helps combat AIDS transmission rates, why not encourage both polygamy and Islam? We could send Louis Farrakhan and Mohammed Ali over as goodwill ambassadors and sex educators!
Where are all the cultural relativists? Isn't condom distribution a form of cultural imperialism?
On a more serious note, I've seen various conservative articles on AIDS insisting that the disease is often spread through superstitious practices, or drug use, or that African AIDS is a much broader category than that which American medicine defines as AIDS. Can't say I believe them any more than the condomaniacs' effusions, though at least the conservatives have some sense that culture has a significant role to play, unlike other pundits of the moment who think that a friggin piece of rubber will contain the spiritual problems that have helped encourage the disease. Or do only Catholics spread spiritual problems?
Posted by: Kevin Jones at May 8, 2005 10:37:50 AM
My favorite blogger's headline on this topic went somewhere along the lines of: "Pope's reign of terror continues in Africa!"
Posted by: Rhys at May 8, 2005 10:49:55 AM
Meggan mentioned Bill Clinton's appearance on the Today Show. Because the library in which I work subscribes to Lexis-Nexis I have the transcript in front of me. It was on April 12 and the other man was Dr. Paul Farmer. Here is the relevant passage:
COURIC: Speaking of Catholic nuns, is it disconcerting or frustrating for you all trying to stop the scourge of AIDS in countries like Africa? Cath--Catholicism is the fastest growing religion in developing countries. Is it frustrating that the Catholic Church will not distribute condoms and stop the spread of AIDS in that way? Because, obviously it's against their doctrine.
Dr. FARMER: Well, you know, in--in the field working in places like rural Haiti and rural Rwanda, again, these haven't been significant barriers. We read a lot and hear a lot about how Catholicism and the Catholic Church, the insti--institution of churches is going block these sorts of products, but that's not really been our--our experience. So, I don't know. I feel we should give it a shot and then if we're bl--you know, if we're hamstrung by any institution, then we could say, `Well, we'll have to rethink this,' but...
COURIC: But you think condoms are be distributed...
Dr. FARMER: ...we have to try and fill first.
COURIC: ...adequately?
Dr. FARMER: I know we are. We--we are doing a lot of that sort of work in Haiti, along with our other efforts, you know, around education and around caring for the sick. So I--it--it's possible to exaggerate.
Pres. CLINTON: And there are lots of countries. And Rwanda's one where, if it weren't for the church and the nuns in particular in Rwanda, a lot of these pregnant women would get no care. There's--there's no difference in terms of the distribution of medicine, the efforts--other efforts of prevention. You know, different religious organizations have their own doctrines, but the people on the ground that we worked with in Africa and in the Caribbean particularly from the church have been immeasurably helpful.
Posted by: Marty Helgesen at May 8, 2005 11:02:28 AM
"Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him." ( Sirach 15:17 )
After encountering a serious health problem myself ( a heart attack ), it was strongly recommended that I lose weight, exercise, avoid excessively stressful situations, etc. I have an obligation not only to myself, but to my wife, relatives, friends, and others to make choices which will sustain and not compromise my well-being. Indeed, I have carried out the doctors' orders and am now in excellent health.
Are we to understand from the fictitious story of the African truckdriver that Africans are morally benighted and cannot undertand the consequences of their actions ? So, the Pope is responsible for millions of deaths, right ? I can hardly wait for the news to get out that Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln are mass-murderers !
Posted by: Ed at May 8, 2005 11:04:14 AM
If it is the Catholic church's stance against condoms that is causing the increase of AIDS in Africa or preventing its decrease we would expect AIDS to be non existent and even decreasing in areas of the world where
A. Catholic teachings have little or no influence. B. Condoms are readily available.
C. AIDS education emphasizes the use of condoms
D. Homosexuals and other high risk groups are encouraged to monitor their HIV status. But the fact is that all the public policies and education can not trump personal behavior. The campaign to change the Church's stance on condoms is one a way to get the foot in the door for changing other sexual teachings.
Posted by: Paula at May 8, 2005 11:17:13 AM
If women are being forced into sex with HIV- infected husbands out of fear of being left destitute, well, we've got a bigger problem here, don't we?
The solution isn't for the Church to hand the woman a condom, basically abandoning her to possible infection just a little *less* than not. It's to enable women like these to leave abusive situations. And this is exactly what the Church, including many Catholic aid organizations, is doing, with initiatives to educate women and set-up self-sustaining work for them to support families.
Posted by: Eileen R at May 8, 2005 11:43:51 AM
Rich's hypothetical sounds familiar because it was used previously in the New York Times--I believe by Kristof. I just don't see the link to the church. I suppose the argument goes that the wife is a devout catholic who would use condoms in heartbeat once she got the green light form the pope.
Posted by: John P Sheridan at May 8, 2005 12:12:16 PM
re: Dr. Paul Farmer, referenced above, you all should read Tracy Kidder's book about him, Mountains Beyond Mountains. This man's life has been informed by his faith (Catholic upbringing) and his work is an inspiration.
Posted by: msp at May 8, 2005 12:19:57 PM
"It is Hugh Hefner, Planned Parenthood, the porn industry, etc."
This is idiocy. None of these exist in Africa. What exists in Africa is, apparently, promiscuous sexual behavior among large segments of society. Which is causing many innocent families their lives, due to poverty and ignorance.
It is unfortunate that the Church's laudatory efforts to discourage promiscuity and foster abstinence (outside of marriage, of course) are being lost in the ruckus around condoms. Condoms don't work 100% of the time, but they do work more than 90% of the time if used reliably over the course of a year. If you are not able to be abstinent, and your husband or partner is promiscuous, they can save your life. Use them if you must is the truly Christian advice.
Posted by: George at May 8, 2005 12:25:49 PM
You rarely see the people condemning the Catholic Church regarding condoms quoting the results regarding the decrease in AIDS in Zambia. Zambia undertook a campaign to encourage married people to practice monogomy, and for teenagers to wait for sex. Their AIDS rates have dropped dramatically.
From the USAID report:
"Uganda's successful combination of ABC strategies was rooted in a community-based national response in which both the governmental and nongovernmental sectors (including faith-based, women's, and other grassroots organizations) succeeded at reaching different population groups with different messages and interventions appropriate to their need and ability to respond. Young persons who had not yet begun to have sex were cautioned to wait, and if a young person had just begun to have sex, then he or she should return to abstinence. If a person was already sexually active, he or she should adopt the practice referred to locally as "zero grazing" - faithfulness in marriage or partner reduction outside of marriage."
"The most significant of these appear to be faithfulness or partner reduction behaviors by Ugandan men and women, whose reported casual sex encounters declined by well over 50 percent between 1989 and 1995. This conclusion is supported by comparisons with other African countries."
Posted by: melissa at May 8, 2005 12:26:32 PM
