Saturday, 16th May 2009
The Pope and the condom conundrum
A group of journalists visited the Meeting Point, a centre in Kampala, Uganda, for those suffering from AIDS. The Centre cares for about 4,000 people a day. These journalists were moved by the condition of the HIV-positive women they were talking to. They decided to do something for the women: they gave them a small box of condoms. One of the women at the centre, Jovine, looked at them and said: "My husband is dying and I have six children who will soon be orphans. What use are these boxes you are giving me?"
The doers and the talkers
Rose Busingye, who directs Meeting Point Kampala, mentioned this incident in an interview with Il Susidiario on March 20. "It is absurd," she added, "to try to respond to her need with a box of condoms.” She was reacting to the controversy that followed the out-of-context quotation form the Pope’s in flight comments about the effectiveness of condom use in the campaigns to fight AIDS in Africa. Many of those who commented on these remarks (including myself) are living comfortably far away from the problem. Rose Busingye lives in its midst and is dedicating her life to help people suffering from AIDS.
Why am I writing about this subject two months after Pope Benedict made these comments? I do so because it seems that the controversy knows of no end. The European Parliament has just voted on a motion to "condemn the recent declarations of the Pope, who has prohibited the use of condoms and has warned that condoms can even bring about a greater risk of illness." The motion was turned down by a vote of 253-199.
The Spanish Parliament is expected to debate another “censure motion” towards the end of May or in June. The motion will most probably be defeated as both the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the People's Party have said they would not support the bill.
On the other hand in the beginning of April the Belgian House of Representatives passed a motion asking the country's government to "condemn the unacceptable statements of the Holy Father on his journey to Africa and to protest officially to the Holy See."
It is not very common for so many Parliaments to discuss Popes!
What the Pope really said
Let us backtrack a bit and consider what the Pope really to journalists aboard his flight to Cameroon March 17.
The Pope had said within the context of the interview that "I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money -- which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, (money) doesn't help.I can say that this problem of AIDS can't be overcome only with publicity slogans. If there is not the soul, if the Africans are not helped, the scourge cannot be resolved with the distribution of condoms; on the contrary, there is the risk of increasing the problem. The solution can only be found in a double commitment; first, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual and human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; and second, a true friendship, also and above all for those who suffer, the willingness -- even with sacrifice and self denial -- to be with the suffering. And these are the factors that help and that lead to visible progress".
The statement of the Pope should be seen within its wider and immediate context. He heads an organisation which provides at least 25 percent of the services and care for people with HIV/AIDS in Africa. He heads a Church and not a state. The role of a church is different from government, which has to legislate and organize for people of all religions as well as those without.
What the Pope is actually saying is that the epidemic will only be seriously tackled if its cause is attacked and not just its symptoms. Those who think that the epidemic can be eliminated by only attacking its symptoms are mistaken though their intention may be praiseworthy. The Pope’s statement on the efficacy of condoms in AIDS prevention campaigns was an interpretation of facts in the field and not a moral evaluation. One can argue whether the Pope’s interpretation of the facts is the best one. Some would say yes and some would say no. However, can one justify the onslaught against him? Isn’t it true to say that the real solution lies in the humanisation of sex?
Divergent opinions
Among the people who think that the Pope’s appraisal of what is happening on the ground is correct, is Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the University of Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. He told National Review Online March 25 that "the best evidence we have supports the Pope's comments."
"There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded 'Demographic Health Study,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher -- not lower -- HIV-infection rates," he said.
Green said that when an individual uses a condom thinking it will reduce the risk of exposure to HIV that person may also take part in riskier behavior and take greater chances than one would take without condoms, for example, by having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.
On the other hand, an editorial published in the March 28 edition of The Lancet said the Pope made "an outrageous and wildly inaccurate statement about HIV/AIDS". "The Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue," said The Lancet.
Cardinal George Pell, archbishop of Sydney, in an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald, last April referred to the British Medical Journal which earlier this year reported: "In numerous large studies, concerted efforts to promote use of condoms has consistently failed to control rates of sexually transmitted infection," even in Canada, Sweden and Switzerland.
What the Pope did not say
The Pope did not get into the specific question of whether in certain circumstances condom use was morally licit or illicit in AIDS prevention, an issue that is still under study by Vatican theologians. The Italian theologian, Franciscan Father Maurizio Faggioni, told Catholic News Service that this is a separate and more difficult question.
In 2006, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, announced that his council had handed in a 200-page study on condoms in AIDS prevention, for further development by the Vatican's doctrinal congregation. Catholic News Service reported that Cardinal Barragan said at that time, that the report included "an enormous rainbow" of theological and moral positions, from theologians who expressed "very rigorous" opinions against condom use even when used as a disease-preventing measure to those who held a "very understanding" perspective.
In conclusion I have a question the answer to which I am not certain about: In our culture is everyone but the Pope entitled for an opinion?
RSS
Comments
The Pope has suggested "friendship and solidarity with who is suffering"!!?? By instructing them to act in a manner that endangers their lives and that of their loved ones?
Yes there is hope and little doubt that we will eventually conquer AIDS. That aim is still several years away however, and in the meantime we have to contain the spread of the disease.
In contrast there is no evidence whatsoever that the prophylactic use of condoms increases risky sexual behaviour. Kevin De Cock, director of the WHO's HIV department asserted "there is no scientific evidence showing that condom use spurs people to take more sexual risks....condoms are highly (effective) to prevent the transmission of HIV". Quentin Sattentau, Professor of Immunology at Oxford summarised the "large body of published evidence demonstrating that condom use reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection, but does not lead to increased sexual activity".
The pope's remarks are wrong and irresponsible, undermining the good work that has been done over the past decade. They are costing lives especially in those most vulnerable in underdeveloped countries. You failed to mention that the same Sydney Morning Herald article quoting George Pell also quoted another source questioning "How many good Catholics will die in Africa and the Philippines before they learn?". Perhaps it does not matter so long as they go to heaven!
As for "campaigns based solely on condom use" they do not exist. All however, see the use of condoms as an essential part of the campaigns against AIDS. You may chose to pick on one or two opinions that support the pope's irresponsible remarks but the evidence for the effectiveness of condom use is overwhelming and irrefutable. To the strong criticism of the pope expressed by The Lancet, and the WHO and the harsh criticism of the pope from Catholic Governments such as Belgium and France, can be added the recent authoritative review from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluding there is “comprehensive and conclusive” evidence that condoms are “highly effective” in preventing the transmission of the AIDS virus. Another study, a meta-analysis of another 4706 studies, published by the respected Cochrane Collaboration, concluded that condoms can reduce the transmission of the AIDS virus by 80 percent. That is evidence worth quoting.
Which scientists are you talking about? And Cardinal George Pell is not renowned for his enlightened attitude or scientific expertise. You may recall how his reputation had been tarnished by the way he handled cases of sexual abuse by the clergy in Australia, virtually on the eve of the World Youth Congress. His allusion to the British Medical Journal was not a reference to a scientific study but to an opinion column by a Dr Stephen J Genuis. This opinion piece was very short on evidence. In fact, the sentence that Pell quoted approvingly is based on a single reference, and that reference turns out to be - another opinion piece by Dr Stephen J Genuis published back in 1994. Very credible.
This is also confirmed by the Stoneburner, who is a medical consultant of USAID, by reference to statistics of what’s happening in Uganda. On the other hand Norman Hearst from the University of California states that inversely where the sole preventive measure is based on condoms, HIV has increased.
Fr. Borg’s provocation on an event months after that it has occurred in interesting, as were reation to is. I was quite impressed on the amount of prejudice there is amongst us. Prejudice implies that one reaches a conclusion without having taken into consideration all the relevant factors by following a pre-determined attitude. This applies to both opponents as well as supporters of the Pope. I would understand a prejudicial approach based on an aversion to the Pope. The matter is different if one keeps to one’s prejudice by ignoring objective data and opinions, including opinions of non- Catholics or liberals.
Bloggers might be interested to know that the Pope was inot referring to the use of condoms for contraceptive purposes. He was referring to the African scenario where the use of condoms has not brought about a reduction in AID’s . His proposal for a solution is twofold: sexuality has to be humanised and solidarity, or rather friendship with who is suffering, should be encouraged. This is the pope’s alternative to a colonial approach where the developed west wants to impose its ways or culture on others. His proposal is also an alternative to advertising slogans, meaning commercial exploitation.
I have got no problem with the pope being celibate and not using a condom. Nor do I have a problem with the pope having an opinion. My problem is the pope condemning me for not being celibate and using a condom, and threatening me with the fear of “mortal sin”.
There is also a fundamental difference however between my opinion and the pope’s. Few people adhere to my opinion, and I am comfortable with that. Unfortunately, for the catholic people in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America, the pope’s opinion matters. The opinion and responsibility of the pope, or lack of it , comes into force with a far greater amount of hurt, pain and damage than what my opinion will ever do.
Of some consolation is that, as the level of education in the third world improves, the influence of the pope diminishes.
I did understand your point completely the first time around. My point is obviously that bad weather doesn't mean you should have to stay inside, but go out and enjoy yourself anyway. Which is why we have raincoats. In Malta the rain evasion method might work, but where I come from it would keep you locked in the house most of the year :)
Also, timing of ovulation is tricky and not very accurate, something I know very well from actually planning a baby. On the other hand condoms do break occasionally, so I buy that they could be at par with eachother. So once that is established, why is the pope so against one of them? I'm not the one saying one is to prefer over the other. He is.
The element of “Sacrifice” that Sharon mentions does have its good points. Something that is not readily available is always much more anticipated, for one thing. Condoms serve their purpose but they are also a nuisance. I think in a survey she mentions I would probably opt for the former.
You misunderstood my argument! I did not say that! kindly re read. What I meant was that most people will probably agree that it is more fun to be out and about in the sun than in the rain wrapped in a raincoat:) The fun day can be postponed untill the sun shines, let's face it we do that with many other things in life, some times whole class trips and adventures are cancelled and postponed, however sometimes the event goes ahead! Anyway my question essentially is that, since they (both methods) have the same end/result (both non abortive and prevent conception) should they not be considered (within marriage at least) as being at par??
@Jessica
No just a curious observation.
We could also always stay inside when it rains, but if I need to go somewhere I put on a raincoat.
Why is abstaining from sex during certain times during month a better choice compared with putting on a condom? I really don't get it.
Fr. Borg's opinion piece is nothing more than another mendacious apologia for what the Pope actually said.
If it weren't so cruel, to so many unfortunate people, the world over, the Pope's utterance would be delightfully ludicrous.
The Pope has every right to his opinions, but condom-use is incredibly simple. There is ample proof that it is effective against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and of course, against unwanted pregnancies.
Calling for the attack of the cause, that is, finding a cure -- a matter for scientists, not theologians -- is vastly different than stopping its spread. Condoms cannot cure HIV/AIDS, but they can, and do, stop the transmission of the virus.
As for the humanization of sex, it might very well start by having the Church butt out of the intimate side of people's personal lives, especially those who do not care to share the Church's views.
200-page study on condoms, eh? Hilarious.
The Pope however carries a important weight and consequently his opinion carries the mentioned weight as well. For me, taking a position against condom use in the context of HIV and other STI prevention is fundamentally wrong... something like the Jehovah witnesses and not letting their children receive donor blood when in need. In my humble opinion this goes against the sixth commandment..
having said all that i can never understand why people especially in Africa follow so closely the pope when it comes to condom usage and then have sex with multiple partners (including children following the false belief that this will cure HIV infection) without betting an eyelid.... or maybe i do
What are you implying Sharon? That hysterectomy was a loophole. Forget it!
First of all I do not believe that hysterectomy was any more common than it is nowadays. If anything I feel that it is more common in our generation, if only for the fact that we are more health conscious and consequently we submit ourselves to regular checkups and are more likely to have a hysterectomy which could save our lives. In our mother’s or grandmother’s time women were more likely to die for the simple fact that by the time they found out that something was wrong it was already too late to do anything about it.
I too have mixed feelings about the subject of condoms! Not the pope and opinion though. So at the risk of running a cafeteria commentary I will go ahead:)
I shall only take into conisideration a Catholic view to make my point and I will refrain from delving into the non religious issue because that is another matter. So by default I am also not considering the use of condoms outside marriage be it before, in cases of infedelity or as prevention of STD's.
Mela the church advocates natural family planning ..good. ie the careful noting of when ovulation takes place and the avoidance of coitus on those days hence avoidance of conception. Now if this is done dilignetly it can be very successful and can have better results than condoms! So if according to the church marriage should be open to bearing forth children what differentiates the two methods? Sacrifice?...I think that if a bet was made on a survey to establish which is more pleasureable condoms would probably lose!
Also ...did the older generation manage to get through a loophole in the system?..how come hysterectomy was so common in our mother's and grandmother's generation?
http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/21/irish-abuse-victims-demand-accountability/
News that no one will be prosecuted over decades of physical and sexual abuse in Catholic-run children’s homes in Ireland has prompted anger from survivors. The abuse was outlined in a five-volume report that took nine years to compile. The Christian Brothers religious order has won anonymity for members accused of abuse. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is contrite.
She still did not get herself pregnant again. I wonder if she ever felt guilty about it!
Hear Hear.
Trust the faithful to pick on the one single opinion that supports the pope's irresponsible remarks, ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary. To the strong criticism of the pope expressed by The Lancet, and the WHO and the harsh criticism from Catholic Governments such as Belgium and France, can be added the recent authoritative review from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluding there is “comprehensive and conclusive” evidence that condoms are “highly effective” in preventing the transmission of the AIDS virus. Another recent meta-analysis of various studies, published by the Cochrane Collaboration, concluded that condoms can reduce the transmission of the AIDS virus by 80 percent.
In contrast there is no evidence whatsoever that the prophylactic use of condoms increases risky sexual behaviour.
Again I ask why should an omniscent, infinitely benevolent and just God take offence if some poor wretch in a shanti town in Africa, with nothing to console him but the affection of his lawfully married wife, were to use a piece of latex when relating to her in order to prevent her from contracting a life threatening illness?
I'll reverse the question, if I may: In the Catholic culture, is nobody but the Pope entitled to voice their opinions?
I don't see anyone trying to silence the Pope. I only see criticism...some mild, some harsh...some justified, some less, some not at all. The Pope, by free-choice, is a public figure, and all his public statements and pronouncements are open to scrutiny and criticism. As they say...if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
And of course, to a Church accustomed for centuries to silencing dissidents (book-burning, heretic-burning, etc), outspoken and open criticism of the head of the Catholic church will certainly seem like an "onslaught", and to some even an abomination.
Times change, and nowadays the Catholic voice is just an influential voice among many, liable to criticism as any other. Thank goodness for that. In other times, I would be the first to burn at the stake...of course "in God's name".
Can you please name one "anti-Catholic" who believes that the pope does not have the right to an opinion?
As for any assumed "modern tenets" set up by the "anti-Catholics", you will be surprised to learn that there are none. Atheists and agnostics are generally free-thinkers who are opposed to any form of dogma. Therefore any "tenets" such as the claim that anyone does not have a right to an opinion, would contradict the atheist/agnostic's very nature.
Alas, to quote your very own opening two sentences, "Prejudice blinds reason. Instead of clear objective arguments and opinions the readers are regaled with either veiled or blatant attacks on persons" (or imagined groups of persons).
The bible is full of wholesome family values stories, how about this one:
Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8
Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their "just and righteous" father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son. 19:30-38
The firstborn daughter bore a son and named him Moab, who became the father of that nation. The second daughter bore a son and named him Ben-Ammi, who became the father of the Ammonites (mostly the nation of Jordan).
Many on the inside, have tried in vain to disassociate the bible from the church's teachings, to change this out of date, and immoral way of thinking, only to be dubbed as heretics and excommunicated by Rome.
Prejudice blinds reason. Instead of clear objective arguments and opinions the readers are regaled with either veiled or blatant attacks on persons (pope or bishop or professed catholics) or the Catholic religion. Can we afford, in the name of freedom of expression, to keep churning out opinions which contribute very little towards a healthy debate or even worse foment more prejudice? Moreover, when, because of prejudice the argument is a priori brushed aside then we are speaking of intolerance. To answer your question: according to the modern tenets set up by the anti-Catholics, no the pope does not have the right to an opinion since he is the pope of the Catholics. And for clarity’s sake the following is MY opinion. The Pope has a right to an opinion because: 1. he is a human being with exactly the same right for expression as any other human being. 2. He is the head of an organisation 2000 years old which has a large anthropological corpus of knowledge 3. As the leader of one of the largest religions in the world he has the right to express his opinion in the light of the teachings of that religion.
Because of the church's mis-interpretation of the above verses and their policy of not allowing contraception, for their own ends, the world is over-populated and problems have occurred at various times in history, which have caused food-shortages and other unnecessary suffering, such as the Great Famine of 1845-52 in Ireland, when millions of Irish people perished due to a lack of potatoes to feed the exploding population.
In The Torah, which is the name given to God's Laws; Statutes; Judgments; Agricultural Policy; Economic Policy and Healthy Balanced Diet, which were handed down to Moses by God, on top of Mt. Horeb in Sinai and are the only Laws that apply on Earth in God's Eyes, it clearly states that the first born of each family is the beginning of the family's strength (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17). It also states that when the first born of a family-line dies, or is unable to bare children, the next oldest brother is obliged to serve his wife in his place, so that the family line is not broken (as is explained in verse 38:8 above and is repeated in the Old Testiment Book of Ruth). So, in reality, the reason why God slew Onan was because of Onan's selfishness in not honouring his legal obligation to serve his older brother's wife in his place, not because he had spilled seed on the ground as an act of contraception as the catholic church has completely mis-interpreted it to be.
In recent years there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the catholic church's views on contraception. On what grounds the church claims that contraception is not permissible?
The church uses the following Bible reference as means to back-up their false claim that contraception is wrong and that God condemns those who practice it. This is in fact a mis-interpretation taken by the church of what really happened, and is the real reason why Onan, was killed.
38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name [was] Tamar.
38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the "I AM"; and the "I AM" slew him.
38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the "I AM": wherefore He slew him also.
The point BenedictXVI was making was that AIDS can be effectively controlled if people stay faithful to one another in marriage. As FrBorg rightly suggests, that is the Pope's opinion and he has every right to express it. Had the Pope hinted that sex outside marriage be made illegal or that shops should be prohibited from selling condoms, then the protests would have been more than justified. But the Pope said nothing of that sort. He was merely taking a stand which, he believes, sits comfortably with the expressed will of a higher, divine authority.
You are absolutely right in your comments.
It is all to do with people power. The only reason why the pope's opinion carries weight, is because, we the people, choose to give it that power. The pope can have his opinion, as long as the people are informed enough to ignore his opinion, should they choose to.
Will there ever come a day when the Maltese parliament is mature enough to take the Belgian parliament's stand, on this issue and similar issues that will come up in the future?
Advocating not to use condoms in aids-torn Africa is irresponsible and inhumane.
Let me answer this briefly: Of course the Pope is entitled to an opinion. But so are the rest of us. Freedom of speech simply means that one is free to speak his mind without state interference. It does not mean that one can speak his mind and expect not be challenged.
Unfortunately you are repeating the usual mantra from the VAtican which is expects the Pope to be beyond reproach. Kudos to the Belgian Parliament for exposing and condemning the shameful position of the Pope and the Vatican on condom use.
Take your time. It's only literally a matter of life and death, after all.
I'm back :)
Some who read my comments know that I am an admirer of this present Pope but we should not only point fingers at the media for the Pope's problems with it. Funnily enough, it is BXVI's arcane media machine that is cumbersome and putting him into trouble. It needs a major overhaul for it is not up to scratch in this age of instant news. A case in point only happened recently on his trip to the Middle East. Most media networks screamed that the Pontiff has denied being a member of the Hitler Youth...when visiting Israel!
The Pope never denied being a member (Germany's youth were automatically drafted in the movement)...he admitted it several times. Ironically, it was his PR office who made the blunder. When his PR machine is always on the defensive, how can it be on the offensive? JPII never had such problems...was it because Navarro-Valls was a smooth PR man or was it because the late Pope was a media superstar? This present Pope is sphinx-like until one reads his books.Since not everyone reads them his PR machine that takes care of his image is a disaster.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6274826.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article5955647.ece
The box of condoms arrived too late. The condoms should have been distributed earlier, in this unfortunate woman's case.
If it was the influence of the Catholic Church for condoms not to be distributed, in this case and millions of other cases, the church has got a lot to answer for.