Condoms, The Pope & HIV: Tomorrow’s Apology

[NOTE: if my thoughts on Catholicism are of no interest to you, please scroll down to the italicized section. The rest can be read without loss of continuity.

I’m not a huge proponent of the Catholic Church. On good days, I try to dismiss its abuse and megalomania as the vestige of past mistakes.  I try to embrace all the good the Church has done. On days like last Monday, where my misanthropy reaches its paroxysm, I am seduced by the words found in Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion, where religion is said to benefit from undeserved respect. Dawkins argues that while one may freely argue about fiscal policies, about environmental issues, about the choice between Macintosh and Windows, the opinion on the creation of the universe and on Abraham, is something holy; something beyond right or wrong. This undeserved respect, in turn, causes much damage.  And on days like Monday, I agree with that.

However, although I’ve ferociously declined any form of religious edification long before I picked up a copy of The God Delusion, it is still to recognize the institution’s appeals.  For instance, the bible  fills in the blanks with well-formed answers, provides structure, and guidance. Some of the bible’s teachings offer a wholesome blue print for life, and it’s been shown that deeply religious individuals actually live longer. Karl Marx was probably onto something when he wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people.”

Dawkins, in many respects a proselytizing atheist, dislikes such an approach. He would deride Marx and I as patronizing elitists. In his view, our discourse then takes the following form:  “you and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion.”  I’m not trying to insult anybody. Some people, many of whom are incredibly intelligent and educated people, are simply happier with Catholic Faith than without it.  And that’s OK. But, although I somewhat respect the aims of their beliefs, I harbor different feelings for the men who’ve ferociously maintained the status quo within the Catholic institution itself.  The idea of an infallible doctrine based on the feelings of a tyrannical patriarch; one that has resulted, according to Gore Vidal, in the detestation of women for over two millennia, is an idea I refuse to embrace.  Alright, bias stated.]

My mother might have been five when she experienced the burning obsession to fly. One Sunday morning, during mass, her wandering gaze stopped on those mosaics of winged angels filtering July’s blue skies.  The translucent glass, whose virginal figures reminded of children her age, became a source of inspiration. While she studied the creatures, the priest solemnly delivered a few profound words from the altar. “Christ makes all things possible”, he said. After the service, piqued with curiosity, my mother went to him for advice.

“After what you said today. I was wondering, is it possible to fly?” she asked.

“If you believe in Christ our Savior” he said, “anything is possible.”

My mother returned home, with a literal interpretation in mind. In her bedroom, metal coat hangers were bended into avian skeletons, and subsequently filled in with remnants of the local newspaper.  Grandpa’s duck tape was borrowed. The wings were successfully fixated to her arms. She climbed onto the bungalow’s roof, believed in Christ our Savior, and flew into the sky.

And then, 0.3 seconds later, she broke her clavicle on the cement parking lot.

This story came to mind on Monday night. My flight back to London had been cancelled, so I watched CNN from the comfort of Prague’s Airport Marriott. The anchor glossed over some interesting developments in Manila, the Philippines. The topic: condoms, the Catholic Church, and AIDS. A few months back, in response to the government’s distribution of free condoms on Valentine’s Day, a bishop had announced that the contraceptive was too porous and did not successfully protect against HIV. Now, he was advocating a condom advertisement ban in the Philippines. Following suit, the Pope was once again unflinchingly reaffirming the Church’s stance on condoms. They thwart conception. Hence, their use is proscribed. And in reference to condom’s ability to protect against the AIDS pandemic, the Pope added something like: they don’t thwart transmission. Hence their use is pointless.

I was not happy.  Images of the Vatican flashed on the screen. I commented, to no one in particular, “somebody should seriously think about prosecuting that Pope.” Then I wondered if grandpa could have taken action against that priest too, when his dubious teachings, coupled with my mom’s unfaltering faith, resulted in her injury.

But I’m no lawyer. So for now, I’ll merely label the Church’s present stance as shortsighted and damaging. The Church is probably not in the wrong for harboring one particular ideal from which all others follow. It’s all right to honor sanctity of marriage, and the naturality of procreation. If Pope Benedict wants to cram every available planetary acre with Catholic babies while humanity stands on the brink of overpopulation, that’s fine.

The point is this: continuing to proscribe the use of the condom while simultaneously spreading falsehoods about its protective properties, is absolutely unethical in the face of a pandemic that could be curbed substantially otherwise. Especially since those countries the AIDS pandemic has hit the hardest, are countries where the Church holds a firm grasp over education, and over faith based organizations providing food, water, compassion and comfort.

Unless I’m missing something, right now the Church is faced with a four realities, and has taken a dangerous decision:

(1). We, the Catholic Church, with our blind leaning on 1968’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, are of the opinion that contraception is unnatural, and therefore immoral. Men and women should have sex, but mainly for the purpose of industrious procreation. They should never use protection.

(2): HIV is a virus that leads to slow and painful death, and is transmitted when humans practice the activity we are encouraging in (1). As of 2008, there were 33.8 million humans suffering from this disease. That number is growing.

(3): Many humans really enjoy practicing activity encouraged in (1). And when humans are living in dreadful conditions; eating out of garbage, cleaning their bodies in the same water they defecate in, sex happens to be one of the cheapest, most exalting activities they can engage in. Actually, some will say that sex is probably the cheapest, most exalting activity one can engage in, period.

(4): Propagandist scientists and unethical Capitalists have tried to convince us that condoms are the answer to AIDS. That can stop the transmission of the virus mentioned in (2), when humans engage in activity described in (1). According to their scientific evidence and clinical trials, the condom provides legitimate physical barrier against the HIV and therefore reduce the risk of transmission.

Now, Pope Benedict is a piano virtuoso who speaks eleven languages. He is probably not an obtuse man. I’m sure he’s aware that all four “facts”, when combined, place the Church in a very difficult position. So what has he done? Instead of responsibly teaching alternatives in a world that has such little semblance with the one described in that same doctrine — I don’t think AIDS existed 2,000 years ago — the Church has attacked scientific evidence from all angles.  Sounds familiar? Remember Copernicus?

There is an obvious incongruity between the Church’s unquestioned dogmatism and 21^st century life. Unfortunately, as a result, this same dogmatism is indirectly killing babies, men and women in those parts of the world where the Church holds its strongest grasp. In many developing countries, the declaration of condoms as immoral is doing to the people what the priest did to my mother.  And in this case, it’s resulting in more than a broken clavicle. Of course, they’re a caveat. If people believe in the Church so firmly, you ask, why are they sinning so often? May I refer you to (3).

The Church is influencing perception of condoms in AIDS stricken areas of the world through four different mechanisms. I’ve already mentioned one. And I’ll mention it again. Here.

1. They let the pesky virus through

First, there’s the direct attack. Bishops are stating that there are these micro-pores in the condom that let the virus through. But, in vitro studies have proven that condoms can sto… heresy! Okay. Let me get this straight. Is the Church talking about actual micro-pores here, or is it just referring to that time when the South African government distributed 20,000 condoms that had been perforated when they were stapled to safe-sex pamphlets? Because those aren’t really micro pores, they’re macro stapler induced holes. If you’re referring to the latter rather than the former, you’re right. Broken condoms don’t protect against anything at all. Except sin, maybe.

2. Condoms turn good people into sexual predators

Second, others will accept the fact that condoms reduce risks of transmission by up to 90%. But then they’ll talk about risk compensation. They’ll even sound hip by comparing condoms to football helmets. They’ll tell you that NFLers are still causing each other brain damage now that their heads are protected, because they can hit harder. Risk compensation, in short, is the idea that if a risky behavior is made safer, people compensate by taking more risks, thereby reducing the safety gains.

Three things on this. First, reduced gains? So there are appreciable gains? Even if I were to accept that condoms lead to riskier behaviors in some individuals, the overall effect is still to reduce transmission?  So, condoms reduce the transmission of AIDS? Is that what you’re saying? Good!  Second, I’d really like for someone to point me to the passage in scripture that states: “and the devil parachuted condoms over the populace, which instantly engaged in a wild and perpetual orgy.” Because honestly, I’m not sure that individuals engaging in “risky behavior” — you know, the ones who are already spreading the virus — would somehow go on a more aggressive sex rampage if they became condom saavy.  If anything, by receiving proper education about the condom and about the dangers of their behaviors, maybe these individuals would be more inclined to listen. After all, safe sex talk sounds like a more useful, more positive message than the one that states you’re probably going to hell.  As for the ones who might just start doing it more often, as is predicted by anti-contraception gurus… well they’d be using protection. And thirdly, in the words of Elizabeth Pisani, “I carry condoms all the time, and I never get laid”.  Think about it.

When all is said and done, in a world where sexually transmitted diseases are spreading dangerously, how about framing condom use as an act of responsibility, care, and love, rather than as an act of sin?

3. But 90% is not enough! Only God’s words protect against AIDS

Third, they’ll say that 90% risk reduction is not good enough. The only solution is faithful love. Men and women need to keep sex sacred. The Church will tell you that HIV spreads outside of marriage; by casual sex and infidelity, which are the true evils. On this point, I can’t say I disagree. It’s true that abstinence and faithfulness are the best way to avoid HIV. But the reality is that Sub-Saharan Africa, where the AIDS pandemic has hit the hardest, is a melting pot of highly patriarchal societies with polygamist remnants and other religious influences (namely Zionism). This is not to undermine their dedication to Catholicism, but other forces – and treacherous life conditions — exist. And in these countries, the rate of HIV infection is nearly three times higher among women than it is among men. These women are often married or in monogamous relationships.  Sadly, a disenfranchised seventeen-year-old Ugandan who was sold for cattle or betrothed at birth doesn’t have much say on things like fidelity and abstinence. It’s a lofty goal for the Catholic Church to teach such concepts. I respect this goal. But it might also want to add that, “if you’re going to sin and have sex out of wedlock, which we don’t endorse, you should seriously protect yourself.”

4. Condoms campaigns fail all the time

Fourth, the Church decries the AIDS prevention initiatives emphasizing contraception, stating that they simply don’t work. The World Health Organization (WHO) will tell you this is a flat out lie. But, perhaps some initiatives haven’t work as well as they could have.  On that subject, has the Church ever stopped and wondered about its own active role in thwarting these campaigns? Has it thought about how its poor disposition towards condoms might have affected its congregation’s opinion of them? And when the Church sheepishly adds that those countries that are prominently Catholic have lower AIDS prevalence, has it considered that people in those same countries might just be ashamed to seek for help? Ashamed because they believe to be afflicted with a “pathology of the spirit” due to their unforgivable sins?

Of course, AIDS prevention initiatives shouldn’t only focus on condom provision. Widespread testing, treatment for those affected, education about the disease and about low risk sexual practices must be available as well. Making it a crime to knowingly spread the disease could help too. Education could of course include promotion of abstinence and faithfulness, but should always include contraception, at least as a last resource.

In the midst of this huge mess, perhaps there is a glimpse of hope.  Over centuries, the Catholic Church has developed an incredibly vast network of believers; there are around 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide.  Never mind how it achieved such a status — never mind the crusades, the inquisition — the Catholic Church is now woven in the very fabric of many societies, whether they hail to secularity or embrace theocracy.  As Andrew Brown quotes in the Guardian, The Church “may be the instrument of the salvation of the world, or it may be the greatest conspiracy in history.” The statement rightly recognizes that the Church has achieved a status entailing an outmost degree of responsibility over what exactly it is that it teaches.

The Catholic Church should cherish this huge responsibility the world has bestowed upon its shoulders. It should react accordingly. Or else, it is simply contributing to perpetrating the same kind of horrors my mother suffered when she was five years old.  The world’s patience for such indulgence might not be endless either.  Considering the Church’s shortsighted disposition towards a very serious matter, right now I can’t say it would be that bad. So, Pope Benedict, the choice is still there for you to make. Please get it right.

For more from Annick, click some of the fun buttons below…

Past work on FlipCollective.com.
To follow her on Twitter.