The Pope and Condoms

[Haunted]

Do you ask everyone you sleep with to have an STI check before sleeping with them?

Do you breathalyse everyone you get in a car with?

Do, or can, people in countries with high HIV rates do the same?

I would not presume to tell them what to do, but would hope they were informed about such things.

Yes, there are circumstances in which to abstain is a wise choice - where there is a chance of you being infected with an std or becoming pregnant when you don't want a baby.

There is always a chance. Just like there is always a chance you will die horribly when you travel via automobile. There is a chance a satellite will crash on your head if you go outside, is this a good reason to stay indoors?

It is nature for sex to give rise to a baby, it's not nature for every drive to end in a crash.

What a pathetic thing to say. It is nature to shit in the woods and not toilets. It is nature to die of tuberculosis and not be vaccinated.

The objective isn't to "force" people to do anything, but to give people another option that is actually more effective.

Oh yeah I'll bet they never considered that NOT having sex was something that people could do.
Person A:"Hey man did you know that you can NOT do stuff?"
Person B:"Wow man that shit is deep"

"Giving them another option" is exactly what condoms do.

[LonelyPilgrim]

This isn't to say, though, that we should just throw away the prospect of using condoms just because they don't work sometimes. While it is true that they might not be entirely successful as a contraceptive or as a barrier for STIs, they do hold some degree of success; why else would their use and distribution be so popular. It seems to me that the Pope is taking the minor negative points about this and exaggerating them to support his, and the Catholic Church's argument.

Ugh... where to start on this? First, I never advocated not using condoms, I'm simply adamantly arguing that their distribution alone is insufficient, and that the Pope's comments in regard to cultural and moral change are not incorrect. The problem of HIV in Africa is a moral and cultural problem - it is not, fundamentally, a problem of condom distribution. That doesn't mean condoms should be withdrawn, thrown away, or denigrated - on this point I too disagree with the Pope.

As to why would their use and distribution be so popular: two problems:

a) in Africa their use IS NOT popular, which is part of the problem. There is cultural hostility to their use that can only be overcome by intensive education: education that encompasses other complimentary forms of risk management (such as, hey, prostitution isn't a good idea if you want to remain disease free, guys!). In the current environment, an emphasis on condom distribution doesn't do much good because the condoms aren't being used post-distribution. My other point, along these lines, was that male latex condoms, due to cultural reasons, may not be the most effective barrier method to promote.

b) there is almost no correlation in the humanitarian aid community between a program's administrative success and its success in meeting initial functional goals. In fact, studies of the World Bank's development projects have shown a direct correlation between program FAILURE and increased funding! The point is, in the wild and wooly world of humanitarian aid a project's popularity is not a good indicator of its usefulness, since popularity is often determined for reasons other than objective feedback about project goal attainment (ie. political pressures, social mores, advertising, etc etc etc...). The small NGO I work for is trying to buck this trend and pathfind a new and more rational method of initiating and conducting humanitarian aid projects, but it's quite difficult because realities on the ground rarely correspond to donor preconceptions about what can or most needs to be done. Most NGOs fall into the trap of tailoring their projects to please the sensibilities of their donors rather than maximising their effectiveness in the real world - hence all the private US funding for anti-condom, pro-abstinence education in Africa, as an example.

So to summarise my take on the Pope's comments: He's wrong to condemn condoms, but he isn't wrong to question their effectiveness when taken in isolation. His proposed solutions: moral education, health education, and the like are NOT wrong, and they are not contradictory to continued condom distribution. There is no dichotomy here, and in fact, if both approaches aren't taken together, neither will be effective.

[LonelyPilgrim]

If I want safe sex then I will not sleep with someone who has a contagious STI. Circumstances do exist in which to abstain is a wise choice.

Do you ask everyone you sleep with to have an STI check before sleeping with them? Do, or can, people in countries with high HIV rates do the same?

Thanks you for pointing the obvious out to Haunted, starsandsparkles. Allow me to expand: no. Haunted, HIV can take up to 6 months to become detectable to modern testing methods, but a carrier is still contagious in that period. I don't know how many sexual partners you have in a six month period, but I'm sure you know people who could take a second career as a woodcarver after practicing on their bedposts. Even in Western society and even given someone who gets regular checkups the potential exists for considerable transmission in the months post-infection without the use of protection.

In the developing world, where testing is sporadic, if even available, you simply aren't likely to have any clue if your partner has HIV, and they aren't likely to know either. Even if they do know, they may very well lie to you for a number of reasons (we've all heard the story about how there is a belief that sex with a virgin will cure HIV in Africa, but there are other reasons, not least of which is simple human callousness, or ignorance about the disease and its transmission vector, etc etc).

Consider Ethiopia. In Ethiopia the government pays the complete cost of HIV treatment for its citizens, including the provision of condoms and education in their use and need. The catch is that the government DOES NOT pay for the cost of the HIV test, nor does it pay for the cost of the HIV testing kit or supply them to the clinics and hospitals in the country. Ergo, most people do not get tested because a) they can't afford the test and b) the kits are not available to conduct the tests. My employer periodically distributes HIV testing kits in Ethiopia and in other east African countries, but we can't even begin to meet the volume of need.

Point is, your analogy is useless. In Africa, you simply would not have access to the information you would need to decide on abstinence as a medically wise choice. Your decision would simply have to based on an assessment of risk as a result of situational context - ie. sex with a prostitute being a high risk situation. Being able to make those assessments requires a fairly complex understanding of HIV, including an understanding of the culture you are in, the diseases prevalence, etc etc. In other words, education education education. This is not a science problem, everything here is 'fuzzy' because it's a cultural and sociological problem that relies upon (faulty) human reason to address.

I still fail to see how throwing condoms at people is going to solve the issue. I did ask before: are there any countries where condom distribution has brought the HIV rate down?

Not with condom distribution alone, no. However, it is my understanding that countries that have embarked on education programs coupled with health screenings, government support for treatment, and prophylactic distribution have seen reductions in transmission rates. It's hard to tell, though, since monitoring is so patchy and sporadic. This comes back to my earlier point in a previous message - programs rarely gain their support as a result of success, they gain their support through donor expectations and demands, ergo there is no incentive for monitoring and quantitative analysis of effect and most aid programs and government programs in the developing world don't bother to conduct high-quality surveys of the impact of their efforts.

[Haunted]

Thanks you for pointing the obvious out to Haunted, starsandsparkles. Allow me to expand: no. Haunted, HIV can take up to 6 months to become detectable to modern testing methods, but a carrier is still contagious in that period.

Modern Nucleic Acid Tests (NAT) reduces the window between infection and detection down to 12 days (2001)
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2 ... 01103.html.

I don't know how many sexual partners you have in a six month period, but I'm sure you know people who could take a second career as a woodcarver after practicing on their bedposts.

And all power to them, all we can do is make sure they are adequately informed of the risks.

Even in Western society and even given someone who gets regular checkups the potential exists for considerable transmission in the months post-infection without the use of protection.

Everything has its risks.

In the developing world, where testing is sporadic, if even available, you simply aren't likely to have any clue if your partner has HIV, and they aren't likely to know either.

I admit, I have been overlooking this pretty badly. Condom use will of course help.

(we've all heard the story about how there is a belief that sex with a virgin will cure HIV in Africa..)

I have now

Consider Ethiopia. In Ethiopia the government pays the complete cost of HIV treatment for its citizens, including the provision of condoms and education in their use and need. The catch is that the government DOES NOT pay for the cost of the HIV test, nor does it pay for the cost of the HIV testing kit or supply them to the clinics and hospitals in the country. Ergo, most people do not get tested because a) they can't afford the test and b) the kits are not available to conduct the tests. My employer periodically distributes HIV testing kits in Ethiopia and in other east African countries, but we can't even begin to meet the volume of need.

I fully support increasing the availability of testing.

Point is, your analogy is useless

In Africa, yes the problem is greater. My analogy is perfectly fine for addressing starsandsparkles point about "decreasing the responsibility of sex by making it safer to practice"

...In other words, education education education. This is not a science problem...

It's education about science. Never said it was a science problem, the problem is communicating the science.
If the problem here is because of 'cultural' issues then there's only so much you can do. Dangerous meme's exist and do kill.

[Lid]

I'm kind of astonished by your post. In sub-Saharan Africa the primary transmission route is heterosexual and in places, the probability of infection is near 1. But I'm not going to say anymore, for I fear the rage may cause me to explode.

Apologies - I didn't have time to follow the link the first time round. However, I am still doubtful that high transmission rates are due to a husband and wife having monogomous sex with only each other in their lifetime, although of course this may account for a small part of it.

I don't mean to come across all Jon Stewart on you, but I'm not even going to say a word on this. I'm simply going to re-post it, in case you missed it.

[macgamer]

As much as I dislike the Catholic Church's stance on contraception; The Catholic Church's stance is consistent.

Indeed but not quite the way you go on to purport:

The Catholic Church's overarching stance is that sex, in all its forms, is sinful. The celibate vocation is pretty much the greatest expession of worldy goodness. However, sex is TOLERATED (not glorified) within marriage for the purpose of procreation.

Holy Unitive and Procreative Sex within Marriage Batman! WRONG!The Catholic Church does not say that sex is inherently evil, the Albigensians did. Let me make this clear: sex which is unitive, that is within marriage and so between and man and a woman and which is open to procreation is to be encouraged and is very good. The Church and God love sex in this form.

Ergo, the consistensy. Condoms cannot be approved of becuase they prevent conception; the only allowable exception to the Church's condemnation of sexual intercourse. Personally, I'll take the morally degenerate sex.

Well yes consistent because any sexual intercourse which is neither unitive nor open to procreation is illicit and sinful. So homosexual acts are wrong as much as contraceptive heterosexual sex. Both acts are devoid of higher meaning. Otherwise it is basal gratification. We are called to something higher as humans, unlike animals, we can make this distinction. However it is our choice to make it or not.

So, after Benedict XVII's popped his holy clogs, all we need to do is to plant a hip-hop, free-loving cardinal into the top-slot during the next conclave! Wouldn't be the first time that socio-political interests have planted a Pope either.

Don't hold your breath. For an explanation see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udvavm7SSSs

In short: NO! STOP!! SIN!!!

[Frank]

So, after Benedict XVII's popped his holy clogs, all we need to do is to plant a hip-hop, free-loving cardinal into the top-slot during the next conclave! Wouldn't be the first time that socio-political interests have planted a Pope either.

Don't hold your breath. For an explanation see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udvavm7SSSs

I do have a good amoutn of compassion/sympathy for the priest (and JC[Clarkson]) in that interview. Which is to say: by the outlook of the Church itself, it's not open to outside or popular interpretation. I discussed this with Ruru Hedgehog earlier this evening. That is to say: It's a monolithic instituition which isn't disposed to wider discourse on a matter of policiy. It is, for want of a better phrase, a tradition as well as a philosophy and a religon. On all fronts that's examinable, but it largely makes the statement that if it won't change its mind.

For one thing, I always admired that sentiment. If it were right, it'd last the ages. If it were wrong, it'd flounder and die.

There's situational ethics and 'is it right or not?' questions to be asked, but generally, I find it dificult to accuse dilligent Catholics (and similarly minded others) of inconstancy. There's all sorts of madness out there, but I'll say straight out that pre-Cardinalisation our dearest Archbishop (now Cardy) O'Brien was caring enough to elucidate in a discussion that contraception, as we all nowadays understand it, isn't anti-Catholic, but that encouraging sex out of wedlock is. So, more clearly: Outside a marriage = no sex. Inside a marriage = sex. Sex without a condom with no thought for the future = idiotic (sinful). Sex with a hopeful, happy and mindful eye to the future = praisworthy.

Whether this is canon or not, I don't particularly care as I seem to have rejected at least the necessity of most of O'Brien's arguments. That said, he did strike me as a remarkably compassionate person. Almost all the Catholics I encountered were. Of course, in not-compromising their beliefs they might make odd moral decisions, but when you acknowledge the why, it's hard to dislike them and not their decision-influencing-input.

Let's just divorce sex from procreation and be done with it. Everyone makin' a babbie has to do it test-tubie way. If: Healthy, better hygenie and better control (i.e. no madap diseases) then really: what's the problem. You'd only raise a child when capable, you'd only infect them with obscure/unknown diseases and otherwise love would persist...

One day...

[Gregory]

If failure rate of condoms over the course of a year is 15%, and this is measured by how many couples get pregnant on average over one year - considering that the women can get pregnant for around a week of any given month, is it any wonder that the Pope, and The Catholic Church recommends abstinence and being faithful?

If you take this 15% failure rate, which is failure rate in the sense that the women is impregnated - a smaller percentage than transmission of std's and hiv, and you compound it over ten years then the figure rises to 80%.

Now can you honestly recommend that people wear condoms given such failure rates, is it any wonder that the Church proclaims that condoms do not solve the problem, but encourage promiscuity and spread the virus?

Have any of you got statistics supporting your assertions? You may wish to consider that the aforementioned stats were taken from the publication "contraceptive technology".

The Catholic Church does not tell people what to do, but it would be unethical to not inform them of the Church's view that promotion of condoms is reckless as it does not decrease risk as the ab method does.

[starsandsparkles]

"Giving them another option" is exactly what condoms do.

Are they really an option when they don't really work?

For many abstinence is not an option because it is not viable - it seems impossible. The Church shows that it is a practical and effective solution.

There is always a chance. Just like there is always a chance you will die horribly when you travel via automobile. There is a chance a satellite will crash on your head if you go outside, is this a good reason to stay indoors? What a pathetic thing to say. It is nature to shit in the woods and not toilets. It is nature to die of tuberculosis and not be vaccinated.

If you can't understand the difference between negligable risk and high risk activities and if you can't understand the pure biology that when a man and a woman have sex a baby is conceived then I see little point in continuing discussion with you.

I do have a good amoutn of compassion/sympathy for the priest (and JC[Clarkson]) in that interview. Which is to say: by the outlook of the Church itself, it's not open to outside or popular interpretation

Edit: I originally asked you to elaborate on your post a little Frank, but I've re-read it a few times and think I know what you mean. The Church does continually develop in that it reacts to current issues as and when they develop in the world, but as Fr Burke (a former St Andrews student incidentally) says in the youtube video the gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't change and thus expecting some sort of monumental change in the Church is simply unrealistic.

[Haunted]

Are they really an option when they don't really work?

Answer: Do they or do they not reduce the risk?

For many abstinence is not an option because it is not viable - it seems impossible.

WTF? Not viable? There will come a time in every Africans life that they begin to become sexually active, i.e. they go from the default state of inaction to action. They will know perfectly well what it's like to abstain because they did for the first good portion of their life. Or are you suggesting that they are somehow all sex crazed maniacs and it's more like an obsessive compulsion rather than a choice?

The Church shows that it is a practical and effective solution.

Any idiot can tell you that NOT doing something reduces the risk that that something entails.

If you can't understand the difference between negligable risk and high risk activities

So we are just drawing arbitrary lines then? With road accidents we are talking about life and death, much higher stakes than pregnancy or STI's, and in Britain the risk of dying in a road accident is 0.5%, driving is a high risk activity. Sex is risky (but then again, so is EVERYTHING) but the risk can be reduced with good education and good practice, including the use of contraceptives.

and if you can't understand the pure biology that when a man and a woman have sex a baby is conceived then I see little point in continuing discussion with you.

Stunning. Non-sequitar of the year 2009.

[Humphrey]

I think persuading people to practice abstinence and chastity is about a likely as Joseph Fritzel winning a prize for interior design. That being the case I say 'hand out the rubbers', they aren't a solution but a least they will give some prospect of protection.

[munchingfoo]

The "perfect use" efficacy of condoms is 98% so in 100 couples who always use a condom, there will be two women pregnant by the end of a year. This is without taking into account slippage and breakage ("typical use"), which would put the number of pregnant women up to 15 in a year.

Could someone back this up with scientific evidence please (peer reviewed paper?). Also - could someone please explain how this happens? The statistic is thrown about a lot on the sinner and I just can't see it being true.

Condoms are a physical barrier protection against sperm. Last time I checked, a spermatozoon is a relatively large set of molecules. Without a breach in the teat, how on earth can you make someone pregnant whilst wearing one properly? I have inflated these things to the size of space hoppers and filled them with water to a slightly smaller size. I refuse to believe that sperm can get through a fully functioning condom that is used correctly. If they could, and 2% is an accurate measure of failure then I'd a very high probability of having a lot of children by now.

There are a number of reasons why you could make a woman pregnant having used a condom:

foreplay gone wrong
poor drills after use (e.g. pulling it off right next to the vagina so that some might be propelled over)
Not maintaining enough distance after sex (e.g. close hugging after removal of the condom such that the penis and vagina are in close proximity)

I'm sure there's a few more too. I'd be interested to see how any experiments were controlled, if indeed any experiments have ever been carrier out.

Before someone replies, "condom manufacturers only cliam 98%, why would they lie". They would say 98% so that they are never liable to be sued, even if they new they were 100% succesful under perfect conditions.

Here's something I found googling that suggest the figure is bollocks:

"A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine observed heterosexual couples where one was HIV-positive and the other was HIV-negative, for an average of 20 months. (These couples are referred to as sero-discordant.) Findings included: No sero-conversion occurred among the 124 couples who used latex condoms consistently and correctly for vaginal or anal intercourse; Ten percent of the HIV-negative partners (12 of 121) of couples became infected when condoms were used inconsistently for vaginal or anal intercourse. In contrast, 15 percent of HIV-negative partners became infected when condoms were not used."

[LonelyPilgrim]

If failure rate of condoms over the course of a year is 15%, and this is measured by how many couples get pregnant on average over one year - considering that the women can get pregnant for around a week of any given month, is it any wonder that the Pope, and The Catholic Church recommends abstinence and being faithful?

If you take this 15% failure rate, which is failure rate in the sense that the women is impregnated - a smaller percentage than transmission of std's and hiv, and you compound it over ten years then the figure rises to 80%.

Now can you honestly recommend that people wear condoms given such failure rates, is it any wonder that the Church proclaims that condoms do not solve the problem, but encourage promiscuity and spread the virus?

You're making a false assumption in your figuring, I think. Namely that unprotected (or failed protected) sex = certain transmission. It does not. Provided no lesions, the male-to-female transmission rate for HIV is 0.08% per act. Female-to-uncircumcised male is 0.04%. Female-to-circumcised male is 0.02%. Let's say, worst case scenario, you are a woman having regular sex with an HIV+ man. Typical condom failure rate of 15%, and let's say 300 instances of intercourse a year. That's 45 failures, each with a 0.08% chance of transmission... 3.6% chance of transmission over a year (assuming that the risk compounds, which it doesn't really since each act is a discrete event, but whatever...) Even projected out to 10 years that's only a 36% chance of transmission, and to be fair, chances are likely that a) you're partner won't survive 10 years or b) if he does he'll be sick enough that the incidence of coitus will drop off to 0 well before that 10 years passes.

Given that without condoms the chance of transmission in one year given the same incidence of coitus is (using the same simple math) 24%, yes, I can quite safely say that I recommend the use of a condom every time.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Could someone back this up with scientific evidence please (peer reviewed paper?). Also - could someone please explain how this happens? The statistic is thrown about a lot on the sinner and I just can't see it being true.

Condoms are a physical barrier protection against sperm. Last time I checked, a spermatozoon is a relatively large set of molecules. Without a breach in the teat, how on earth can you make someone pregnant whilst wearing one properly? I have inflated these things to the size of space hoppers and filled them with water to a slightly smaller size. I refuse to believe that sperm can get through a fully functioning condom that is used correctly. If they could, and 2% is an accurate measure of failure then I'd a very high probability of having a lot of children by now.

There are a number of reasons why you could make a woman pregnant having used a condom:

foreplay gone wrong
poor drills after use (e.g. pulling it off right next to the vagina so that some might be propelled over)
Not maintaining enough distance after sex (e.g. close hugging after removal of the condom such that the penis and vagina are in close proximity)

I'm sure there's a few more too. I'd be interested to see how any experiments were controlled, if indeed any experiments have ever been carrier out.

Before someone replies, "condom manufacturers only cliam 98%, why would they lie". They would say 98% so that they are never liable to be sued, even if they new they were 100% succesful under perfect conditions.

Here's something I found googling that suggest the figure is bollocks:

"A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine observed heterosexual couples where one was HIV-positive and the other was HIV-negative, for an average of 20 months. (These couples are referred to as sero-discordant.) Findings included: No sero-conversion occurred among the 124 couples who used latex condoms consistently and correctly for vaginal or anal intercourse; Ten percent of the HIV-negative partners (12 of 121) of couples became infected when condoms were used inconsistently for vaginal or anal intercourse. In contrast, 15 percent of HIV-negative partners became infected when condoms were not used."

The 15% comes from studies where couples are relying on condoms for their contraception use over a the course of a year, it probably includes instances of "Oh, we got caught in the moment and forgot." It's a statistic referring to the efficacy of the method not to the condom itself. That said, I've had a condom fail on me once, in the sense that it slipped off during intercourse and I didn't notice (and yes, it was the proper size). Fortunately, there were no ill effects as it turned out. Considering how seldom I've used condoms (the Pill and committed monogamy are wonderful things!), that failure fits with the stats.

But you want the study itself and not anecdote. The stats that I've used come from Trussell, James (2007). "Contraceptive Efficacy". in Hatcher, Robert A., et al. Contraceptive Technology (19th rev. ed. ed.). New York: Ardent Media. To be fair, I'm actually drawing the information from a nifty chart on Wikipedia, but it's properly footnoted and cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... us_methods

As for method of study, you'd probably have to read Trussell's article. I'm going to go ahead and give his numbers the benefit of the doubt since they're published in something that has run to 19 revised editions - almost certainly a text book. I realise that's not a very objective analysis, but considering my numbers (well, Trussell's numbers) correspond to industry numbers that others have quoted, that's good enough for me until someone presents contradictory evidence with more provenance, ie. not saying "I should have lots of kids by now."

[munchingfoo]

From what I can see, the figures in that book were attained by collecting data by asking women some questions. It would seem that, applying the condom correctly, having normal sex, using the condom once and disposing of the condom away from the vagina without the condom breaking means "perfect usage". I don't think that it covers actions made after the condom is removed.

Could someone have a go at explaining how it might even be possible for a woman to get pregnant when the guy is using a fully functioning condom correctly?

Okay - so my anecdote was an aside, and partly meant in jest, but more seriously, do you even know one person who uses condoms "perfectly" every time, doesn't carry out risky foreplay, and is careful to the point of hindering romance after sex that has ever been made pregnant/made pregnant another person? The 2% statistic suggests that you should know someone relatively well who has, or at the very least that someone you know knows someone.

I don't know of any.

I'd be willing to accept purely statistical evidence using subjects' own word as truth if there was even the slightest hint that the initial hypotheses of sperm being able to permeate the latex barrier is true. That's more the kind of scientific evidence I was looking for.

[Gregory]

Here is a very good article,

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15445

no doubt that because the cna are reporting it, it should not be taken as evidence in itself due to possible bias, but I think it outlines the arguments quite well

Lonely Pilgrim, you said:

Typical condom failure rate of 15%, and let's say 300 instances of intercourse a year. That's 45 failures, each with a 0.08% chance of transmission... 3.6% chance of transmission over a year

you have misunderstood what 15% means, in actual fact your argument would be stronger if you understood that statistic correctly. It is not a 15% chance each time you have sex that you will get pregnant, rather on average over the course of a year there is a 15% chance of a pregnancy. The average couple has sex 92 times in a year, so you have overestimated this as well.

Given this large misunderstanding I doubt that we can rely on your compotence with stats cited here: http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/E1249D29 ... DB3E59.asp

Statistics quoted in previous posts were used in Contraceptive technology, i will inform you when the talk is posted on the cath soc website, as this would provide a more concrete basis for discussion than an uneducated reading of stats off various reputable or disreputable papers.

[the Empress]

I was looking at this article cited by Gregory: http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/E1249D29 ... DB3E59.asp

I don't believe it's relevant to a discussion on the direct effects of condoms, which seemed to be why it was cited. The figures given demonstrate the probability of infection for study populations in low and high income countries. That is, the absolute probability, not the probability of infection with the condition of condom use.

So the probability for a high income country: infection male->female 0.08% per sexual act (1 in 1250 sexual acts); female->male 0.04% per sexual act (1 in 2500 sexual acts). For a low income country: male->female 0.19%, male-> female 0.87% per sexual act. So what we can speculate here is on the indirect effect of condom usuage between high and low income countries. If 1 partner has genital ulcers, than the probability of infection per act is 2.8%. As condom usuage would be higher in a high income country, it is likely that the population has a much lower incidence of ulcers, in addition to the barrier effect of condoms itself. The article itself suggests that biologically, a higher male -> female infection rate makes sense.

So the female->male incidence in low income countries is likely related to behavioural factors, such as a high incidence of extra-marital relations, which would imply that the infection is not necessarily due to the primary female partner, but to male interaction with multiple females. I am inclined to support this argument due to reading past studies. Promoting women's rights therefore seems a strong path to reducing infection, i.e. empowerment such that women can refuse sex with an infected partner, recieve treament, leave an unfaithful partner, etc., via the education and legal protection of women, the opening up alternative employment, such that they are neither reliant on men or prostitution, and the usage of female orientated contraceptives (femadoms). I don't see the Catholic Chruch as supportive of women's rights in anyway. However, if you can prove that this is not the case, please share.

[Andy Monkey B]

In short: NO! STOP!! SIN!!!

Bad theology there. You can abstain all you like, you can never use condoms, you can get married and have lots of lovely sex and produce lots of lovely children, you can do amazingly selfless things comparable to mother teresa, you can go to confession every morning and spend the rest of the day on your knees on a cold stone floor, you can be baptised, confirmed, eucharist-ed, ordained, married or unction-ed, you can be the pope and do popey things, but you'll still go to hell if you don't have faith. Telling people not to sin doesn't make them sinless, sin is a condition, not an action. And doing good things won't make you righteous, salvation is by faith alone.

Isaiah 64:6
We have all become like one who is unclean,and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment

Get reformed mate! (Another discussion one feels...)

It's a shame more of you weren't at the Catholic Society talk on the matter last week. Anyway...

And it's a shame you don't seem to have read the topic on this talk already on the forum before posting this, where many of these points have already been discussed.

women are not fertile the whole month round

Not 100% true, it is possible to get pregnant if you have sex during any point of the monthly cycle, just less likely (like using condoms isn't 100% successful). What's the distinction between artificial and natural contraceptive methods btw, if you're not trying to divorce sex from procreation? Not an argument really, I've just never asked.

The Catholic Church does not tell people what to do, but it would be unethical to not inform them of the Church's view that promotion of condoms is reckless as it does not decrease risk as the ab method does.

Please re-read LonleyPilgrims carefully thought out responses.

Again, this seems to come down to deeper Catholic doctrines, namely the divorcing of sexual intercourse from procreation and the sinfulness of extra-marital, homosexual and promiscuous sex. The real issue I take here though is that when the Il Papa 'wades in' on the issue of condom use, his primary points consist of the above statistics and possible dangers of promoting condom use. Surely if he was being consistent these would all be side points? How about before AIDS, was condom use such a bad thing then?

[munchingfoo]

This thread has really interested me. I'm really looking forward to someone explaining to me how sperm can permeate a latex barrier. I guess the right person just hasn't come along yet.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Lonely Pilgrim, you said:

Typical condom failure rate of 15%, and let's say 300 instances of intercourse a year. That's 45 failures, each with a 0.08% chance of transmission... 3.6% chance of transmission over a year

you have misunderstood what 15% means, in actual fact your argument would be stronger if you understood that statistic correctly. It is not a 15% chance each time you have sex that you will get pregnant, rather on average over the course of a year there is a 15% chance of a pregnancy. The average couple has sex 92 times in a year, so you have overestimated this as well.

Given this large misunderstanding I doubt that we can rely on your compotence with stats cited here: http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/E1249D29 ... DB3E59.asp

I'm so very tempted to respond to this, unfortunately I can not. I can make no further comment on this topic. The last few days my company has been hashing out a policy on HIV prevention in Africa, specifically condom distribution and safe-sex education. We've had to do this because we are hoping to enter into partnership with a peace studies institute at a prestigious Catholic university.

Our policy has become to have no comment. Our operations are strictly focused on medical relief in areas of intense civil unrest, it is highly unlikely that anything we do will result in contraceptive distribution by us or HIV education measures enacted by us. As a consequence this issue falls outside of our scope of operations, our scope of interest, and our scope of comment. If I were anonymous on this board, I'd discuss the issue anyway, clearly you all know what my views are now, but as it is too many people here have met me in real life and as an executive I can not divorce what I say personally from company policy. Bloody politics.