Another archbishop heard from
Typical of the moral blindness of the Catholic church on the condom issue – the archbishop of Sydney talks a lot of emollient drivel about sexual morality as the putative reason for saying condoms make the AIDS epidemic worse – without ever mentioning the blindingly obvious (to anyone but a moral idiot) that condoms are needed because AIDS transmission involves two people, one of whom can be as sexually faithful as any pope or archbishop could desire and still be infected by the other party. Usually this cashes out to women infected by men. The archbishop talks and talks and talks and talks and never mentions this. It is wicked to fail to mention it.
To blame Catholics and Pope Benedict for the spread of HIV/AIDS requires proof that while people are ignoring the first, essential Christian requirement to be chaste before and within marriage, they are slavishly obedient to a second requirement not to use condoms…Catholic teaching is opposed to adultery, fornication and homosexual intercourse, even with condoms, not because it denies condoms offer health protection, but because traditional Christian moral teaching believes all extra-marital intercourse contradicts the proper meaning of love and sexuality.
But even if one agrees with every word of that the problem remains that a woman (or, much less likely, a man) could heed and obey that to the last jot and tittle and still, without a condom, be infected. Why does the archbishop ignore this fact? Because he has nothing to say? Because there is nothing to say other than that condoms are indeed needed as (at least) insurance? If so, that’s a wicked reason to keep silent.
Christ called Christians to a different way of living, to a purity of heart where even looking on a woman with aggressive and disordered desire (lust) is wrong.
Oh – well maybe the answer is even simpler, as indicated by that remark. Maybe the archbishop really is so stupid and so callous that he really doesn’t even realize that women exist – maybe he really does think that it’s only men who are agents, only men who are called to a different way of living, only men who can and should be faithful, and therefore only men who can be infected. Maybe he just doesn’t get it that women are also part of the equation, that when men ‘look on’ them with lust and then act on the looking, the act has consequences for the woman as well as the man.
Yet he’s the archbishop of Sydney; he has a platform; he can go right on telling Catholics – women and men alike – that condoms are bad and harmful. That’s unfortunate.
outeast 
OB 
Eric MacDonald 
Marie-Therese O' Loughlin 
G 
Doctorb 
Russell Blackford 
Pell has his critics here in Australia, none more articulate than David Marr: “It’s hardly news but in the face of this ridicule [by Pell of condoms] it has to be said again: Australia waged the world’s most effective war on AIDS by ignoring the Catholic Church. We did not heed the demands of John Paul II and his successor, Benedict XVI. We encouraged people to use condoms, we distributed clean syringes and we saved thousands of lives.
“Catholics applauded, though silently. While the hierarchy of the church remains locked into an ancient theology of sex that has terrible consequences in the modern world, the rank and file know better. But they are entirely submissive. They don’t rise up. They don’t heckle Benedict and Pell from the pews. Their courtesy is the great modern miracle of Catholicism.”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pell-rides-papal-bandwagon-of-death-20090410-a2sf.html?page=-1
But then again, his critics should look on the bright side. At least Pell didn’t say that AIDS was God’s punishment for sin, which was the position taken by the outspoken funamentalist parson and MP, Fred Nile.
At least you don’t have to put up with pronouncements from George bloody Pell almost ever day, like some of us do.
True, true, true.
And we no longer have to put up with aphasic mumblings from W every day, either; instead we get the other thing. Life is good.
True, life is good.
Ophelia your comments are especially apposite in sub-Saharan Africa, where research shows
“high infection rates among monogamous married women in Africa — combined with gender inequality and […] sexual violence.”
http://un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol18no3/183women_aids.htm
In a bid for B&W popularity I have to say that I think the Archbish makes a reasonable point. I think we have discussed this before (I am sure I have discussed it somewhere). I don’t think the Vatican’s pronouncements on condoms are likely to have any effect on the spread of Aids for the reason the bish gives: people ignore the Vatican whenever it suits them. I take the point that you can be ‘sexually mnoral’ in the terms of the Roman Catholic Church and still get AIDS but the archbish is right that if people did feel constrained to obey the Vatican’s teaching on sexual morality there would be no AIDS or much much less at any rate. The fact that one partner in a marriage may be obedient to church teaching but not the other is beside the point, because the one who is disobedient and presents the risk would, by definition, not be inclined to listen to the Vatican on condom use anyway. And you are less likely to get AIDS if you only have sex within marriage even if your partner is somewhat promiscuous. The engine for AIDS in Africa is prostituion, as I understand it.
That doesn’t mean that I disagree that the teaching on condoms is incoherent and immoral, it is. I just doubt that it has any effect on AIDS or, in fact, family planning. The evidence is strong that people start contraceiving when their income rises, regardless of ethnic or religious background.
“instead we get the other thing. Life is good.”
The ‘other thing’ being honeyed eloquence and enough pork barrels to fill the Grand Canyon? I think life is going to bite the US on the arse on this one (which means an arse bite for all of us, sadly).
John Meredith
“The engine for AIDS in Africa is prostituion, as I understand it.” What point are you making here?
“The evidence is strong that people start contraceiving when their income rises, regardless of ethnic or religious background.”
So that’s nice for those in the land of the rising incomes. Where does it leave poor women (ie, most women) in places like Botswana Lesotho & Swaziland?
What do you mean by “somewhat” promiscuous? When a quarter of the adult population is HIV+ how much does “somewhat” improve the odds?
“What point are you making here?”
Nothing contentious, just that prostitution seems to be the main vector for AIDS in many African countries and prostiution is not likely to be responsive to edicts issued from the Vatican for good or ill.
“So that’s nice for those in the land of the rising incomes. Where does it leave poor women (ie, most women) in places like Botswana Lesotho & Swaziland?”
I am afraid it leaves them in ugly circumstances. That is why it is so important to see that Africa develops and enriches.
“When a quarter of the adult population is HIV+ how much does “somewhat” improve the odds?2
The less sex you have outside the marriage, the less likely you bare to contract AIDS. That’s just the case isn’t it? And I think (although I have no figures) that marriage does reduce reliance of prostiutes in many cases.
The Vatican policy may not disincline anyone to use condoms who was not already thus disinclined; but you can be sure that it is used as an excuse not to, which will only aggravate a situation where women are already disadvantaged when negotiating use of condoms, or whether sex happens at all.
“but you can be sure that it is used as an excuse not to, which will only aggravate a situation where women are already disadvantaged when negotiating use of condoms, or whether sex happens at all.”
I am sure it will be but I don’t really think it will be powerful enough a weapon to make a difference. In some parts of Africa where the AIDS epidemic is most rampant you might as well as a man to wear a skirt as wear a condom.
JM,
There’s been a fair bit of research on the effectiveness in condom use in spreading AIDS in Africa, and there are definitely mixed messages (which should come as no surprise, since no one ever claimed it’d be a magic bullet). There’s an interesting discussion in this presentation (it’s by the somewhat controversial medical anthropologist Edward Green, but it seems pretty evidence-based).
Incidentally: the engine of AIDS spread in Africa does not seem to be prostitution (where condom use is both fairly high and of demonstrated effect) but the relatively common practice of having multiple long-term sexual partners. Condom use is low in such long-term relationships because it is seen as a sign of distrust (or as an implicit admission of infidelity).
My fear is that Church pronouncements will have two negative effects:
In the first place, and despite the Archbish’s claims, there is actual evidence (the link is to research in a population of students in Zambia)that religiousness is a predictor for non-use of condoms in casual sexual encounters. So there’s a direct impact.
In the second, I fear that pronouncements of the type made by the Pope and now this Archbish chap will further cement the impression that condoms are only for those who are immoral – thereby making it even harder for people (esp, but not only, women) in long-term relationships to insist on condom use.
Of course, there’s also the bullshit science issue (the claims that AIDS passes through condom latex)…
I do not think we should let the bishops off the hook so easily. Since so many of the conservative priests being imported into the US and Canada, and perhaps other places as well, because of a lack of ‘vocations’, come from Africa, why should we not think that the Pope’s writ is observed quite widely in Africa? And, indeed, if what you say is true, John Meredith, that in Africa “you might as well as a man to wear a skirt as wear a condom,” then it is even more encumbent on the bishops to support the use of condoms, since they might even have some influence, since authoritarianism is also a very strong part of African indigenous culture.
The bishops are a scurrilous bunch of mediaevalists, for whom sex is still tainted with sin, and take every opportunity to discourage normal sexuality, let alone any other kind. The constant repetition of the no-condom idiocy should relegate them to the back pages of respectable newspapers, if they are given column space at all, but for some reason, even in otherwise quite sensible societies, they are given prime billing. Why defend them? They’re a silly bunch of immature boys who are still afraid of girls. Let’s condemn them with the contempt they deserve.
Jm, I’ve been trying to find more data on this issue; it’s tricky, though, largely because most of the reseach is shuttered away behind paywalls (with the abstracts not including any findings).
The study I tried to link to found that religion was a statistically significant predictor for condom non-use, with other predictors being positive sexual outcomes from alcohol consumption, low education, and a couple of other factors. Explanations of the students’ rationalizations were not included – but I can hypothesize some (believing that condoms are forbidden might inhibit condom purchase/acquisition behaviour, whereas believing sex is forbidden would be less likely to overcome a teenager’s sex drive!).
The evidence is not uniform, I hasten to add: one study I came across (abstract) found a correlation between religiousness and ignorance about AIDS in Ghanian women, but none with condom use. This could be linked to the gender power imbalance?