Is an 81 year old man able to identify with the suffering of AIDS? Is a lifelong academic stupid enough to think that condoms cause AIDS? Just how out of touch is the Church?
Yes, no, and not (respectively).
There's been tons of buzz lately about the Pope's recent comments on the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and the inadequacy of condoms to solve the problem. Some of this buzz has come from straightforward media coverage (like here and here), some has been a little more straightbackward (like here), and most has been personal speculation and cynicism by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. And all of it prompted a lot of personal reflection and reaction on my part, and so...without further ado, a personal interpretation of the two sides of the Pope's condom comments!
1) The Rational Side, or "The Pope cares about your body"
The Pope is clearly NOT saying that condoms are some kind of superconductor for STDs, as if wearing one during sex increases the likelihood of transmitting HIV. What he's saying is that condoms are never 100% effective in protecting against STDs. And Benny is just agreeing with the CDC when he says that - according to a survey they did in Haiti (a third-world country, like much of Africa), "1 of 42 uninfected partners (2%) became infected with consistent condom use." And for any intelligent person, 1 out of 42 is one too many.
Too many people believe that using a condom = zero chance of disease or pregnancy. For you Friends fans out there, you can remember the famous "Well, they should put that on the box!" quote by Ross (above, 2 minutes in). And those misconceptions exist in the U.S., where there's even better sex ed than in Africa.
Abstinence is the only failsafe form of STD prevention. But don't take my word for it - Trojan condoms and the CDC both agree. And even beyond that, abstinence education has been extremely effective in lowering cases of HIV through programs like Abstinence Africa and Stay Alive. It only stands to reason that if we're serious about eliminating HIV for good, we ought to use the most effective means possible - abstinence.
2) The Spiritual Side, or "The Pope cares about your soul"
The fact of the matter is that condoms are morally unacceptable in every situation. They interfere with the procreative aspect of sex, degrading the beauty of sexuality. Condoms provide the illusion of consequence-free sexual encounters: "We definitely won't transmit disease if I wear a condom." They take the beauty of sex out of God's hands and force it into human control. So while the disease-prevention aspects of condoms are admirable, the immoral aspects make condom use wrong no matter what - it's the basic moral principle that the ends NEVER justify the means.
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one… - Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI
The Church doesn't want her children to settle for "good enough." If we're called to be like Christ (1 Peter 1:16) and to "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48), then we should never settle for anything less. The argument that "people are just going to have sex" just isn't good enough. Human nature can settle in and sin can overtake us, but it's our call to always strive for holiness - whether we live in Minnesota (brr!), Africa (warm!) or anywhere in between.
And behind all this is the crazy idea that an old German man in Rome loves us enough to challenge us - and I kinda like that idea!
PM
P.S. I'm on page 1057 out of 1168 of Atlas Shrugged... And I can't WAIT to post about how much I love to hate Ayn Rand!
----------------
Now playing: Shawn McDonald - Take My Hand
via FoxyTunes
Posts
