Condomania

One persistent criticism of John Paul II has been that the Vatican’s opposition to artificial means of birth control, specifically condoms, has exacerbated the African AIDS epidemic. For instance, in today’s Inquirer we get this op-ed, which reads, in part:

John Paul II mesmerized those who saw him. He spoke forcefully for the dignity of all human beings. But this champion of compassion also spoke forcefully against the use of condoms, even as AIDS killed tens of millions. Stop for a moment and picture the lives of 12 million children orphaned by AIDS. Twelve million, and the Pope would not relent. Because condoms might encourage sex, and the church cannot countenance sex, except to make more babies, no matter how many babies already live without parents, or without enough food, clothing or shelter.

Brendan O’Neill, however, applies a bit of healthy skepticism to these kinds of arguments.

Sez O’Neill:

The most striking thing about these articles claiming the Vatican makes Africans die from AIDS is the dearth of factual material. Despite getting the cover of the New Statesman, Michela Wrong’s piece elevating the Pope over prostitution in the AIDS-spreading stakes doesn’t even ask, never mind answer, questions you might expect of such a journalistic endeavour. Is the incidence of AIDS higher in Catholic countries in Africa than in non-Catholic countries? Are a majority of AIDS victims in Africa observant Catholics? How are the Pope’s eccentric edicts on condoms relayed on the ground in Africa, and what do Africans think of them?

None of that is interrogated. It is simply asserted that the Pope says something about condoms and – boom! – another few thousand get AIDS. For example, many of these pieces point to the ridiculous statement made by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, Vatican spokesman on family affairs, who once said that condoms have tiny holes that can ‘leak’ the AIDS virus. Yet Trujillo made that comment at the end of 2003, after the AIDS virus had already gripped parts of Africa, and he was roundly denounced by the World Health Organisation, which issued an international statement saying that, in truth, ‘intact condoms…are essentially impermeable.’

Moreover, as O’Neill points out, there is not necessarily a strong correlation between the rate of AIDS and the number of Catholics in a given country:

A cursory glance at the incidence of AIDS in various African countries suggests that things are more complex than some of these Vatican-attackers allow. According to the AIDS charity Avert, southern African countries have the highest national adult HIV prevalence rate. The two worst-hit countries (not only in Africa, but the world) are Swaziland, where the rate is 38.8 per cent, and Botswana, where it is 37.3 per cent. Yet these countries have low numbers of practising Catholics: in Swaziland, between 10 and 20 per cent of the population is Catholic, while 40 per cent are Zionist (a blend of Christianity and indigenous ancestral worship) and 10 per cent are Muslim; in Botswana fewer than 5 per cent are Catholic, with 85 per cent of the population subscribing to ancient indigenous beliefs.

In South Africa, Avert says the HIV infection rate is around 20 per cent. South Africa is one of Africa’s more secularised nations; around 68 per cent of the population describe themselves as Christian, but only around 7 per cent of the population are Catholic. Do the Pope’s and Cardinal Trujillo’s silly statements on condoms have a hold over countries such as Swaziland, Botswana and South Africa?

He then makes this interesting suggestion:

One idea that these anti-Pope radicals refuse to entertain is that perhaps some Africans choose not to use condoms. As Avert claims, ‘condoms are not without their drawbacks, especially in the context of a stable partnership where pregnancy is desired.’ In underdeveloped countries it is often important to have large families, so that there are more individuals who can work and take care of their parents as they get older and can no longer work. People in these countries may simply desire to have more children, even if that involves the risk of having a child with HIV.

It perhaps isn’t surprising that this possibility is not spoken about, considering that some of those attacking the Vatican’s stance on condoms seem to see the problem in Africa as one of ‘too many people’ and the solution as condoms for all. Michela Wrong attacks the Vatican’s ‘sheer irresponsibility [in] rejecting population control, on a continent stalked by famine and stunted by malnutrition, where each year brings another 10million mouths to feed.’ Perhaps the lack of condom-use is not a consequence of Africans being in thrall to Vatican edicts, but because they are equally not in thrall to the population control lobby, those NGOs, charities and commentators who would have us believe that Africa’s problem is primarily one of there being too many black babies around. If it is absurd for the Vatican to depict the condom as evil, it is equally absurd for others to describe it as Africa’s saviour.

(O’Neill link via The American Scene)

(N.B. and FWIW: The official VI policy on condoms is that they are a perfectly acceptable form of birth control and a good way to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Though, of course, monogomy is aces.)