24 Comments

1. Terrye:

At least he did not put out a Fatwa against the Spanish Bishop.

Jan 23, 2005 - 5:05 am 2. tre:

So you’re saying that just because it’s a tradition, that doesn’t make it smart? right?

Jan 23, 2005 - 6:41 am 3. PeterUK:

In the final analysis it is about procreating and the bottom line is that we have stopped.

We in the West are inducing our own Permian-Triassic Dying Time,not much to leave in the archaeological record- a layer of rubber.

Jan 23, 2005 - 6:44 am 4. Bostonian:

PeterUK–Whence comes this pessimism?

People are popping out offspring all around me! I can hardly take a step without bumping into someone’s infant.

Jan 23, 2005 - 6:57 am 5. PeterUK:

Bostonian,

I’m presuming that the Pope desires the production of little Catholics,Italy for example seems to be going out of business in that respect,along with Spain.In general Europe is cutting back on the production of little Christians of any denomination,but specifically there isn’t much call for Popes if production is confined to little Muslims.So I can see his point.

Jan 23, 2005 - 7:14 am 6. Gerry:

Roger,

“The Pope has reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s stance against the use of condoms even after a Spanish Bishop said they could help in the fight against AIDS.”

You have to think about this in terms of just how condoms would fit in with the Church’s teachings. The Catholic Church says that extramarital sex is a sin. The Catholic Church says that intentionally preventing the seed from having any chance of impregnating the woman is a sin.

Exactly how could they be for condom use with these in mind? “It is a sin to have sex outside of the marriage. But if you do, then we recommend you sin a little bit more by wearing a condom?”

Yes, it is probably true that condoms could help in the fight against AIDS. It is also true that if people followed the guidance of the church, that it could help fight against AIDS.

I think that both approaches are good for those who feel comfortable with them. I do not think it is necessary to pressure those who do not follow the Catholic church’s teachings to adopt them lest they be labelled as uncompassionate. I similarly do not think it is necessary to pressure those who do not believe the answer is condoms to change their view lest they be labelled as uncompassionate.

Jan 23, 2005 - 7:28 am 7. Silicon valley Jim:

I’m presuming that the Pope desires the production of little Catholics

I doubt that. It really doesn’t seem to be the way that he thinks; moreover, he didn’t oppose the use of condoms for Catholics only. Here’s the first sentence from the Reuters news release to which Roger links:

Pope John Paul on Saturday stressed that the Roman Catholic Church believed abstinence and fidelity within marriage, and not condoms, were the best way to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The sentence does not say “abstinence and fidelity within marriage by Roman Catholics”. Furthermore, one need not be a Catholic nor even believe in God to agree that abstinence and fidelity within marriage are better ways to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS than is the use of condoms unaccompanied by abstinence and fidelity within marriage (I do note that the Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms even within a marriage). The story that I’m about to relate may be apocryphal. It did, however, appear in the pages of the alumni magazine of a notable university of which I am alumnus.

An expert on sexually-transmitted diseases was speaking at a conference. She asked those present for a show of hands as to how many of them recommended the use of condoms to people who knew or suspected that their partners were HIV-positive. Nearly every hand in the room went up. She then asked them for a show of hands as to how many of them would have sex while using a condom with a partner who was HIV-positive. All the hands went down.

Nobody really believes that condoms make sex with an HIV-positive partner safe.

Jan 23, 2005 - 7:42 am 8. kelley:

Bostonian,

Here are fertility rates (average no. of children per woman, 2000-2005) for various countries from The Economist’s Pocket World in Figures (2005):

Hong Kong – 1.00

Russia – 1.14

Spain – 1.15

Italy – 1.23

Poland – 1.26

Japan – 1.32

Germany – 1.35

Canada – 1.48

United Kingdom – 1.60

This came from a table of the 49 lowest fertility rates. I believe that the US is about at replacement rate (2.0). Some countries, including France, have been actively encouraging their women to have more children. Bit of a problem for these countries, since a large segment of the population is older, the population is not reproducing itself, and these countries have big social welfare programs. Doesn’t look exactly sustainable…..

Jan 23, 2005 - 7:43 am 9. Patrick Tyson:

The official position of the Catholic Church…

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/215/Humanae_Vitae__Pope_Paul_VI_on_Contraception.html

This “garden variety deist” is a lapsed Catholic.

Jan 23, 2005 - 8:13 am 10. PeterUK:

The Catholic Church is against any form of artificial contraception http://members.aol.com/revising/front.html not only condoms.The Pope may be speaking to the whole world but the remit of his authority runs only to Roman Catholics,Protestants by definition ignore the Popes encomiums.

Jan 23, 2005 - 8:46 am 11. Assistant Village Idiot:

Condoms allow people, especially children, to think they are bulletproof and have more partners.

I have no philosophical or religious objection to people wearing condoms to reduce their risk of STD’s, I just don’t think it works as linearly as people think. When I was a lad, many moons ago, the joke was “What do you call a guy who carries rubbers so his girl doesn’t get knocked up?” Answer: “Daddy.”

Behavior exists along a continuum. There are teenagers who will not be having sex under any circumstance, others who will be having sex regardless of circumstances. In between, in the great middle, are teenagers who may or may not become sexually active. A little encouragement, a little discouragement, a slight increase in risk , a slight decrease in risk, does have an effect on most of us. Permission to use condoms is a slight increase in permission to have sex. For those in the margin, this may be significant.

People who use condoms have more sexual partners. I believe causality flows in both directions on that one.

As the Pope presumably has some responsibility to look at his flock as a collection of individuals, each of infinite worth, rather than faceless numbers, “playing the percentages” of reducing STD’s with condom use is ambiguous morally as well as statistically.

Jan 23, 2005 - 9:49 am 12. Silicon valley Jim:

The Catholic Church is against any form of artificial contraception Link… not only condoms.The Pope may be speaking to the whole world but the remit of his authority runs only to Roman Catholics,Protestants by definition ignore the Popes encomiums.

Agreed.

I didn’t do a very good job of expressing my thoughts. Let’s try again. I’ve never been much for saying what somebody else is thinking, although I’ll admit that I haven’t been immune from it myself. You have, in effect, said that the Roman Catholic church is opposed to any form of birth control other than abstinence or the rhythm method (or whatever they’re calling it now) because the Church or the Pope desires more Catholics. Based on the Pope’s statements that I’ve read during his tenure and my fourteen years in Catholic schools, I don’t think that either the Church or the Pope desires more Catholics, or, perhaps more accurately, desires a higher birth rate for Catholics. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would truly like to see it. If I have mis-stated your position, please feel free to correct me.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:02 am 13. Morgan:

This isn’t a surprise to me. My understanding (gained through 16 years in Catholic educational institutions) is that the Catholic Church’s basic morality is act-oriented – an act was created by God for a certain purpose, and artificially frustrating that purpose is always wrong. Hence the stances against homosexual sex, oral sex, masturbation, and contraception.

You could probably get a Catholic theologian to agree that there are legitimate purposes for sex other than reproduction (e.g. expressing intimacy), but fulfilling only some of those purposes while thwarting others will remain sinful. So adding more legitimate purposes only further restricts the circumstances under which an act is moral.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:15 am 14. Silicon valley Jim:

Hence the stances against homosexual sex, oral sex, masturbation, and contraception.

When I was attending a Catholic prep school in a village of broad lawns and narrow minds, I was told that the reason for the prohibition of contraception via, e.g., condom was that it was “against the natural law”. No further explanation was forthcoming. I’ve been trying for the past several minutes to verify this with the link that Patrick posted, but it hasn’t opened yet.

You could probably get a Catholic theologian to agree that there are legitimate purposes for sex other than reproduction (e.g. expressing intimacy), but fulfilling only some of those purposes while thwarting others will remain sinful.

I was told in that same class (probably in 1967) that there were two purposes of sex. One was procreation; the other was to express the love between the marital partners. I believe that the second purpose had been admitted only fairly recently (at that time) by the Church.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:24 am 15. Morgan:

Jim:

I think the “natural law” is the same idea I expressed earlier – acts have God-defined purposes.

I’ve forgotten what the rationale behind allowing the use of the “rhythm method” was, presumably it is a God-defined loophole.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:50 am 16. Mike Walsh:

I’ll ignore the ignorance and the bigotry from the comments, and only remind you, Roger, to check the blogs you so wisely respect. You’ll find this story about the Spanish bishops –with the spin originally from Reuters, which says a lot– has been debunked.

Love the blog, and can’t wait for your next book.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:50 am 17. chuck:

Furthermore, one need not be a Catholic nor even believe in God to agree that abstinence and fidelity within marriage are better ways to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS than is the use of condoms unaccompanied by abstinence and fidelity within marriage

I agree with this myself. Relying on condoms is like relying on pills with no lifestyle changes to remain healthy. Anyway, everyone has the power of belief and habit, it doesn’t require condom manufacturing plants. On the other hand, this all reminds me of the 19′th century scourge of syphilis, people knew how it was transmitted, but that didn’t stop the widespread resort to prostitutes. Cellini, Paganini, Nietzsche, Schubert, Schumann, Smetana, Joplin, Hugo Wolf, just to mention mostly composers, suffered from syphilis. Lots of prominent sufferers. By the way, I have been told that the Firestone museum has an early specimen of the rubber condom. Let’s hear it for American inventiveness.

Jan 23, 2005 - 11:51 am 18. PeterUK:

“I don’t think that either the Church or the Pope desires more Catholics, or, perhaps more accurately, desires a higher birth rate for Catholics.”

I would say that it is implicit in a ban on artificial contraception that there would be,in the absence of abstinence,an increase in the birthrate.Compare average family sizes before and after the advent of the pill.

I am sure that the Pope is quite familiar with the words of Genesis http://www.bibleontheweb.com/bible.asp “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29

I am also sure that as a the head of a proslytising Church the Pope is aware of the implication that a declining numbers of the faithful,as in France, will have on the of the Church and ultimately its authority and existence.

Just my view,but Rome must remember its history and that ultimately the demographics are everything.

Jan 23, 2005 - 12:14 pm 19. Morgan:

PeterUK:

Certainly the impact of not using contraception is to increase the birth rate, and certainly the Catholic Church is aware of that fact. It isn’t all about making little Catholics, however – there is no allowance for extramarital sex if only you’ll ensure that the children are reared Catholic, and there is apparently no exception to the “no condoms” rule even when, as a practical matter, the use of condoms might increase the number of living Catholics by decreasing the incidence of HIV among them.

Honestly, that’s one of the things I like about the Catholic Church. They don’t decide that something is acceptable simply because it would be convenient, practical, popular, or even life-saving. It may make the Church a dinosaur eventually (some would say that happened long ago, of course), but it’s a principled stand.

Jan 23, 2005 - 12:30 pm 20. PeterUK:

I am not criticising the Catholic Church,I would like to see more little Catholics,little Protestants,little Jews,Little Buddhists,little Hindus and little Zoroastrians,I think we are going to need them.

This controversy is not new,

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9812/articles/contraception.html and the history of contraception goes back thousands of years

http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm

Jan 23, 2005 - 1:30 pm 21. Yehudit:

“People are popping out offspring all around me! I can hardly take a step without bumping into someone’s infant.”

Me too, and I’m in NYC where raising kids is really expensive.

Jan 23, 2005 - 3:10 pm 22. Yehudit:

“Nobody really believes that condoms make sex with an HIV-positive partner safe.”

If you KNOW your partner is HIV-poz, that’s at the front of your mind if you are thinking about having intercourse. You might choose not to take the risk. If you are thinking of having intercourse with someone and you don’t know their status, you want to take precaustions just in case. It’s the difference between buying a car that has been the subject of many consumer warnings, and buying a car without researching its safety record.

Condoms do work very well, just not 100%. They have certainly reduced the spread of AIDS in hi-risk populations. Reduced the pregnancy rate too.

It’s a bit dishonest to conflate “99% effective” with “not effective at all.”

Jan 23, 2005 - 3:16 pm 23. Yehudit:

“Condoms allow people, especially children, to think they are bulletproof and have more partners.”

Increased condom use among American teens over the past 15 years strongly correlates with decreased HIV and pregnancy among same. I’ve never seen any study that condom use correlates with number of sexual partners.

Jan 23, 2005 - 3:19 pm 24. Assistant Village Idiot:

Yehudit, what you say is essentially true, but you refute something slightly different than my contention. But first, I simply remind you that coincidence is not causality. I suspect you knew that but were simply being brief.

Studies of interventions to reduce HIV, STD’s, pregnancy, # of partners, etc come in two types: interventions with high-risk groups and interventions with the general population. The interventions with high-risk groups are notably successful, enough so that they improve the average of the general population. In fact, the improvement would lead us to expect a generalized improvement greater than that which actually occurs. One possible interpretation is that some interventions actually slightly increase the number of sexual partners in the low-risk group. I don’t know of anyone who believes in a large increase there.

It is all very murky to measure, as all interventions come in some kind of package which also includes information and instruction. Some interventions highlight harm reduction and some highlight abstinence. Both seem to do some good. There is reason to believe that different interventions work differently with different populations: high-risk females seem to respond more to interventions focusing on pregnancy, high-risk males to those focusing on STD’s. Harm-reduction strategies seem to work best with high-risk groups, abstinence strategies with low and medium-risk.

The thought experiment is one hundred drunken teenagers on a warm summer night. What are the factors, either prior to that night or immediately present, which would lead an undecided youngster to say “the hell with it” and have sex.

Jan 24, 2005 - 8:20 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: