Columnist blames JPII for spread of AID for BC stance


#1

OK, I hardly know where to start, but basically his argument is the same blah, blah, blah, The Pope couragously continues to the teach the Catholic truth against contraceptives, specifically the condom (not Richard Cohen’s words in Wash Post for April 5 of course) and our columnist blames the Pope for poverty and AIDs in Africa. He notes that in Catholic Italy the pope’s teachings are ignored and then somehow still concludes that the pope has the power to prevent people from sinning and using condoms in Africa.

Anyone know where to look for information on specific powers/influence that the Pope used to prevent condom distribution programs?? Other than written statements? I think our columnist wants to have it both ways: so many “catholics” oppose and don’t follow the teaching that it must be false while simultaneously the Pope is single handedly preventing UN programs…

Sorry for the rant, but this willful misrepresentation of the Truth just drives me nuts!!!

Any help/research you can provide would be appreciated!!!

  • Deni

#2

[quote=Deni101]OK, I hardly know where to start, but basically his argument is the same blah, blah, blah, The Pope couragously continues to the teach the Catholic truth against contraceptives, specifically the condom (not Richard Cohen’s words in Wash Post for April 5 of course) and our columnist blames the Pope for poverty and AIDs in Africa. He notes that in Catholic Italy the pope’s teachings are ignored and then somehow still concludes that the pope has the power to prevent people from sinning and using condoms in Africa.

Anyone know where to look for information on specific powers/influence that the Pope used to prevent condom distribution programs?? Other than written statements? I think our columnist wants to have it both ways: so many “catholics” oppose and don’t follow the teaching that it must be false while simultaneously the Pope is single handedly preventing UN programs…

Sorry for the rant, but this willful misrepresentation of the Truth just drives me nuts!!!

Any help/research you can provide would be appreciated!!!

  • Deni
    [/quote]

No research, only an ancecdote. We had a judge from the Curia visit us at a military base, about 10 years ago. His point wass that the main lie was that condoms were a necessary and sufficent solution to the problem. But their widespread use has not even halted the spread of ordinary STDs, much less AIDs. What has kept the number of deaths down is simply an advanced medical system in rich countryies that can afford to spend 100,000 a year to keep some people alive a little longer.
AIDS is caused by irresponsible sexual practice, and a person who has such a mindset is not going to endure any sort of restraint, much less the use of the condom.


#3

WSJ opinionjournal had a great write up on this very thing yesterday.

opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006518

It’s the 2nd item labeled “AIDS Illogic”


#4

The Church was caught, a while back, spreading misinformation about the science of condoms in the areas of Africa where the AIDS infection rate is worst – basically claiming that the HIV virus is permeable to condoms using fake medical reports which claimed to cite other scientific articles that actually said the exact opposite of what they claimed.

However, I have seen no evidence that the Pope was directly involved with that.


#5

[quote=SamCA]The Church was caught, a while back, spreading misinformation about the science of condoms in the areas of Africa where the AIDS infection rate is worst – basically claiming that the HIV virus is permeable to condoms using fake medical reports which claimed to cite other scientific articles that actually said the exact opposite of what they claimed.

However, I have seen no evidence that the Pope was directly involved with that.
[/quote]

Do you have any evidence that the “Church” was involved in that?

Chuck


#6

as a matter of fact, I have been involved continually in AIDS education since the early 80s, before it was even identified and treated as a public health problem. Condoms are ineffective in stopping the spread of HIV. That data is from the pro-condom advocates and is consistent over that period of time. Their lobbyists deny it or downplay it because it conflicts with the political agenda they have adopted, but the research is there. Condoms are also ineffective in preventing or reducing teen pregnancy rates.

abstinence and marital fidelity, where there are preached, adopted and practiced, are 100% effective in both those goals.

I saw an episode of Juding Amy yesterday where the social worker was presenting BC and abstinence education to teenage girls who had already experienced one pregancy or abortion. her entire demeanor implied abstinence would not work or even be considered seriously be sexually active teens, so she did absolutely nothing to contradict the attitude displayed by these girls, that the only thing boys and girls can find to do together is sex. Therefore the script implied that teaching abstinence is futile.

Doctors have been teaching for years that proper diet and lifestyle choices can prevent heart disease and cancer. Many patients disregard that advice. Does that mean the advice is no good and should be ignored or changed? You would sue a doctor for malpractice if he gave you bad advice about smoking, eating a poor diet, failing to control diabetes etc. Why should he not be sued for giving you bad advice about prevention of STDs?


#7

[quote=clmowry]Do you have any evidence that the “Church” was involved in that?

Chuck
[/quote]

Yes. The following is from a BBC News article which can be found here: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm

The Vatican has published a document which says condoms have holes in them, allowing HIV - the virus that causes AIDS - to pass through.

The document, called Family Values versus Safe Sex, is a detailed and passionately argued defence of the Church’s position on condoms.

Its author, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, serves as the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family and is known for his hard line stance against contraception.

It goes so far as to suggest that condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The document claims that so-called safe sex using condoms is like playing “Russian Roulette.” “Leading people to think they are fully protected…” the document says, “is to lead many to their death.”

The article goes on to assess the science in this document. What they find is that it is misleading in a way which almost had to be intentional – nearly every scientific study they cite, when someone actually went and found it, says pretty much exactly the opposite of what Trujillo claims it says.

The article pretty much goes through and checks each citation, speaking to the scientists cited when possible. Not surprisingly, the scientists are pretty disgusted to see their work being used to argue pretty much the opposite of what they actually found.

To reiterate again, though, there’s no evidence that the Pope was involved in this.


#8

[quote=SamCA]The Church was caught, a while back, spreading misinformation about the science of condoms in the areas of Africa where the AIDS infection rate is worst – basically claiming that the HIV virus is permeable to condoms using fake medical reports which claimed to cite other scientific articles that actually said the exact opposite of what they claimed.

However, I have seen no evidence that the Pope was directly involved with that.
[/quote]

This is not misinformation.

Latex has natural voids within it, that is holes. Those holes are microscopic in size, they are smaller than sperm cells, so they stop sperm. Viruses, which HIV is, are much smaller than cells and happen to be smaller then the natural voids in condoms.

I have a an abstract from a trade journal that speaks of this but I can not seem to find it at the moment. I will check when I get home and if I find it I will post it.


#9

[quote=ByzCath]This is not misinformation.

Latex has natural voids within it, that is holes. Those holes are microscopic in size, they are smaller than sperm cells, so they stop sperm. Viruses, which HIV is, are much smaller than cells and happen to be smaller then the natural voids in condoms.
[/quote]

And yet, actual tests done to see whether condoms are permeable to HIV have, without exception, found them to not be. The scientific studies Trujillo cites to prove his case all concluded that the chances of an HIV virus going through a condom are virtually nil, unless it tears. From the above linked article:

Cardinal Trujillo cites Carey’s work to support his case that condoms are porous and can leak the HIV virus. In his document he says that Carey found 29 leaky condoms out of the 89 he tested. Lytle says he is “disappointed” by how Cardinal Trujillo cites his former colleague’s work.
“He (Carey) decided that about one HIV virus could get through during the use of 200 condoms. And without condoms, the recipients would have been exposed to about 600,000 HIV viruses. The amount they found was very small, and when Ron tried to interpret this in terms of real risk, he decided it was about 10,000 times better than actually not having a condom at all.”


#10

[quote=SamCA]And yet, actual tests done to see whether condoms are permeable to HIV have, without exception, found them to not be. The scientific studies Trujillo cites to prove his case all concluded that the chances of an HIV virus going through a condom are virtually nil, unless it tears. From the above linked article:
[/quote]

Virtually nil is not a scientific term and any scientific study that has that term in it is suspect.

Virtually nil does not mean zero. It means that there is a chance. Do you want to explain to the person who is “lucky” enough to have it happen to him?

Here is the information I promised in my first reply.

In 1992 there was a letter in the Washington Times and this letter was written in response to it. It was written by the Editor of the Rubber Chemistry and Technology, a trade journal for the rubber industry.
Here is that letter…

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

APRIL 22, 1992

Do you want to stake your life on a condom?

Article Text:
In an April 15 letter, Matthew Murguia gave his endorsement to sexual congress between HIV carriers and uninfected individuals and scolded The Washington Times for not informing people about this disease.

Although I have little stomach for the politicized brouhaha surrounding the AIDS phenomenon, in matters of life and death, attention to reality is essential.

Mr. Murguia labels as discrimination the suggestion that uninfected persons might hesitate to initiate “loving relationships” with someone carrying a fatal infectious disease that has no known cure.

My only comment is to point out that the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about 5 microns (0.0002 inches) in size. Since this is roughly 10 times smaller than sperm, the latter are effectively blocked in ideal circumstances.

The 12 percent failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy is attributable to in situ cracking, removal, ozone deterioration from improper sealing, manufactured defects, etc.

Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through the condom should it find a passage.

A reluctance to stake one’s life on the ability of a condom to prevent HIV infection bespeaks wisdom, not discrimination.

C.M. ROLAND
Editor
Rubber Chemistry and Technology
Washington

This from the editor of a Trade Journal.

Here is a link for you.

Do Condoms leak HIV?

Most, if not all, studies on HIV have been politicized. If you do not get the answers they want then you do not recieve funding. This is a major problem with the grant for research model.

I worked in the health care field, HIV was one of the reasons I got out. Are you aware that if a person is infected with HIV and that person has no “known” risk factors that the CDC assumes the person is lieing.

The HIV virus is found alive in slavia and tears. No one knows how much of the virus one must get before they become infected.

These are just some of the troubling things about HIV and what we do not know about.

Rather than attacking the Church and its stand we need to look at the truth. The only way to stop the spread of HIV is to live as the Church Teaches.


#11

Back in the Olden Days before HIV and AIDs the common wisdom on the street corner was that using a condom was like taking a shower in a raincoat. I no longer hang out on the street corner, but I am sure that that little gem is still passed around by the young. Attitudes are built in this way and I believe that for the macho to use a condom would be quite unaceptable let alone being able to believe that sexual predation is not manly. The sow your wild oats syndrome is alive and well these days not only for the guys, but now for many of our gals as well. Pope John Paul and our church are correct condoms are not the answer. Chastity works when it is allowed to work.


#12

[quote=ByzCath]Virtually nil is not a scientific term and any scientific study that has that term in it is suspect.
[/quote]

Virtually nil is my term, fear not. The actual conclusions were in numbers like the ones quoted above.

Virtually nil does not mean zero. It means that there is a chance. Do you want to explain to the person who is “lucky” enough to have it happen to him?

In the year 2000, 41,821 people were killed in car accidents in the USA. I’m going to keep driving anyway.

It is true that condoms do not make it impossible to catch AIDS. They do, however, reduce the chance of it by a factor of around 10,000.

This is still not as good as abstinence. It is, however, a far sight from “Condoms don’t stop HIV!” which is what Trujillo is trying to argue. Using dishonest claims based on medical studies which concluded the opposite of what he claims they did.

Here is the information I promised in my first reply.

In 1992 there was a letter in the Washington Times and this letter was written in response to it. It was written by the Editor of the Rubber Chemistry and Technology, a trade journal for the rubber industry.
Here is that letter…

No one denies that there are microscopic holes in condoms. However, what people forget is that viruses can’t just leap through those holes. They need to be carried in a fluid medium. And latex condoms stop that fluid medium from leaving.

This isn’t abstract theory. A whole bunch of scientists have checked this a whole bunch of times, in a whole bunch of ways, and every time they find that condoms have an extraordinarily high success rate at stopping HIV.

If the Catholic Church thinks using them is a sin, fine. That’s the Church’s prerogative, and if someone’s willing to stop using it for that reason, more power to them.

Trying to convince everyone else to stop by lying about the science is a different story. And in a part of the world being decimated by an AIDS pandemic, it’s unconscionable.

Most, if not all, studies on HIV have been politicized. If you do not get the answers they want then you do not recieve funding. This is a major problem with the grant for research model.

Is this a justification for lying about the results of the studies that have been done?

I worked in the health care field, HIV was one of the reasons I got out. Are you aware that if a person is infected with HIV and that person has no “known” risk factors that the CDC assumes the person is lieing.

I wasn’t aware of this. How often does that happen, out of curiosity?

The HIV virus is found alive in slavia and tears. No one knows how much of the virus one must get before they become infected.

These are just some of the troubling things about HIV and what we do not know about.

I have a hard time believing we still know so little about the HIV virus. Maybe years ago, but these days we know so much about it that the first step of AIDS treatment is to genetically sequence your virus to determine its individual mutations and then offer a treating regimen tailored to your specific virus. There’s promising research being done into genetically engineering a strain of the HIV virus that attacks only cancer cells. We know a lot more about this disease than we did even five years ago.

Rather than attacking the Church and its stand we need to look at the truth. The only way to stop the spread of HIV is to live as the Church Teaches.

Right, but you do realize that’s never going to happen, yes? Lots and lots of people are not Catholic. They don’t care whether the Church thinks contraception is a sin, and they’re going to keep on having sex. If they have that sex unprotected, they have a much greater chance of catching diseases.

Trying to use deception to keep them from using protection, especially in an area of the world so devastated by AIDS, is horrifying.


#13

[quote=SamCA]Yes. The following is from a BBC News article which can be found here: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm

The article goes on to assess the science in this document. What they find is that it is misleading in a way which almost had to be intentional – nearly every scientific study they cite, when someone actually went and found it, says pretty much exactly the opposite of what Trujillo claims it says.

The article pretty much goes through and checks each citation, speaking to the scientists cited when possible. Not surprisingly, the scientists are pretty disgusted to see their work being used to argue pretty much the opposite of what they actually found.

To reiterate again, though, there’s no evidence that the Pope was involved in this.
[/quote]

In the first section the article says: “In his document Cardinal Trujillo uses this statement to endorse his case that the AIDS virus HIV can pass through condoms.”

Is the cardinal really misleading anyone?

The scientist in question says:

"12 out of 470 condoms "let some virus through"
there is “a permitted failure rate of 1 in 400” in condom testing

and concludes

“The latex condom is a very effective barrier,” he said, “A few may allow minimal exposure to virus and if I were to give my children or grandchildren advice about whether to use condoms, I’d say absolutely.”

He’s objecting to the statement that condoms have holes in them that allow virus to pass through. His research seems to confirm that some do.

Where they differ is in he conclusion as to weather or not they are safe.

In my pre-commited catholic days I’d used condoms. I think I should call the manufacturer…I used no where near 400 and 3 broke. I want my money back!

Chuck


#14

[quote=clmowry]In the first section the article says: “In his document Cardinal Trujillo uses this statement to endorse his case that the AIDS virus HIV can pass through condoms.”

Is the cardinal really misleading anyone?
[/quote]

The question is one of numbers. Trujillo’s report greatly inflates the numbers by taking some figures out of context and ignoring others.

Basically, nobody questions that it can happen in some cases. The question is how common it is – the scientific answer is not very.

The scientist in question says:

"12 out of 470 condoms "let some virus through"
there is “a permitted failure rate of 1 in 400” in condom testing

Note – that permitted failure rate is for letting water through. Water, as the article notes, leaks through much more commonly than semen.

“The latex condom is a very effective barrier,” he said, “A few may allow minimal exposure to virus and if I were to give my children or grandchildren advice about whether to use condoms, I’d say absolutely.”

He’s objecting to the statement that condoms have holes in them that allow virus to pass through. His research seems to confirm that some do.

Where they differ is in he conclusion as to weather or not they are safe.

No, they also differ on the chances. The report in question claims the number to be vastly higher than any of the studies they claim to be basing their research on.


#15

[quote=SamCA]No, they also differ on the chances. The report in question claims the number to be vastly higher than any of the studies they claim to be basing their research on.
[/quote]

lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html

Which number is vastly higher than that in the source document?

Chuck


#16

[quote=clmowry]lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html

Which number is vastly higher than that in the source document?

Chuck
[/quote]

According to Dave Lytle, the FDA’s leading researcher on AIDS and condoms – who is quoted in that very document – the numbers cited in section 4, “The Same Concern, From Non-Ecclesiastical Circles” are nearly all based in either outdated, disproven studies from decades ago, or are simply contrary to the results found in the studies.

I will admit that I haven’t been able to track down all of the documents cited to show this for myself, but given that Lytle wrote some of them and his job is to keep abreast of the science for the FDA, I’m inclined to think he has some idea what he’s talking about. Cardinal Trujillo clearly felt the same way, since he went to the trouble of citing Lytle here.

Note that the general information about condom failure – that is, improper use or the things simply getting torn or broken – is undisputed. The stuff about latex being permeable to HIV due to those microscopic holes, though, has been thoroughly disproved… by many of the scientists Trujillo tries to use to argue the opposite, in point of fact.

(In the BBC article I linked to above, they go through this all at fairly great length with Lytle and some of the other scientists used here.)

“These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million.”
– World Health Organization


#17

Wow, glad to hear someone else confirm this… this is what I’ve asumed for years. Note that molecules of air or water are each much much smaller than a virus particle. And we know from every day experience that you can blow up a latex balloon (same thing as a condom) with air or water, and these things don’t leak out through the pores at any appreciable rate - it will take the air a couple of days, and the water much longer - unless you puncture the thing. But if you try to fill the balloon with gasoline or vegetable oil, which are larger molecules than air or water, they will pass right through. So anyway, the pore size thing is a red herring. The real problem is mechanical failure and/or manufacturing defects.


#18

[quote=Bobby Jim]Wow, glad to hear someone else confirm this… this is what I’ve asumed for years. Note that molecules of air or water are each much much smaller than a virus particle. And we know from every day experience that you can blow up a latex balloon (same thing as a condom) with air or water, and these things don’t leak out through the pores at any appreciable rate - it will take the air a couple of days, and the water much longer - unless you puncture the thing. But if you try to fill the balloon with gasoline or vegetable oil, which are larger molecules than air or water, they will pass right through. So anyway, the pore size thing is a red herring. The real problem is mechanical failure and/or manufacturing defects.
[/quote]

Blow up a ballon and leave it long enough and it will defalt.

I will go with the expert from the trade journal. All he said was that it is possible, not that it happens all the time or in large quantities.

And as I pointed out, no one knows how much of the HIV virus one needs to be exposed to before you contract AIDS.


#19

I saw the original BBC Panorama programme on which the quoted article is based. And the reporting was very biased. The reporters had clearly set out to “prove” the Church was causing AIDS deaths, and were clearly disappointed to find no evidence of this.

As you will find if you read the WHOLE posted article, most of the Church’s claims are actually PROVEN in the programme. Aids Particles can escape even through the best western-manufactured condoms. Let alone the cheap mass-produced condoms handed out in the 3rd world.

In addition, the programme shows that condoms only work effectively if used EXACTLY in accordance with manufacturers instructions, and held in place. There is additionally the problem of torn and faulty condoms. In the 3rd World this can mean a failure rate of 1 condom in 10 or more.

In other words condoms cannot prevent AIDS transmission when used over any period. Passing out condoms and saying sex is now “safe” is a lie that is killing hundreds of thousands of people. This is why in areas using condom distribution as a “cure” for AIDS have seen the AIDS epidemic multiply.

Only in programmes like Uganda and the Phillipines where abstinence and sticking faithfully to one sexual partner have been promoted, have there been **reductions ** in AIDS prevalence.

So misinformed attacks like those above: calling Cardinal Trujillo a Liar are the worst possible way to discuss this issue.

The lie is so-called “safe sex”, being pushed by the population-control industry.


#20

SamCA clearly didn’t bother to read this part of the BBC article he posted a link to before he began screaming his wild accusations against the church…

Cardinal Trujillo says that safe sex campaigns which promote condoms lead people to think they’re completely protected when they’re not

“There is a good reason for a clear-cut prohibition against condoms,” the Cardinal told Panorama last year, “far from stopping AIDS, they have encouraged promiscuity, leading many more people to get the disease.”

As supporting evidence Cardinal Trujillo cites a paper by Professor Norman Hearst, Professor of Family Medicine and Epidemiology and the University of Califoirnia. He’s studied AIDS across the world - including Uganda and Brazil.

Dr Hearst told Panorama that, contrary to the way Cardinal Trujillo has cited his research findings, there is no conclusive evidence that increased condom use leads to increased promiscuity.

But the Professor believes Cardinal Trujillo is right to question whether condoms are working against AIDS.

In some parts of the world, he says, they are not fulfilling the hopes so many have placed in them.

Hearst is one of a minority of experts who have begun to question the value of condom promotion in AIDS epidemics where the virus is being spread in the general population.

Other scientists who agree include Harvard’s Edward Green, former WHO scientist Rand Stoneburner and his colleague Daniel Low-Beer of Cambridge University.

Their work is quite controversial and some of their most salient conclusions not generally accepted.

Hearst told us: “We know from our research that if you use condoms some of the time but not all of the time they do you little or no good.”

“The concern is that we may have a generation of young people in at least some African countries growing up who have been taught to believe that condoms equal AIDS prevention and that believe they’re doing their part by using condoms most of the time except when they don’t happen to have one, or they happen to be drunk or they have a partner that they feel particularly attracted to or whatever.”

“And that’s just not going to do them much good.”

“There may also be issues of the quality of the condoms may not be quite up to standards of what you or I would buy if we went to the pharmacy to get one, or the issues of storage and non-air-conditioned warehouses, there could be a lot of things but I think people need to be realistic in terms of what’s really going to happen in Africa.”


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.