VIEWPOINT
The Catholic debate on condoms
By Ted Laguatan, Esq.
INQUIRER.net
03/08/2010
CALIFORNIA, United States—“I don’t get as much pleasure using condoms, but I don’t like playing Russian roulette either.” says Jun who is into massage parlor sex.
Despite calls for her resignation by some Catholic Bishops, Philippine Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral says: “I’ll keep on distributing condoms until my term ends.” She wants to prevent the rapid spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), a deadly sexually transmitted disease (STD).
Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles and other bishops take the position that condom distribution promotes promiscuity and that it leads to the increase of AIDS as the use of condoms is not an absolutely fail-safe protection, suggesting that abstinence is the best policy. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) even wants a total ban on condom advertisements and condom distribution announcements, clearly a violation of constitutionally protected free speech rights.
Should the government distribute condoms?
Here’s my take on this issue:
Abstinence is a good policy, but it’s not the only policy and may not be realistically workable.
If the objective is to stop the spread of AIDS and other STDs, in some circumstances, the abstinence admonition is clearly wishful dreaming. Let’s look at two situations.
Thousands of indigent Filipinos work in the sex industry because of crushing poverty: Men and women, boys and girls, some as young as 12 or even younger all face the likely probability of being infected with the AIDS virus or some other equally deadly STDs. “We now have 4,400 registered HIV cases out of probably 5,000 victims, a 100-percent increase from 2008,” said Cabral.
Another situation pertains to married or unmarried individuals with STD-positive partners.
In both situations, sex is already an ongoing fact of life reality. Admonishing the players to stop and expect them to obey is about as realistic as Kris Aquino becoming Pope. Telling desperately poor sex workers to quit when neither the government nor the church is in a position to provide alternative livelihoods is like telling them to starve.
Rather than for people becoming seriously sick, suffer much, and die early, a more humanistic and Christian attitude is to provide protection. Preventing the spread of AIDS saves already stretched government health care resources, allowing for services in other areas. Educational information campaigns and condoms will help prevent STDs more than harsh lecturing about the evils of sin, although that also may be relevant.
Government condom distribution is good policy. Used properly, condoms protect against deadly STDs and will prevent the lightning spread of these terrible diseases. Granting that there is a 10-percent failure rate due to misuse or manufacturing defects, 90-percent effectivity is still very acceptable.
Whether the easy availability of condoms leads to promiscuity or not is a matter of uncertain conjecture.
A promiscuous person will constantly be looking for sex whether condoms or other contraceptives are available or not. On the other hand, a non-promiscuous person does not necessarily become promiscuous even if he or she has a bagful of contraceptives.
It still boils down to the individual making a choice. It’s not as if he or she is compelled to have sex simply because contraceptives are available. A non-alcoholic with a bar full of liquor does not necessarily mean he will be an alcoholic.
Let’s even assume for the sake of argument that easy access to condoms leads to promiscuity and easy access leads to preventing the rapidly spreading deadly AIDS disease, that is a higher good in the order of discretion priorities.
Consider also that sans condoms, a good number of pregnancies inevitably occur with sex worker girls and women. Some resort to abortion. It’s better to avoid pregnancies by having their customers use condoms than to resort to the greater evil of abortions.
Many Filipino males lose their virginity in their early teenage years and it’s usually with a prostitute. It’s best that they know how to protect themselves from AIDS and other STDs than be infected. They should be made aware of the use of condoms.
Some anti-condom groups claim that in Thailand, despite the government policy of condom distribution, there’s still a high rate of AIDS incidence.
Consider how much higher it would be without condoms. It cannot also be assumed that those who have AIDS in Thailand used condoms and still got infected. More likely than not, many did not use condoms. Many men do not use condoms because of the diminished pleasure. As such, they get infected with AIDS.
The incidence of AIDS in Thailand does not mean the government condom distribution policy is a failure. Some AIDS will always be present in a country’s population because unprotected sex inevitably does happen. Some also live high-risk lifestyles.
The bishops and their supporters mean well. They understandably want to prevent sinful unbridled sex from proliferating which is of course good, but I believe they fail to see the bigger picture. They focus on preventing sin and not so much about caring for human beings despite their sin. The sin we should condemn, but not the sinner. We do so if we don’t save him or her from STDs.
Which is more moral or immoral? Distributing condoms to prevent the spread of deadly STDs that cause people to suffer and die or advocating an unrealistic abstinence policy that factually absolutely does not work.
I believe God gave us two commandments: “Love God above everything else; and love our fellowmen as ourselves.” He also admonished us not to fear life, meaning among other things to have the courage to use our God-given intelligence when we are in good faith even if we have to go against a sometimes blind establishment. In the end, it is not the church which will save us but our own good conscience and God’s love and mercy.
We cannot have a church that proclaims love but does not show love to AIDS-challenged poor and powerless sex workers. We cannot have a church that proclaims life but sows the seeds of death by refusing to allow the use of effective practical means against AIDS.
There are those who see God as a punishing God who brought AIDS into the world to punish sinners.
There are also those who see God as a forgiving loving God who gives us the opportunity and freedom to express our love helping our AIDS-positive fellowmen and preventing others from being infected, and in so doing find meaning in our lives.
I chose to believe in a loving forgiving God. And yes I am a Catholic.
Ted Laguatan is officially certified as an expert/specialist lawyer by the California State Bar. He does immigration law, personal injury, complex litigation, medical malpractice and other cases. He is rated as being among the top 5 percent best lawyers in America by a magazine for lawyers. For communications: 455 Hickey Blvd., Ste.516, Daly City, CA 94015, Tel. (650) 991-1154, Fax (650)991-1186, 101 California St. Ste. 2450, SF, CA 94111 E-mail: laguatanlaw@ gmail.com
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Condom Controversy
Business Mirror
Thursday
10 March 2010
Thy condo(o)m come
Ding I. Generoso / Second Opinion
10 March 2010
Valentine’s Day may be a good day to distribute condoms to raise public consciousness about the need to protect Filipinos from HIV/AIDS—which is exactly what the Department of Health achieved last month.
But it isn’t exactly right to begin with because, in a way, the Church is right when it protested that the act seemed to “promote promiscuity.” That’s because to many Filipinos, or at least to many in Metro Manila and probably some other urban centers, Valentine’s Day is often associated with couples, married or not, making a bee line for hotels and motels to celebrate the Day of Love.
That being the case, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) was partly correct when it protested against Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral’s distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day.
The Church’s protest notwithstanding, Cabral made her point and succeeded in, at the very least, bringing the issue of condoms and AIDS to the fore, generating a controversy even and renewing the debate on condom use.
But the distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day, in reality, does little because the problem with condoms and the Church is not limited to their relation to AIDS but extends to the issue of reproductive health and population management. But that is another matter altogether.
To be sure, the Philippine Catholic Church is just toeing the Vatican line on condoms. No less than Pope Benedict XVI has issued strong words against condoms and their supposed use as protection against HIV transmission.
In March last year, Pope Benedict XVI, on a visit to Cameroon, said condoms were not a solution to fighting AIDS and “even aggravate the problems.” The solution lies in a “spiritual and human awakening” and “friendship for those who suffer,” he said.
That statement earned the ire of many in the scientific and medical community, human-rights groups and even some Catholic leaders.
In a strongly worded statement, Britain’s The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, accused the Pope of distorting scientific evidence and demanded he made a retraction.
“By saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue,” The Lancet said in an editorial.
It added: “Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear. But the comment still stands, and the Vatican’s attempts to tweak the Pope’s words, further tampering with the truth, is not the way forward.
“When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide.”
The pope’s comment was “irresponsible and dangerous,” Agence France-Presse reported, quoting Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice in the US. “Few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agree with his stance,” O’Brien said.
He cited results of a poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice which showed that 90 percent of Catholics in Mexico, 86 percent in Ireland, 79 percent in the United States, 77 percent in the Philippines and 59 percent in Ghana agreed that “using condoms is prolife because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of AIDS.”
O’Brien said several bishops in Africa, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg in South Africa, “have been outspoken in their support of the use of condoms.”
“On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods,” said Harry Knox, head of the religion and faith program at Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for equal rights for the gay, lesbian and transgender communities.
“The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community,” Knox said.
The ban on condoms is just one of the many issues that, some reports say, has triggered a debate inside the Catholic Church since 2005 when Pope Benedict XVI took over from Pope John Paul II.
An Agence France-Presse report in 2005 said the Vatican’s hard-line stance has not only triggered the ire of bioscientists, doctors who work in reproductive health, and grassroots workers who fight against AIDS. “Analysts say it has also turned many Catholics into cherry-pickers, taking from their religion the bits they like and can follow—and ignoring the bits they find unpalatable or unfeasible,” the news agency reported.
In a predominantly Catholic nation, many Filipinos would probably feel the same, torn between the doctrine of their church and the practicality of certain Church restrictions. The choice comes between not using condoms and getting AIDS or using condoms and being “condemned” by their church. That puts God into the equation over a simple health issue—or probably a broader reproductive- health or family-planning issue. Not an easy choice to make for most Filipinos, especially when God is put into the equation.
And speaking of God, but in another vein, God is who Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes wants to blame for the energy crisis and the periodic blackouts we are now experiencing.
“If you want to blame somebody, blame God,” he said last week.
Well, some years ago, at the height of the Garci-tape scandal, President Arroyo told TIME magazine in an interview, “The Lord put me here.”
Just so we know who to blame.
Thursday
10 March 2010
Thy condo(o)m come
Ding I. Generoso / Second Opinion
10 March 2010
Valentine’s Day may be a good day to distribute condoms to raise public consciousness about the need to protect Filipinos from HIV/AIDS—which is exactly what the Department of Health achieved last month.
But it isn’t exactly right to begin with because, in a way, the Church is right when it protested that the act seemed to “promote promiscuity.” That’s because to many Filipinos, or at least to many in Metro Manila and probably some other urban centers, Valentine’s Day is often associated with couples, married or not, making a bee line for hotels and motels to celebrate the Day of Love.
That being the case, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) was partly correct when it protested against Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral’s distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day.
The Church’s protest notwithstanding, Cabral made her point and succeeded in, at the very least, bringing the issue of condoms and AIDS to the fore, generating a controversy even and renewing the debate on condom use.
But the distribution of condoms on Valentine’s Day, in reality, does little because the problem with condoms and the Church is not limited to their relation to AIDS but extends to the issue of reproductive health and population management. But that is another matter altogether.
To be sure, the Philippine Catholic Church is just toeing the Vatican line on condoms. No less than Pope Benedict XVI has issued strong words against condoms and their supposed use as protection against HIV transmission.
In March last year, Pope Benedict XVI, on a visit to Cameroon, said condoms were not a solution to fighting AIDS and “even aggravate the problems.” The solution lies in a “spiritual and human awakening” and “friendship for those who suffer,” he said.
That statement earned the ire of many in the scientific and medical community, human-rights groups and even some Catholic leaders.
In a strongly worded statement, Britain’s The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, accused the Pope of distorting scientific evidence and demanded he made a retraction.
“By saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue,” The Lancet said in an editorial.
It added: “Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear. But the comment still stands, and the Vatican’s attempts to tweak the Pope’s words, further tampering with the truth, is not the way forward.
“When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide.”
The pope’s comment was “irresponsible and dangerous,” Agence France-Presse reported, quoting Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice in the US. “Few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agree with his stance,” O’Brien said.
He cited results of a poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice which showed that 90 percent of Catholics in Mexico, 86 percent in Ireland, 79 percent in the United States, 77 percent in the Philippines and 59 percent in Ghana agreed that “using condoms is prolife because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of AIDS.”
O’Brien said several bishops in Africa, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg in South Africa, “have been outspoken in their support of the use of condoms.”
“On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods,” said Harry Knox, head of the religion and faith program at Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for equal rights for the gay, lesbian and transgender communities.
“The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community,” Knox said.
The ban on condoms is just one of the many issues that, some reports say, has triggered a debate inside the Catholic Church since 2005 when Pope Benedict XVI took over from Pope John Paul II.
An Agence France-Presse report in 2005 said the Vatican’s hard-line stance has not only triggered the ire of bioscientists, doctors who work in reproductive health, and grassroots workers who fight against AIDS. “Analysts say it has also turned many Catholics into cherry-pickers, taking from their religion the bits they like and can follow—and ignoring the bits they find unpalatable or unfeasible,” the news agency reported.
In a predominantly Catholic nation, many Filipinos would probably feel the same, torn between the doctrine of their church and the practicality of certain Church restrictions. The choice comes between not using condoms and getting AIDS or using condoms and being “condemned” by their church. That puts God into the equation over a simple health issue—or probably a broader reproductive- health or family-planning issue. Not an easy choice to make for most Filipinos, especially when God is put into the equation.
And speaking of God, but in another vein, God is who Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes wants to blame for the energy crisis and the periodic blackouts we are now experiencing.
“If you want to blame somebody, blame God,” he said last week.
Well, some years ago, at the height of the Garci-tape scandal, President Arroyo told TIME magazine in an interview, “The Lord put me here.”
Just so we know who to blame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)