I read the New York Times with my morning coffee and came across an interesting editorial, “Advances on the AIDS Front”.
The first major advance was a pill that would potentially stop HIV- men from contracting the disease. The second step forward was a vaginal gel which cut a woman’s risk for infection. The third leap towards the future was not a scientific breakthrough, but a decision not to stifle science:
Pope Benedict XVI expressed the view that condoms could be used to prevent disease transmission. That could make it easier for ecclesiastical workers and AIDS prevention programs to promote their use.
The Pope should be applauded for leaving the fifteenth century and all positive steps are welcome. But isn’t it ironic that the Vatican finally stopped its blind attacks on condoms at the very moment there was a pill to potentially limit the spread of the disease?
My point is that the juxtaposition of these new discoveries and Rome finally seeing the light highlights how appallingly late they are to the game. I first heard of AIDS when I was eleven or twelve. I am now 40-years old and millions of people are now dead — and the Pope has finally come around to agree that male prostitutes should wear condoms.
I bristle when I think of the countless lives that could have been spared had the Vatican spoken while I was in Middle School instead of middle age. If Rome had really been pro-life than thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of human beings — men, women, children and even babies — would have survived.
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI had the power to raise awareness about condoms. Their stubborn prudishness led to piles of dead bodies — Holocaust size in scale — that could have been prevented.
When I think about what could have been accomplished with an enlightened Vatican it breaks my heart. But for some pathological reason, pontiffs always seem compelled to reject science and finally come around after a body count. Sadly, the Vatican’s two responses to HIV/AIDS prevention efforts have been sleep walking or walking off a cliff.
History will judge these actions quite harshly and severely tarnish the church’s image.
The Pope’s tardy comments are better late than never. But, unless the Pope can get Jesus to raise the dead, we will never get back the beautiful, innocent lives that were lost due to the Vatican’s stand on condoms. My one message to the Vatican:
There is no rule in the Bible that claims you must fight to undermine every scientific advance since the Enlightenment. History shows that you will eventually embrace the truth anyway, so why not sooner than later? In the future, why not try the wise — instead of the ignorant, reactionary — course of action — particualrly when lives are at stake?
Excellent article. You are right, church leaders should have argued for the use of condoms decades ago and deserve every bit of criticism for not speaking up sooner. However, I’m not sure that their support would have done much in the way of preventing so many deaths. Westernized Catholics, both gay and straight, tend not to listen to the hierarchy when it comes to matters of sexuality. Just attend a regular Sunday Mass and see all the families that have stopped at two children and the healthy gay couples sitting in the pews (yes we are there too!). For decades, those walking up to the Communion Line have been using something to prevent excess births and STD’s and I highly doubt it was strictly abstinence. As for Developing World Catholics, a support of condom use might have helped. But that’s debatable. Given the misogyny that exists there, many of the men might have just tried to find someone else who condemned condoms (paging Martin Ssempa) to justify their practices of unsafe sex. We will have to wait and see in the coming years. If AIDS and STD transmissions decline dramatically (particularly among Catholics) after this pronouncement from the Vatican, then Wayne you will be entirely correct to say that earlier promotion of condom use from the Holy See would have saved lives years ago. I do hope that there is a significant decline in transmission regardless.
the article is good but before we think of praising science and tagging ssempa as if the pope or ssempa brought Aids, it the very science that could have coursed the virus, besides before science is used, they test the drugs, and most of these drugs have been tested on we the african. more than one million condoms of ENGABU bland where distribute by the government of uganda, only to discover that they had errors, this came after a long time of their circulation.how many inocent people died in efort to trust science. who will be blemed for that? is it the pope or ssempa
I think science need to checked by religion as well
jerome
Jerome:
I’m not sure I understand your point. Science created the technology to make effective condoms possible. When used correctly and when not defective they are incredibly good at reducing HIV infection.
If the the condoms you mention in Uganda did not work, that is not the fault of science. It may be the fault of a manufacturer that did not make the condoms correctly. Or, it could be ruthless political leaders that did not care if these defective condoms were widely distributed. But the only role science had in this equation was providing the know-how to make condoms that actually work.
Following your line of thinking would be like saying that the science of growing food is harmful because some food producers do not follow the rules and their products cause food poisoning.