A note on Condoms4Life

I got an email on Monday from Marissa Valeri, the press officer for Catholics for a Free Choice.  Stepping away from the painful and endless struggle over abortion, the folks at CFC have a new campaign: Condoms4Life.  From the press release:

...the Condoms4Life campaign (www.condoms4life.org) is spearheading an initiative to encourage the Vatican to drop its ban on condoms and join others in the active prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS throughout the world...

In April of this year, sources close to the new pope indicated he had requested that senior theologians and scientists prepare a document on condom use as a means of preventing HIV transmission. Although some Vatican insiders—including Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council on the Family, who claims condoms have minute holes through which the virus is transmitted (“Sex and the Holy City,” BBC/Panorama, October 12, 2003)—have insisted there will be no relaxing of the ban, Catholics and non-Catholics around the world remain hopeful that the church will change this policy.

“A change in Vatican policy is critical. You can’t keep talking about a culture of life and turn a blind eye to the suffering and dying. You can’t tell people to love and care for one another and deny them the means by which to protect each other,” said Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice and founder of Condoms4Life. “More than two dozen bishops and bishops’ conferences have asked for a change. Catholic people get it. People spending their lives fighting this pandemic get it. Lifting this cruel and stigmatizing ban on condoms would be a positive and life-affirming move for this new pope.”

Though the pope is perhaps the last person one would expect to be swayed by an email campaign, the good folks at Condoms4Life are asking for signatures on an e-petition to be sent to Benedict XVI by World AIDS Day, December 1.  Go here to sign on, and to send a message to His Holiness.

I really like the campaign slogan:

We believe in God.
We believe that sex is sacred.
We believe in caring for each other.
We believe in using condoms.

Amen. For what it's worth, condoms are my preferred method of contraception. Based upon many conversations, a layperson's research, and a hell of a lot of experience, I've come to the firm conclusion that the physical burden (side effects, health risks) of hormonal birth control is generally worse for a woman than the burden of the condom is for the man.  Condoms aren't just for the young and the single; they are a staple of family planning in many marriages I know.  And while I remain modestly conflicted about post-conception methods of birth control, I have no such quibblings about "barrier methods." 

The theology I understand is one in which pleasure and procreation are not inextricably linked, and radical openness to one's partner does not require radical openness to new life.

Comments

[jt]

What about the copper IUD? My GF is pretty happy with hers, and it's not hormone-based.

[Lee]

This is not a rhetorical question becasue I honestly don't know the answer, but how effective, in actual concrete terms, is the Vatican "ban" on condoms? I mean, are Catholics in Africa in utter thrall to the papacy on this or what?

[Lya Kahlo]

Agreed. IUD's are excellent (Mirena for me)

Though, IUD's can be very expensive if one's health insurance doesn't cover it. But, then again, the cost of buying condoms for 5 years (the length of the time the Mirena IUD is effective) would probably be more so.

[Hugo]

The IUD also requires a doctor's visit. And when looking at the developing world, the cost of the IUD is prohibitive. Not to mention it's useless against STIs, unlike condoms.

[Mermade]

AGREED! I understand why the Church is against hormonal methods of contraception (though I don't agree with all of their arguments). But I just don't get why condoms are deemed wrong. Kudos to this organization! I'll be signing the petition.

I don't trust a condom alone to prevent pregnancy. If it broke, I'd be out of luck. Heck, since I've only been on the Pill for three weeks, I'm still a little nervous about how well it works. Damn my high-strung personality.

[mythago]

What about the copper IUD?

It's a piece of metal inserted into the woman's uterus. A good method for many, but not exactly one that impacts the man much.

[carlaviii]

This is not a rhetorical question becasue I honestly don't know the answer, but how effective, in actual concrete terms, is the Vatican "ban" on condoms?

The Catholic hubby & I used 'em for years.

AFAIK, the Catholic Church doesn't have a police force (not anymore, at least.) But they are one of many social institutions that spoon-feed ideas to people, and since many people get hooked on being spoon-fed, they just swallow it. (For the record, there's far more to the Catholics than spoon-feeding and there's far more dissention in the ranks than it may seem at first glance.)

[jt]

mythago (on IUDs:) It's a piece of metal inserted into the woman's uterus. A good method for many, but not exactly one that impacts the man much.

True. But OTOH, the net inconvenience is minimal (insertion is a little painful, according to her, but you can insert it and leave it there for years), there's no hormonal impact, and it's generally very, very reliable, more so than condoms. The point about STIs is true, though; it works in our case because we're monogamous and known to be clean.

[mythago]

the net inconvenience is minimal

To the man? Definitely. To the woman? You have to visit a doctor for insertion and regular check-ups afterward. The risks and possible side effects are far worse than for condoms.

I'm definitely not saying "don't use the IUD!"; it's a great method for many women. But the point of Hugo's post was about the value of condom use, and recognition of the burden contraceptives (especially hormonal ones) place on women. Asking 'what about the copper IUD?' is sort of an Exhibit A to the problems Hugo discussed.

[John]

Sigh.

I was in favour of contraception until I had to read Humanae Vitae when I was preparing to give a lecture about something.

Now I'm not. It's a moving and profoundly prophetic document. Go and read it, if you haven't.

By the way, Hugo, you're not seriously asking me to believe you're pro-life any more, are you? It appears your darker and more pro-choice side is gradually winning.

[Hugo]

John, I pray for the day when every child conceived is wanted, and abortion becomes unthinkable and unnecessary. More than that, I cannot say.

[John]

Hugo, doesn't Planned Parenthood say the same thing?

[Elle]

John,

What is the alternative to contraception? If we assume that no sex will take place outside of marriage and that all married couples are mentally and financially ready for children from the moment they wed, there are still problems. A married man would reasonably expect sex from his wife. With no means of preventing pregnancy, do you expect a fertile woman to breed and breed endlessly, until her body is worn down by childbearing? Is it responsible to encourage couples to have more children than they can handle, and further overpopulate the planet?

Childbearing results in no impact upon a man's body. What then gives men the right to decide that contraception is not permissible?

[Technocracygirl]

John, Planned Parenthood does say the same thing? Why? Because Margaret Sanger formed PP in a time when women couldn't control their family size. Go and read Jacob Riis's How the Other Half Lives. Then read any reputable biography of Sanger. For women (and men -- the Comstock Laws made condoms difficult to get and expensive as well) to be able to control their family size enabled families to get out of the crushing poverty they lived in.

Family planning doesn't have to mean abortions. Most places that provide abortions also hand out free condoms and try to get women on birth control as well, so that abortions don't have to happen.

Still, until we're able to make sure that things like encephalitis and etopic pregnancies don't ever occur, abortion will be around, regardless of how good the birth control (of all types) rate is.

[John]

What then gives men the right to decide that contraception is not permissible?

Well, I didn't. But go ahead making assumptions about me in any case. I said I found Humanae Vitae convincing and prophetic, hence I think contraception is a bad idea. I never said I was making my conscience the rule for everyone else who does not share my faith or world-view. As a matter of interest, have you in fact, read the document I refer to?

As for "doesn't Planned Parenthood say the same thing", I am familiar with Sanger and her campaigns for the propogation of the fit, the question was addressed to Hugo, who claims (or claimed) to embrace the Seamless Garment philosophy which includes being "pro-life". I was making the point that there is now nothing distinctive in his supposedly pro-life position that distinguishes it from the pro-choice one.

All Saints seems to be having a corrosive effect on Hugo's counter-culturalism.

[Hugo]

John, one can be pro-life in terms of one's personal beliefs while acknowledging that the state has no role to play in bringing abortion to an end. My commitment to the pro-life cause remains firm -- save that for innumerable reasons, I see legislative efforts to make abortion access more difficult as counterproductive. Women will abort whether or not abortion is legal; history shows us that over and over again. I favor solely a "hearts and minds" approach, not a legal one.

[John]

So you're "personally opposed" then?

[Hugo]

Yes, and I know it is a position easy to caricature. But it's not a dishonest one.

[John]

You're a history professor. You must know that moral progress is always a partnership between cultural change (hearts and minds) and law. Slavery. Child Labour. Women's Suffrage. Civil Rights for African-Americans. Find me a moral cause that hasn't (at least eventually) used the law as a method of cultural change, and I might find your argument convincing.

[mythago]

As a matter of interest, have you in fact, read the document I refer to?

John, I hope you understand that document is quite a bit more moving and persuasive to someone who already agrees with the faith in which it is rooted.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

As a matter of interest, have you in fact, read the document I refer to?

I have (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html). And I can't say that I find it terribly persuasive. Frankly, the considerations that supposedly make artificial contraception for married couples less acceptable than NFP sound terribly abstract to me, compared to some of the very grave reasons that some members of my family have had for needing to space births, and the difficulties that some people have actually using periodic abstention as their only family planning method.

I'm totally in favor of fertility awareness methods as an option, though (and have done the charting myself, for what it's worth).

[Elle]

Well, I didn't. But go ahead making assumptions about me in any case. I said I found Humanae Vitae convincing and prophetic, hence I think contraception is a bad idea. I never said I was making my conscience the rule for everyone else who does not share my faith or world-view.>

Actually I was referring to men like the Pope who DO decide and decree that types of contraception are not acceptable within their 'flock'.

I have not. I will, if you can give me a good reason why I should, given that I am not Catholic and have no intention of relinquishing control over my own fertility.