another own goal?

[elephantchang51]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5927964.ece

[humphreyclarke]

Well, obviously if there was more of a sense of sexual responsibility there would be less spread of HIV. Is that a realistic expectation?; I think not, but I can see where the Pope is coming from. It strikes me that a lot of the bad publicity is coming from things that have been standard Catholic teaching for decades. The difference is that the media is leaping on everything.

[jamierobertson]

It is rather silly how the media are handling this, though. How can it possibly be intellectually honest to judge a person's position by only paying attention to one component of their approach? Even the most Guardianish of Guardian-like newspapers can't deny that if you don't have sex the odds of contracting a sexually transmitted infection fall substantially.

[eckadimmock]

While I think that the Catholic church's position on condoms is a bit unrealistic (a consequence of elderly celibate men making rules for poorly educated young folk), it does need to be pointed out that the root of Africa's AIDS problem is relaxed Western, secular attitudes to sex. As this article points out, condoms are not in sufficiently reliable supply in Africa to be a magic bullet.

[Al Moritz]

Here is an interesting article on what the pope actually said and the Church's position:

thebostonpilot.com/articleprint.asp?ID=10159

[Al Moritz]

Thanks for the link, Eckadimmock. In the first page of the discussion section of that Guardian article, there are interesting comments by peterNW1:

Lets look at the accusation that Catholic teaching is responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa.

There are only 5 Catholic countries in Africa (i.e. countries in which 50% or more are Catholic). Here are the HIV levels for these 5 countries ...

Equatorial Guinea - 94 % Catholic - 3.2 % adults with HIV
Burundi - 65 % Catholic - 3.3 % adults with HIV
Lesotho - 54 % Catholic – 23.2 % adults with HIV
Congo - 50 % Catholic - 5.3 % adults with HIV
Angola - 50 % Catholic - 3.7 % adults with HIV

Here are the countries with the highest HIV levels ...

Swaziland - 33.4 % adults with HIV – 6 % Catholic
Botswana - 24.1 % adults with HIV - 5 % Catholic
Lesotho - 23.2 % adults with HIV - 54 % Catholic
Zimbabwe - 20.1 % adults with HIV - 9 % Catholic
Namibia - 19.6 % adults with HIV – 17% Catholic
South Africa - 18.8 % adults with HIV – 6% Catholic

Sources of data:
www.avert.org/subaadults.htm
www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc3.html

Now, these figures can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either (i) there is a negative correlation between Catholicism and AIDS, and African Catholics are less likely to catch the HIV virus than non-Catholics. Or (ii) there is no correlation at all and the spread of AIDS is entirely determined by geography, education, poverty-levels, etc. The inclusion of Lesotho in the second table along with its non-Catholic neighbours in Southern Africa would back up the idea that geography is far more important than any religious teachings.

But either way, the data shows no positive correlation between Catholicism and AIDS. Surely this is odd if Catholic teaching on contraception is to be held responsible for the spread of HIV? Since (with the single exception of Lesotho) the worst affected countries in Africa all have huge Protestant majorities, it is unclear why the Vatican, or the Catholic bishops in Africa, should be held responsible for the spread of AIDS.

If the Pope is to be held responsible, it follows that African Protestants are more likely to follow the Catholic teaching on contraception than Protestants elsewhere. Why should this be the case?

[eckadimmock]

If you liked that, you might also be interested in this one: Christianity Today interviews an HIV researcher .

[James Hannam]

Over at the Guardian, someone just made themselves very unpopular on the condom question. He is worth reading.

I don;t have nearly enough information on this question, but I doubt it is as black and white as either side believes.

Best wishes

James

[zameel]

Mar 21, 2009 7:11:49 GMT Al Moritz said:

The inclusion of Lesotho in the second table along with its non-Catholic neighbours in Southern Africa would back up the idea that geography is far more important than any religious teachings.

"Geography" is not a risk factor for HIV as HIV infection is not dependent on place. Using mostly data from an online demographics database (www.prb.org) and the UNAIDS database, in a recent multivariate statistical analysis Peter Gray (Harvard) concludes "these results discount alternative explanations based on the timing of HIV exposure (i.e., that HIV-1 appears to have evolved in west-central Africa and HIV-2 in West Africa: Holmes, 2001) or HIV transmission increasing more readily among urban populations since the results remain after controlling for such variables. That is, sub-Saharan African countries with earlier dates of the first reported HIV case, or more urban countries, did not have higher HIV prevalence.". From the variables he analysed which did correlate with HIV prevalence are per capita purchasing power and percentage Muslims (Gray, Peter B. HIV and Islam: is HIV prevalence lower among Muslims? Social Science & Medicine, Volume 58, Issue 9 , May 2004, Pages 1751-1756: iac.e-alliance.ch/stigmacd/docs/6.8Gray2004,HIVandIslam.doc). Risk factors in places like Botswana and Swaziland which help explain the high prevalence include gender discrimination (e.g. see: physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/botswana-swaziland-report.pdf).

Even a cursory look at the data you provided demonstrates a negative correlation between percentage Muslim and HIV prevalence e.g. Somalia – 99.9 % Muslim - 0.5 % adults with HIV; Mauritania – 99 % Muslim - 0.8 % adults with HIV; Niger – 95 % Muslim - 0.8% adults with HIV; Comoros – 98 % Muslim - 0.1 % adults with HIV; Senegal – 95 % Muslim - 1 % adults with HIV; Gambia – 90 % Muslim - 0.9 % adults with HIV (as compared with other countries). Gray's study also shows a negative correlation; he concludes (unsurprisingly) sexual activity is not less among Muslims, but factors which reduce the risk of HIV among Muslims are circumcision, low alcohol consumption and the ritual bath (ghusl). Classical jurists have been relatively relaxed on reversible contraception (so long as consent is given) as azl (coitus interruptus) was practiced during the time of the Prophet; some madhhabs do however discourage it (but do not prohibit it) as Islam strongly promotes fertility; however this does not seem to be a factor in the reduced prevalence of HIV among Muslim populations. The World Health Organisation and the UNAIDS secretariat now recommends circumcision as a HIV prevention measure (http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/Prevention/MaleCircumcision/default.asp). Religious teaching is certainly important in determining HIV incidence as Gray's study shows.

[Al Moritz]

Mar 21, 2009 8:34:31 GMT eckadimmock said:

If you liked that, you might also be interested in this one: Christianity Today interviews an HIV researcher .

Yes, great article, thanks!