Vatican and UNAIDS Agree to Appear to Disagree

It seems that UNAIDS and the Vatican are sort of agreeing about condoms. UNAIDS haven't managed to persuade very many people to use them frequently and consistently enough to reduce sexually transmitted infection rates (STI) or unplanned pregnancies.

And the Vatican doesn't care whether STI rates or unplanned pregnancy rates are reduced as long as no 'sins' are seen to be committed in the process. But in most Catholic countries, especially rich ones, people take little enough notice of the preachings of the church.

The two institutions have a lot in common. They are both massively wealthy, unelected and virtually unaccountable, packed with some of the most educated people in their field, slow to change and often utterly oblivious to what goes on in the outside world.

The invitation of Dr Michel Sidibe, executive director of UNAIDS, to speak at a conference at the Vatican is seen as significant because the Vatican "usually only invites like-minded outsiders to its conferences and UNAIDS has not been like-minded on this issue at all".

I think that's an exaggeration. Sidibe may have come down on the side of condoms and stressed abstinence and marital fidelity a little less, while the Vatican has stressed abstinence and marital infidelity more and appeared to rail against condoms.

But both parties wish to influence the sexual behavior of poor people and seem hell bent on doing so. Both Sidibe and the pope know that talk about abstinence and marital fidelity are just talk. So far, UNAIDS have made do with putting a brave face on the results of their 'prevention' programs and the Catholic church has long had to put up with keeping the lid on reality.

Let's face it, neither institution has really aimed to reduce HIV transmission very convincingly. Both have done everything in their power to protect their own interests, although those interests are not always completely clear.

In truth, condoms are about all we have to reduce sexually transmitted HIV. There is a lot of talk about other measures, microbicides, pre-exposure prophylaxis, treatment as prevention, circumcision and probably a few others. But all of these are recommended in conjunction with the consistent and correct use of condoms.

Catholics have long ignored the pope's pronouncements about certain things, including contraception, abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex and much else. Even many of the popes own leaders have been shown to enjoy a varied sex life, even if their ways of expressing their sexuality might not be so popular among their followers.

If the technocrats and multinationals are even close to being right in claiming that one or several of their offerings will one day significantly reduce HIV transmission, at least in certain contexts, the two mammoths may even be able to publicly agree on things, about condoms, health, even sex.

That would be interesting because neither party would end up being able to control people's sexual behavior in the ways they might wish. If any of these technological solutions can reduce HIV transmission, any incentive to use condoms or adopt any of the other strictures of 'safe sex', imagined or otherwise, will disappear.

I don't think anyone seriously believes HIV will just be wiped out in the forseeable future. Sadly, HIV transmission is going to continue to be high enough to infect huge numbers of people, but mainly in developing countries.

There is a lot of enthusiasm for something that looks like a solution, preferably just one single measure, rather than a combination of measures. Sidibe calls 'treatment as prevention' a game-changer, but it might also result in the almost total irrelevance of these two vast institutions.

Now is not the time to start backtracking on condoms. HIV is a matter of health, something neither of these institutions know anything about. We badly need an institution that can represent the health related interests of people, especially poor people living in developing countries. We don't need any more vested interests stealing the health agenda. So let's kiss the Vatican and UNAIDS goodbye and start working on HIV.

Catholic Bishop Confuses Religion, Morality, Science and 'Nature'

A study carried out in Tanzania in 2004 found that about 47% of observed medical injection practices were unsafe and that 50-90% of curative injections were unnecessary. In a country with HIV prevalence standing at about 8% in 2003, this means that a lot of people are at risk of infection through medical procedures. Especially considering that a large percentage of people receiving invasive medical care are pregnant women, among whom HIV is particularly high.

This kind of finding makes the prouncements from the head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, very difficult to understand. He is said to have described the AIDS epidemic as an "inherent justice" resulting from the "mistreatment of the profound nature of human love", that "nature is taking revenge". If the man seriously believes this, then he must also think that such mistreatment takes place to a far greater extent in certain African countries and specific parts of some countries.

Whatever the explanation for the bishop's comments, they need to be retracted by both him and the church he is perceived to represent. A lot of instances of HIV are transmitted by accident, whether sexually or otherwise. If HIV mainly infected people who were sexually promiscuous, or even people who are guilty of 'immoral' behavior, quite a lot of Catholic priests from Belgium, Germany, Ireland, France, the US and many other countries would also be infected by now.

But most rational people know that HIV can be transmitted by and to those who are simply exercising their normal reproductive rights; it can be transmitted to people through unsafe medical care; also mothers, whether they are infected sexually or non-sexually, can pass the infection to their children, during pregnancy, during delivery or during breastfeeding.

The bishop, like others who don't appear to think or speak rationally on the subject of HIV, seems quite confused about whether he is referring to religion, morality, science or 'nature' (calling something natural or unnatural is a value judgement). As to his "sympathy" and "solidarity", I imagine these would be of little comfort to the victims of his airing of these extremely prejudiced views.

The article about Leonard concludes with a quotation from him on homosexuality: "homosexuality is not the same as normal sex, in the same way that anorexia is not a normal appetite." But he must wonder why only some homosexuality results in illness and death, whereas all anorexia is illness and often results in death. Indeed, if he often has these contemplative moods, he should consider why so many African women are being punished for something that a lot of European men have not been punished for.

The bishop is not just wrong, what he is saying about HIV is dangerous. There are people who believe the sort of things that he says, perhaps others who want to believe them. HIV is also transmitted non-sexually, this is widely accepted (though not widely enough). It is despicable to pretend that it is purely sexually transmitted and to use the phenomenon as a 'moral lesson' to humanity. Even if the Catholic Church were some kind of shining beacon of goodness and leadership, their representatives do not have the right to punish people who are sick, suffering and dying.

Genetically Modified Cotton Has Failed, Says Monsanto

Thanks for telling us after so many people have wasted their time and money and many people have even lost their lives as a result of this failure. Scientists who have not been bought off by the biotech industry have been warning against the use of these crops for years. They have been calling for proper research into what their true consequences are before imposing them on an unprepared world. But now it's too late.

What about all the people who have destroyed their land because of the industry's lies? What about the farmers who have run into such huge debts that they have found no way out but to commit suicide? If anyone knew that these crops were designed to fail, it was Monsanto and the rest of the industry. In some cases they have failed to do proper research, in other cases they have supressed the results of their research. Instead of doing the groundwork necessary, they have simply paid off powerful people to do their dirty work. Who needs salespeople when 'democratically elected' leaders will do the work at a far lower cost?

The president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, may have been bought off by Monsanto or the industry as a whole. Or maybe he's just brain dead. He has said that he is against GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) but that they are inevitable. What could he mean by this? That the GM industry is going to do what it wants, regardless of what we insignificant members of the electorate want? That all the people who could possibly prevent GMO from being imposed on us have been bought off?

We can only speculate. Buzek goes on to say that because we can't win the battle, he is not going to fight it. He also said that Europe would lose out on 'competitivity' if we don't accept GMOs. There's a bit of overdetermination here; does he feel that we shouldn't fight something that is advantageous to us or does he feel that we shouldn't fight a battle we cannot win? He only needs to argue for one of these, not both. They could both be true but we don't know which one sways this foolish man. If you object to my calling Buzek foolish, just read the rubbish he comes out with about only genetically modified rice being able to grow in Bangladesh.

Given the evidence for Buzek's small brain, he probably has a short memory and a limited capacity for research and comprehension. But GM cotton was released in India because it had already been passed around unofficially and had already contaminated a large proportion of the cotton sector. It wasn't released after careful consideration and proper consultation (don't be silly!). I'm sure this was not as a result of anything the GM industry did, no doubt it was just an accident. But that is no reason for Europe or any other continent to make the same mistakes.

And just in case Buzek is worried about the silly rumour that the Vatican was pro-GM, that was just bunkum. The GM obsessed cardinal who was so keen on compromising the health and welfare of so many people has been replaced with what must be one of the few Catholic leaders who has a grain of sense. Cardinal Peter Turkson realises that GM crops could be used as "weapons of hunger and poverty". Not only does he realise this, but he actually considers this to be an undesirable outcome. He realises that GM will lead to the greater dependence of the weak and poor on the strong and rich, environmental degradation, higher costs and an increase in the number of food insecure and starving people in the world. Already, the number of starving people has increased steadily as the percentage of GM crops has increased.

Some commentators have wondered about why Monsanto might want to claim publicly that GM cotton has failed. They have pointed out that Monsanto has now produced a new generation of GM cotton. Monsanto knew long ago that the first generation had failed and they now want people to change to the new generation, which employs a second modified gene and requires an enlarged set of inputs in terms of pesticides and artificial fertilizers. It also requires greater expenditure on those wonderful pieces of intellectual property we used to call seeds, those things we used to be able to collect for free at the end of the growing season.

No, you don't have to back out of GM cotton just because the whole live experiment has failed, and you probably can't, anyhow. You just have to buy more expensive seeds and invest in more expensive pesticides and fertilizer. After all, you are part of this experiment. If it goes down the pan, so do you.

Self Destructiveness Seems Like a Strange Quality in a Church

I've had time to read UNAIDS's 2009 HIV Epidemic Update and it's interesting, but perplexing in many ways. Take, for example, the issue of unprotected sex with multiple partners. As a result of research into different modes of transmission and their relative importance in different countries, it was found that Kenya has a particular problem with people having unprotected sex with several different partners.

This didn't come as a big shock, of course. Many people, all over the world, have unprotected sex with several different partners. But the risk of transmitting or being infected with HIV is much higher in a country with high prevalence of HIV and certain other sexually transmitted infections (STI). And Kenya is such a country, with 7-8% HIV prevalence, high prevalence of STIs known to make one more susceptible to transmitting and contracting HIV (such as herpes simplex virus), very poor education and health services and an attitude towards condom use that is, I suspect, strongly influenced by conservative religion and politics.

The shocking thing is how many people are willing to take such risks with their sexual partners while refusing to use condoms, coupled with the fact that tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on HIV prevention campaigns that advocate the use of condoms. A recent campaign by the extremely wealthy, powerful and conservative Population Services International (PSI) aims at stopping relationships on the side or multiple relationships. The campaign mentions condoms too but concentrates on stopping the relationships.

The trouble is that after many years of some parties campaigning for safer sex, others have been campaigning for no sex at all or no sex except inside marriage. The volume of this sort of campaigning is high and usually advocates against the use of condoms or suggests condom use only in difficult circumstances (such as where one's partner is already infected with HIV). Aside from the fact that in Kenya, Uganda and other countries, the chances of becoming infected by one's marital partner is higher than becoming infected by a casual partner, many people are not married, are no longer married or have not, as yet, been able to get married. So lecturing them about abstaining till marriage can be a rather pointless exercise.

One of the apparent results of all these campaigns that have a pseudo-moral political and religious agenda is that people have internalised the message about not using condoms but they haven't given up having sex with a number of different people. Many of the people who engage in multiple partnerships are married, so they are in danger of infecting their partner or being infected by their partner. And yet the religious and political zealots keep ranting on about condoms and how they are not the solution.

The Catholic pope is quite right when he says that HIV cannot be overcome by relying exclusively or primarily on the distribution of condoms. They need to be used, all the time, and properly in order to reduce the transmission of HIV. He may also be right about the importance of conjugal fidelity, but conjugal fidelity appears to be rather rare, perhaps more so among those married in the Catholic church than in many others. As for sexual abstinence, it appears to be rare in the Catholic church and is not even a foregone conclusion among those who profess to have taken a vow of chastity.

If we lived in the sort of world the pope is talking about, where everyone did only what they were supposed to do with regard to sexual behaviour, there would be no need for condoms or many of the other things that he and his ilk object to so strongly. But then, nor would there be HIV or other sexually transmitted infections. Maybe people shouldn't have sex except within marriage and for the purpose of procreation, according to some moral code. But people have sex, defecate, eat, drink, sleep and play.

According to the moral code of some people, having sex or exercising many other forms of human behaviour are not, in themselves, moral or immoral. Which is not to say it is not wrong to have sex with one person when you are in a relationship with someone who thinks that they are your only partner, for example. But the pope sees having sex outside the strict bounds of Catholic teaching as absolutely wrong. And using a condom to avoid an unplanned pregnancy or to protect oneself from HIV or any other STI is also wrong. Yet, in a world where people only had sex within those strict bounds, it would seem strange to even have to make a pronouncement about contraception.

Maybe the pope will keep going on about abstinence until marriage and the evils of contraception. If he does, all the worse for the Catholics who choose to listen to him. And I'm talking about the Catholics who live in this world, in Africa in particular. Because a lot of them don't seem willing to take all of his advice, preferring to select the bits they like and leaving out the bits they don't like. The pope is surprisingly influential and as a result of his influence, HIV continues to spread rapidly in Kenya and other countries. It infects innocent people, through various means, young and old people, religious and non-religious people and especially people who have sex. And that's most people, as far as I know.

Is the Catholic Church Afraid that Condoms May Work?

Recent research into condom use by adolescent males in Nairobi, Kenya, shows that the majority of participants in an online HIV awareness project did not use condoms the first time they had sex (69.9%). About half used a condom the last time they had sex but only one third use condoms most or all of the time.

Over 85% of these respondents were Christian; over two thirds were from middle or high income households; they were all attending secondary school; they were aged over 15 but the average age at first sex was just under 13 years old; nearly three quarters had already had 2 or more sexual partners.

It’s not as if we needed evidence that young people have sex, unsafe sex or sex at a very young age. We can fool ourselves that education is the key to preventing or reducing this sort of behaviour, but we have known for a long time that education on its own has little effect on sexual behaviour. Nor does wealth guarantee later sexual debut or safer sexual behaviour; the contrary may be more accurate.

Those who think that sex education is not appropriate for young people need to bear in mind what age many young people are when they start having sex. If they think sex education is only appropriate for those in their later teens, they will be too late for many.

It is also a mistake to think that children in their early teens do not need to know about condoms. Teenagers who have begun their sex lives without using condoms are less likely to use them later on. But those who use condoms the first time they have sex are more likely to continue doing so on all or most occasions. Learning about safe sex and condoms early on is a good thing.

Teaching children about abstaining from sex or delaying sexual initiation is also a good thing. Those who start sex at a later age are more likely to use condoms and are likely to behave more responsibly if they have received a good sex education. But if you teach children about abstaining from sex you need to tell them what sex is. They need to know many things so this is also a good time to tell them about condoms. They need to know about sex in order to abstain or even delay their sexual debut. If they don’t know much about sex, they will not know what to abstain from of what to delay.

The Catholic Church has a time honoured way of dealing with things that don’t fit its purposes (whether they be doctrinal, political, economic or whatever else): they say nothing or they lie. The church leader’s recent outburst about condoms making the HIV epidemic worse has been treated to amendments by those who surround him and he has done nothing to set the record straight. Perhaps in his eyes the record is already straight.

Since the HIV epidemic started, the Catholic and other Christian churches have done everything possible to frustrate the attempts of health professionals and others to prevent the spread of HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STI) and unwanted pregnancies. They have lied and pontificated about an interpretation of Christian morality that would see people suffer and die rather than ‘sin’. Even those who don’t do the sinning must suffer and die rather than allow ‘sin’ to occur.

Respondents in the survey hold views that are hard to reconcile. Well, who doesn’t hold views that are difficult to reconcile? So, over half believe HIV is a problem in Nairobi, but over 85% believe that their chance of being infected is 50% or less. They think HIV is a problem but they don’t think it’s a problem for them.

More worryingly, slightly under 40% believe that condoms prevent HIV. Thankfully, three quarters believe that condoms prevent pregnancy. But over 45% of respondents say that condoms often break. This suggests a need for more education on how to use condoms safely and perhaps even some work on ascertaining the quality of condoms that are available to people. Many of the condoms available to young people are donated by wealthy Western countries.

But despite so many thinking that condoms break or don’t prevent HIV or pregnancy, at least some of the same people still use them. The fact is, there isn’t much else available to prevent HIV. Of course, if people abstain from sex they are not at high risk of contracting HIV. That’s as long as they always get to choose whether or not to have sex, a questionable assumption. But most people will have sex eventually and waiting till you are married as a strategy has been well discredited over the years.

People living in a high HIV prevalence country like Kenya who think that they are not at risk of contracting HIV should consider the risk of those around them. They have sex with those around them, therefore they themselves are at risk. And if they don’t worry about HIV, they need to be reminded about other STIs, such as herpes, gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia, genital warts and any others. Some STIs are far more common in Kenya than HIV. Some are also incurable and many put one at increased risk of contracting HIV.

People should also consider the risk of early pregnancy. Girls who get pregnant when they are still at school are, typically, excluded from school until they have given birth. They are said to be a bad example to the other students including, presumably, the one who made her pregnant. Once excluded from school, many girls never return. Early pregnancy has many social consequences and the value of the condom for reducing HIV and other STIs should not overshadow the value of the condom as a contraceptive.

It’s time for the Catholic and other Christian churches to see that children (as well as adults) are at risk of HIV, other STIs and early and unwanted pregnancies. They need all the help they can get and they certainly don’t need contradictory messages about the fact that they face many risks. They also need to be clear about the steps they can take to reduce their risk. If they are completely free to choose their sexual experiences and how those experiences take place, they are lucky. But even if they are not lucky, they can still take care.

To preach against the use of condoms is to expose people to unwanted pregnancy, deadly disease, suffering and numerous direct and indirect social consequences. To state one’s doctrine is fine, but don’t use lies to back it up and to scare people into doing what suits that doctrine.

Dogma: a Pope’s Best Friend

HIV prevention experts have an uphill struggle as it is. HIV is mostly spread by sexual intercourse and a large proportion of the world's population engages in sexual intercourse at some time. Quite a number of people claim not to have sex but many of them turn out to be liars.

As one of the most effective ways of reducing the transmission of HIV is by using condoms, HIV experts advocate the use of condoms, unless the aim is to have children. But some religious groups, Catholics in particular, are opposed to the use of condoms.

Now, I hate to point the finger, but some of the more notable liars about their sexual behaviour have been Catholics. Worse still, the Catholic leader, Mr Gregory Pope, seems to assume that everyone chooses whether to have sex, when, where and with whom. This is not the case and some highly publicised instances of people denying other people's right not to have sex involved Catholics, often prominent ones. I'm surprised Mr Pope hasn't heard about this.

But there are a lot of things that have passed Mr Pope by, especially matters relating to sexual behaviour (and misbehaviour). He and some of his followers subscribe to the myth that latex condoms have tiny holes that the HIV virus can pass through. No, Mr Pope, there is just one hole in a condom, and it's supposed to be there.

Of course, this is not to say that things can never go wrong. For example, people can carelessly rip a condom when opening the package, perhaps by doing so with their teeth. They can damage the condom in various ways and there is a need to be careful. But this indicates that they need sex education that includes instructions on how to use condoms, preferably from people who have had experience of using them.

You say that promotion of condom use and sex education give rise to greater promiscuity; there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case. There is also plenty of evidence to demonstrate what happens when people don't receive any sex education or only receive half baked rubbish, such as 'abstinence only' claptrap. The result of not educating people about sex is very high rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (also unwanted pregnancies).

You see, Mr Pope, people who get abstinence only education, people who take vows of abstinence, perhaps even Catholic priests and brothers, still have sex; they just don't bother to use condoms, perhaps because they have never heard of them or because they have been given incorrect information about them.

You call for a responsible attitude toward sex? People need education, discussion, information, enlightenment, not the lies that anti condom campaigners have been spewing out. How do you expect people to develop a responsible attitude towards sex when you are not even responsible enough to tell the truth? Is lying no longer a sin? Or does it depend on who tells the lie or what the consequences are? Perhaps things have changed since I was a Catholic.

Look, Mr Pope, you don't know what you are talking about. Please consult the World Health Organisation, the UNFPA and UNAIDS. These organisations are experts in public health. They will tell you that "[t]he male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections." They will also confirm that "[y]oung girls and women are regularly and repeatedly denied information about, and access to, condoms. Often they do not have the power to negotiate the use of condoms. In many social contexts, men are resistant to the use of condoms."

I suggest you read this position statement carefully. It has just been revised and it contradicts many of the things you say. There's no excuse for being so badly informed and your attitude toward these matters is grossly irresponsible. I think it could justly be called culpable ignorance, if it really is ignorance.

It's interesting that one of the people who defended Mr Pope works for a Catholic NGO in Senegal. He says that his NGO doesn't promote condoms. I recently blogged about Senegal because the country has the lowest HIV prevalence in all of Africa. But one thing that has long been very common in Senegal is the use of condoms. Thankfully, this particular NGO wasn't the only one working there.

In contrast to Senegal, Rwanda and Burundi, considered to be very Catholic countries, have high rates of HIV and low rates of condom use. Also, because sex before marriage is frowned upon, for religious reasons, many men have their first sexual experience with a commercial sex worker. I know, spotting contradictions in Catholicism is like shooting fish in a barrel!

But sadly, some people will grasp at any excuse to justify their behaviour. Many people are already reluctant to use a condom to prevent unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. There are myths surrounding most aspects of HIV, how it's transmitted, how to avoid it, how to cure it, etc. But with myths, people can accept the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't like. People who don't like condoms still enjoy sex and they are not going to see Mr Pope's solution as desirable or even viable.

So Mr Pope's pronouncements about condoms not working very well and promoting promiscuity will certainly appeal to people who just don't want to use condoms. He is, effectively, preaching to the converted, telling people who don't like condoms that it is wrong to use them and that it won't help them, anyway.

No doubt, a Catholic who becomes infected with HIV, despite following Mr Pope's thoughtful advice, will have their just reward in heaven. How comforting. But let's not deceive ourselves; preaching against the use of condoms is promoting the transmission of HIV.

Abstinence: the Immaculate Contraception

Why is abstinence not proposed as a strategy to reduce alcohol or drug dependency? How about obesity as a result of overeating? Perhaps it’s because if those with a dependency could abstain, they wouldn’t have a dependency. Ok, some people manage to give up drugs, alcohol or overeating. That takes a lot of work and a lot of help and support. Some succeed and some don’t.

Why is abstinence not proposed as a strategy to reduce crime? Instead of having laws, why not just have a campaign to get potential criminals to vow to abstain from crime? They should know that crime is wrong and that they will be punished if they are caught. I think the answer is obvious.

But a certain Mr Pope, a man without an electoral mandate or, indeed, without any experience of sexual intercourse or sexual relationships, thinks that abstinence is the only way to avoid HIV. Well, Mr Pope, you’re quite wrong. In Nyanza province in Kenya, women are more likely to contract HIV from their husbands. Husbands also contract HIV from their wives.

Yes, both parties should abstain, of course. Everyone ‘should’ abstain, but abstinence does not protect anyone from sexual desire. One party in a relationship abstaining does not ensure that the other party also abstains.

Abstinence is an individual decision but most sexual relationships require more than one person. The issue is not about individual duties and responsibilities but rather the duties and responsibilities of people who live in close contact with other people. Each person’s life is to a large extent determined by external influences. Human behaviour and sexual desire do not arise in individuals in isolation, they arise in individuals living with other individuals.

Those external (or non individual) influences determine many things, including when, where, how often and with whom people have sexual relationships. An individual’s decision to abstain doesn’t protect them from HIV because their HIV status is also influenced by factors external to them.

As for the individual decision to abstain, well, I certainly don’t decide to do things that would put me in danger. I am fairly risk averse, I don’t enjoy pain or dangerous activities. But just as the absence of safe water and food supply would not make me any less thirsty or hungry, the relative dangers of sleeping with another person would not decrease the sexual desire I may feel.

If a person doesn’t feel much sexual desire or their desire is outweighed by other considerations, there may be no problem. If they get to decide whether to have sex and with whom, great, they are lucky. But there are many people who are not in that position, for one reason or another. Even in the Catholic Church, people are often in positions where they will have sex, whether they choose to or not.

Abstinence does not guarantee against harm because an individual decision to abstain from sex does not preclude something arising to override that decision. Nor does it guarantee that others will respect the individual decision to abstain.

But, quite frankly, I don’t want to abstain. I think that I have a right to have consensual sex with another adult. I don’t think Mr Pope agrees, but I just don’t subscribe to his views. I don’t feel the need to repress my sexual desire in order to follow his blind dogma. And I know that the absence of the opportunity to engage in sexual activity does not result in sexual desire just disappearing.

So if abstinence is not always going to work, what other options for harm reduction are there? Condoms sound like an obvious harm reduction strategy against sexually transmitted infections. Mr Pope advocates against using condoms because it is ‘wrong’. But Mr Pope and his adherents have defended many things that would also be considered wrong, so I don’t really see where his authority comes from.

Actually, that’s where my argument becomes seriously unstuck. Millions of Africans (and other people around the world) invest authority in Mr Pope and his acolytes. In Kenya and Tanzania, people constantly talk about Jesus, God, their religion, the bible, various quotations and proverbs and titbits of ‘knowledge’ from religious sources.

Mr Pope speaks for millions of people because they pay millions of pounds to support him and his religious prognostications. But beware, Mr Pope, you have many followers who go to your churches and contribute towards the obscene amounts of money you receive, but they don’t abstain. HIV rates are usually higher among those claiming to be Christian than among other religious groups.

I don’t see why Mr Pope’s religious teachings should have such a profound bearing on public health. He clearly knows nothing about public health, but that’s understandable. What I find difficult to understand is his lack of understanding about human behaviour. Even if he doesn’t feel sexual desire or if he feels it’s something he should deal with in other ways than sexual behaviour, why does he think that everyone else should feel the same way. Why does he think that others are able to behave as he does?

Mr Pope, whether you want to hear it or not; abstinence as a strategy does not work. Even if you are not interested in the many studies carried out that show that abstinence as a strategy does not work, you must be able to see that millions of your followers are infected with HIV and millions more will become infected.

I stand to be corrected on this but I think suicide is also considered wrong in the Catholic faith? Is a strategy that is known to fail to protect against HIV not suicidal? By preaching against the use of condoms and advocating abstinence, are you not in danger of increasing what is effectively suicidal behaviour, Mr Pope?