A while back, I outline the case that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic actually has the opposite effect and that it is not a pro-life measure, as some would imagine that it is.
The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, while on his apostolic journey in Africa made remarks about the use of condoms and the crisis of AIDS that drew an incredible amount of criticism.
As providence would have it, a senior research scientist of Harvard School of Public Health has spoken out and agreed with the Holy Father.
In an interview about the matter, Dr. Green said:
“…I stuck my neck out knowing it would be controversial, because the Pope said that the distribution of condoms was not the solution, that monogamy and fidelity was. It depends on how you look at condoms…And, I have said that I am not a Catholic, and I am not talking about condoms in any sort of moral-ethical sense. I am talking about what has been found to work and not work…my position is very politically incorrect…”
Surprisingly, this Harvard expert has not drawn much criticism (as of yet) for his remarks, which is magnificently backed up by credible scientific evidence.
However, the Pope’s religious and philosophical conclusions, which are reflective in much scientific study on the matter is “dogmatic nonsense” of some sort.
The American Catholic 
The Pope was absolutely correct.
If I had the option of jumping off the cliff with a parachute, knowing that a parachute was 96% effective in preventing me from falling to my death and not jumping off the cliff which is 100% effective from preventing me from falling to my death and the remaining 4% accounted for 70% of deaths occurring while jumping off the cliff (the remaining 30% was jumping off the cliff with no parachute), then I wouldn’t jump off the cliff.
Ipso facto, Pope Benedict is absolutely correct.
It’s amazing that reason and logic is no longer offered as a required course in schools anymore.
Look up ‘Shared Space’ on Wikipedia. The concept is that less road signs make for a safer road. Sounds counterintuitive, but the results bear this out. There is no longer a false sense of security. I think this has many parallels with condom use.
By the way, the website is looking sharp.
Unfortunately, Lancet as well as the Science journals and blogs are all abuzzed with a critically negative take on the matter.
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/28/pope-benedict-xvi-hiv
Pope ‘distorted’ HIV evidenceStephen Bates
The Guardian, Saturday 28 March 2009
The Lancet has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine following his remarks about condom use and HIV.
From:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/bits.php
Doesn’t this go along with the currently fashionable talk about “moral hazard” — meaning the likelihood that certain types of precautionary measures increase risky behavior by promoting a false sense of security? If that is true in relation to things like subprime loans and government financial bailouts, why would it not be equally true in relation to sexual behavior?
Example # 437654982 of How The Church Is Always Ahead of The World. Tito uses the If My Parachute Had An 20% Chance of Not Popping Out. Canon Lawyer Ed Peters has the If Hamburger Meat Had a 10% Chance of Carrying Nasty Infections. Me I use the Pothole Analogy. During winter months, asphalt tends to expand and contract, causing motorists to go bumpetybump. Well sorta made of rubber. But of course the Pope is always backward and stodgy and doesn’t want us to have fun and rant rant rant. Until he’s proved right. Like our Harvard friend has done. Then it’s more muted ranting.
I think there’s a key distinction between safety precautions used to protect you in good and necessary activities and those that people use to avoid the natural consequences of bad behavior.