". . . whether the Church contributes to the spread of disease by actively opposing those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world."

It doesn't. See Uganda.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200506220752.asp
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/News/abcfactsheet.html

Perhaps the question is more correctly posed as: whether those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world, contribute to the spread of disease.

Thanks for the comment. I've always been puzzled by the anger and disgust of people who oppose the Church's position. It would only be justified if the Church were busy slapping condoms out of people's hands.

That never seemed realistic to me.

Their real crime, it seems, is not letting Catholics who defy the sacraments off the hook. Come on, Church! Get with the times.

Dennis, thanks. I understand your first two paragraphs.

But I don't quite get your last paragraph. Whose real crime? And how should the Church "get with the times"?

That's 'point of view' (or what they call in lit crit these days 'focalization') and sarcasm.

The 'crime' is noted in the eyes of those who attack the Church.

I thought the spirit of the whole thing would make that clear. Ditto for 'get with the times.' That's what critics of the Church want to say: 'Come on ... it's the 21st century ... quit being all -- churchy.'

None of this, however, addresses what might be a legitimate issue, and that's whether the Church contributes to the spread of disease by actively opposing those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world.
Agree with the main thrust of the article. Why on earth would the Catholic Church advocate what the artist wants it to advocate given its ideology, and exactly how is portraying the Virgin Mary in a condom supposed to create the artist's hoped for "dialog"? The portrayal is nothing more than gestural. Things like these are easy to do. Pick symbol of your choice. Make obscene gesture. Provoke expected reaction. Generate some media attention. But ultimately the gesture is trivial, valued in and of itself because it gets the maker some temporary attention. It promotes little so-called real "dialog" or understanding, serves to harden opposition, and is msotly an exercise in cheap self-gratification and attention getting.

As to the issue of whether church teachings are contributing to the spread of disease that is dubious. What is spreading disease is uncontrolled behavior. Were said church teachings to be practiced, it would result in a REDUCTION of sexually transmitted disease, and indeed this was the case in many instances before the rise of more promiscuous behavior and before modern condoms and effective modern contraceptive technology. Sexually transmitted diseases began to rise with increasing frequency of sexual activity outside of marriage, beginning in the 1960s as people lost their old fashioned "hang ups". As Church teachings emphasize again and again, actions have consequences. As one article puts it: D"uring the 1970s, syphilis and gonorrhea were the two dominant STDs. The picture changed dramatically in the 1980s with a dramatic increase in genital herpes -- which has no known cure -- and the 1982 discovery of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, which transformed casual sex from a pleasurable pastime into a high-risk sport." The lesson is pretty clear from this histroy, but many do not want to accept it. Naturally, they must pay the price for their choices.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/12/17/healthwatch.DTL

Use of condoms itself does not address the core issue of uncontrolled behavior. Condoms were widely available to adult homosexuals and hetereosexuals before the AIDS epidemic rose to prominence in the 1980s. The increasing use of condoms is associated with the frequency of sexual activity outside of marriage. Such behavior again, has consequences. Frequent condom use can ease infection rates but recent news articles show time and again how STDs once thought to be fading like syhphillis and gonohrea are now back with a vengance, and groups like young homosexuals continue to engage in risk behavior so called "barebacking" despite all the warnings and all the condoms so easily available.

What about people now have no intention of changing their behavior? Personally, I agree with the government of Uganda in doing what it takes to cut infection rates. That is fine and I think the churchs should recognize that in such emergency situations tough measures are called for to save lives. Nevertheless, the Church is not wrong in pointing out that again, the core issue is behavior. Widespread condom use may temporarily cut infection but unless the underlying behavior is addressed, STDs will continue to increase and mutate as has been the case of the once fading syphilis and gonorrhea, along with worrisome rises of new strains of HIV. See http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7007.

Condom use also has a lot of collateral damage. As writer Nathan Tabor puts it:
"What about so-called “safe sex”? Well, the sad truth is, it isn’t safe. Yes, condoms may partially inhibit the spread of some diseases, just as they may stop some pregnancies from occurring. But in most cases, they don’t help girls much. One sobering statistic reveals that every time a teenage girl has extramarital sex, she has a 47 percent chance of catching the virus that causes cervical cancer. This disease, which can be deadly, once was found only in women age 50 and over; now it’s showing up in 13-year-old girls. Many sexually promiscuous teens become depressed, and some either attempt or commit suicide. Why? Well, according to Dr. Armand Nicholi of Harvard Medical School, our contemporary acceptance of casual sex “has often led to empty relationships, feelings of self-contempt and worthlessness,” instead of the liberation, fulfillment and happiness." And that's just girls.

It is of course much easier to posture with gestures and symbols rather than address such harsh realities. Somehow so-called promoters of "dialog" do little to address the long trail of damaged lives and harsh consequences caused by behavior. It is much easier and more self-gratifying to posture. Many have the idea that judicious use of condoms will enable them and society to escape the consequences of their behavior. They are sorely mistaken. Actions have consequences, unpalatable as this may be to those who seek "dialog" through "art".

I agree to a point, but I don't consider disease to be caused by behavior (i.e., sex only leads to disease when you have it with someone who already has the disease). I don't see anything morally wrong with sex of any kind between consenting adults.

I think the debate over condoms is a phantom game that draws attention away from what all sides (aside from maybe the Leon Kasses of the world) can agree on: that curing diseases is a good thing.

I also believe that it is within man's power to conquer disease and within his rights to act outside the biological imperative to procreate.

While I'm monogamous and probably quite conservative in my own bedroom, I have no objection to what other people do. And I recognize that my own restraint is still sinful to the Church, and still subjects me to the threat of disease from a potential partner's past.

The evolution of human beings doesn't take into account rampant promiscuity. We are creating a kind of muck soup that is deadly. It doesn't matter what the next disease is, and there will be more, but it will learn to spread around condoms (as do things like genital warts and chlamydia).

Even in the 1980s scientists were noticing that Gonorrhea and Syphilis were becoming much more resistant to traditional antibiotics because since it was curable, people became very blaze about it. Super strains of theses STDs were starting to appear.

These things are going to happen. That's how nature works. Diseases evolve like everything else and eventually they'll beat the condom/antibiotic barrier.

Sorry to be the Harbinger, but the only thing that will prevent one of these strains from becoming airborne is for people to accept that EVERYTHING you do between consenting adults is not Kosher. It has consequences (deadly ones) to the general public.

Religion is simply the recording of observable trends. The fact that they associated a divine or spiritual hand in the matter doesn't negate what they observed. Societies long observed that promiscuity was bad for society so they set about to make rules to control it. Nothing has changed. We see the same evidence, but we're supposed to be smarter. Clearly, we're not.

You can apply this argument to the hemophiliacs who weren't engaging in risky behavior, but every single one of them died as a result of the tainted blood supply with HIV. They had no choice in the matter. They were not the "consenting adults." The behavior of other "consenting adults" lead to their death.

What consenting adults do impacts everyone and to deny that is to deny everything that we know and understand about nature.

Dennis. Now I get it. You just changed gears on me too fast (from the question in the last para. of the main post to the sarcasm in your response to me). I'm an old man -- you've got to move slowly for me.

And I'll agree with you that "curing diseases is a good thing". But not an Ultimately Good thing -- meaning that there are limits to what one ought to do to cure a disease. And we must discuss and debate, and accept, such limits.

Once upon a time, a little old Italian lady attended a talk on the evils of birth control given by her parish priest. Partway through his talk she became agitated and stood up, shouting "You no playa da game! You know maka da rules!"

Not being Catholic, I can only observe that the issues of birth control and sexuality in general seem to cause some Catholics great anguish; skim Andrew Sullivan's blog as an example. The assumption seems always to be that the church should 'get with it' to accomodate those who don't like some or all of the church's teachings. But if that happened I suspect it wouldn't be the Catholic church anymore.

My recommendation echoes Dennis: 'You no lika da rules? You finda nudder church.' [sigh] But it's probably an inability to take that advice, for whatever reason, that leads to the anguish, eh?

Brain cramp! I meant to say: "you no maka da rules, dang it!"