I’ve checked the literature you linked. According to that, they estimate (a key word, since it’s not like they can really do trials) that condoms for males are 80% to 95% effective at preventing transmission of STD’s. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? Well it isn’t.

I’m assuming that you have had probability as part of your math education. That being the case, consider just how fast that probability drops with repeated action. Assume an effectivity of 90%. You’re not going to get that this century, but let’s assume it. Based on cumulative probability, by the time the man has intercourse with an infected person 11 times, his chances of contracting STDs becomes 90%. And that’s assuming fully correct use of condoms in each case.

For females, the effectivity of condom use was estimated at 99%. Frankly, I’m skeptical of the claim, but let’s go with it. How often do you think female sex workers have sex in a lot of the areas? Four times a day? Eight?

Assume four times a day, which is probably low. Forget that the men they service are not going to put up with them wearing a condom and they probably couldn’t afford them anyway. We’ll say they use one all the time. That means intercourse about 120 times a month. In an area with a 25% infection rate, that means 30 occurrences of sex with an infected man. That means their probability of contracting STDs after the first month is about 26%. After two months, it is 44%, and after 4 months, it goes up to around 70%. By the end of the year, you’re pretty much looking at a sure thing.

Condoms have some value for disease prevention when used in areas where sexual tendencies are under at least moderate control. In the situation you describe, where sex is employed with gleeful abandon, they are practically worthless. The only hope for the people is to adopt a controlled lifestyle. You say that is not natural? Neither is sex with a condom. But unlike condoms, a controlled lifestyle will protect you long term.

It occurs to me that when Christianity promotes an idea or concept that you don’t like or consider unrealistic, then it indicates a flaw with Christianity as a religion or philosophy. Example: You feel that regulation of sex or association with emotion is unnatural, therefore Christianity or Christian leaders are wrong to try to instill such an association. (This leads me back to an earlier question as to how you would feel if your spouse took that attitude as a reason to take multiple partners. I would still like to hear some comment on that, but that is a different side issue.)

On the other hand, when a philosophy such as Communism (and the label is not important; call it a religion, economic theory, or whatever you will) fails repeatedly in trial after trial, you do not express the idea that Communism is flawed or evil, even though the root of the failure is basically the same: Both Christianity and Communism require people to act in ways that go against their basic (selfish) nature to be successful. At least one major difference is that Christianity can be practiced by any size group, or single, but Communism requires a sizable group to even be attempted.

To me, this looks like a considerable inconsistency/double standard. Can you give me a good reason why it is not?

So, what it sounds like you are saying is that condoms are going to be impractical in Africa for the foreseeable future because the people are uneducated, unwilling to change their sexually risky behavior, and neither of those are going to change in the foreseeable future. So, since that is the case, it seems as though far from being harmful, the Pope’s suggestion is the only way that there is likely to be any kind of reduction in AIDS or other STDs for this generation. So, I guess that means that your line about condemning people to misery is really more appropriately applied to those pushing unrealistic solutions.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4312989/The-Disparity-Between-Condom-Use-and-HIV-Rates

The thing to remember good sir, is that large swaths of the African population are relatively uneducated and that condoms must be used _consistently_ and correctly (which even in places such as rural China this was hard to start and continue at first).

Changes in sexual behaviour that reduce the number of new HIV infections will not become apparent through changes in HIV prevalence until some time after the behaviour change takes place, since HIV is a long term disease.

http://www.mombu.com/medicine/allergies/t-condom-efficacy-condoms-trichomoniasis-gonorrhea-pregnancy-ejaculation-2212905.html

So yah, perhaps we’re not seeing a marked decline related to condoms _yet_ in Africa…but if the population (especially sex workers) consistently and correctly use condoms every single time, you will see a decline in HIV transmission from sexual behavior. You may _not_ see a decline in certain types of drug users though.