Why condoms spread AIDS
A bizarre Irish political lobbying booklet from 1991
This is one of my favourite examples of the conservative Catholic Ireland we have thankfully left behind.
In 1991, the Children’s Protection Society, an offshoot of the Christian Principles Party, published an expensive political lobbying booklet. It was titled 67 Reasons Why Condoms Spread AIDS: The Case Against Condom Anti-AIDS Campaigns, Compiled with Eminent Medical Assistance.
My late wife Anne then worked in the Dáil, and she remembered it being delivered to every TD and Senator.
For context, Mary Robinson was our new president, we were basking in the aftermath of the Italia ’90 World Cup, Roddy Doyle’s The Commitments reached the cinema, and the IFPA was fined for selling a condom in Dublin’s Virgin Megastore.
Here are some of the best arguments the Christian Principles Party made against condoms thirty-five years ago. I end with a response letter I wrote to the Irish Times, in which I looked forward to the sequel 67 Reasons Why Motor Cycle Helmets Spread Head Injuries.
1. Opposition to condom campaigns comes from diverse sources — atheist, and Jewish, for example
When Dr. Chazov, the USSR health minister, and Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, rejected condom anti-AIDS campaigns, they did not concede any public health price would have to be paid for their stance. They believed they were saving, not risking, lives.
5. The more condoms sold against AIDS, the more AIDS transmitted
Perhaps the most eminent condom advocate in the country in 1991 gave a condom failure rate for AIDS, taken as a proportion, as ten percent. Let us use this optimistic figure. It follows that the more condoms that are used against AIDS, the more AIDS transmission there will be. Contrast this to, for illustration, a country where everyone was chaste and faithful. There would be no need to use a condom against AIDS. Such usage would be zero, and AIDS transmitted also zero. Drug abuse would not be a problem in such a country.
21. There is no active role for women in condom sex
The decision to use a condom is always the man’s. If he thinks condoms stop AIDS, he can still refuse to use one. ‘But you promised to use a condom’ is always a woman’s complaint. One man, in revenge for becoming infected, is reported setting out to infect 20 women. In a society based on chastity they would not be vulnerable. By downgrading women, considered the more responsible of the sexes, AIDS is increased.
26. Leading to promiscuity — Dublin example
Announcing that they would break the law and sell their own brand of ‘luxury’ condom at gigs and concerts, the Power of Dreams rock group said ‘we thought it would be a good idea to give the church and others a kick in the —’. Young people found chemists embarrassing, but ‘at a gig when they have a few drinks on them they’d have no problem going up to the counter and asking for 20 cartons’. They hoped to sell ‘thousands’. — The Dublin Tribune SW 4 April 1991
27. Are supporters of condoms correct in attacking the Church?
Religious belief is historically the only successful basis for the rule of law, and this is a vital factor in preventing, notably, sexual assaults on children. It must be admitted that if the Church had been listened to, AIDS would never have arisen; once it has arisen, if even then the Church were heeded, AIDS would disappear.
35. Even the worst case scenario doesn’t work
The wife of an infected man is often cited as the unbeatable argument of those who favour condoms. Traditional morality would condemn her to death, it is alleged. Facts speak differently.
The Traditional Morality: Man refuses to have sex with wife as he loves her and it would give her a fatal disease. Wife lives to 79.
New Morality without Condoms: Man has a right to sexual fulfillment with wife. Wife dies of AIDS at 35.
New Morality with Condoms: Man uses condoms with wife every time. Wife dies of AIDS at 41.
‘Furthermore, computer analysis indicates that the only effect of ‘safer sex’ in a long term relationship with an infected partner is to delay the time of infection.’ — A.M. Salzberg, PhD, MD, et al.: Journal of the American Medical Association, 18 December 1987, vol. 258, p. 3386.
43. Richard Branson
Mr. Branson, the head of the Virgin company, is it seems the first person since Independence to come over here and achieve a government commitment to make our laws like those of his own country. Who is this epoch-making man, whom even the Taoiseach and opposition leaders follow?
Context (not from the booklet): In 1988, the Irish Family Planning Association began openly selling condoms in Dublin’s Virgin Megastore in defiance of the law. Gardaí raided the Megastore in 1990, and the IFPA was convicted and fined. On appeal in 1991, the fine was increased to £500. Richard Branson gave evidence in court, arguing that condoms helped protect people from AIDS, and U2 paid the IFPA’s fine. Media coverage added to pressure for reform of Ireland’s contraception laws.
62. Look at the AIDS rate of Dr. O’Hanlon’s constituency
The Minister for Health represents Cavan-Monaghan. Precise data are not published, but depending on sources, the constituency either has Europe’s lowest AIDS rate, or the world’s lowest AIDS rate. How do they achieve this? It is a reasonably important question. Is it by value-free sex? Condoms? A country-wide survey by the Evening Press reported as ‘Traders say no to condoms’ stated ‘And, as if further to frustrate the Minister’s intentions, not even a single trader surveyed in his home town of Carrickmacross intends to sell the contraceptives’, meaning condoms. — The Evening Press, 24 April 1991.
My response letter to the Irish Times
In response to this lobbying booklet, I wrote the following letter which the Irish Times published in July 1991.
Sir — Congratulations to Sean Clerkin of the anti-condom Christian Principles Party and Children’s Protection Society, on the publication of his excellent booklet, ‘Sixty Seven Reasons Why Condoms Spread Aids’ (report, July 12th). The woolly logic of the sex-obsessed liberal left is coldly demolished by this powerful, lucid (and expensively produced) intellectual blockbuster.
Particularly convincing are the following sample ‘Reasons’: Some atheists and Jews oppose condoms; no health benefit could come from a proposal supported by ‘every man who finds sex with children attractive’; it is easier to tell whether a person is 18 than whether they have reached an earlier age; there is no active role for women in condom sex; Cavan-Monaghan has either Europe’s or the World’s lowest AIDS rate and no trader in Carrickmacross will sell condoms; condoms will increase drug abuse and condoms are supported by the Power of Dreams rock group, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Richard Branson.
The indisputable clinchers, though, are the theologically inarguable Reason No 27: ‘If the Church were heeded, AIDS would disappear’ and the staggeringly conclusive Reason No 59: ‘In a debate, the condom lobby would lose’ (though, surprisingly, there is no elaboration as to how AIDS would be spread by the condom lobby losing this debate).
Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but that’s me convinced anyway.
While ‘Sixty Seven Reasons’ (what a pity they couldn’t have found two more) certainly gives a useful insight into the psychologically fascinating phenomenon of the minds of the anti-condom lobby, it seems fair to suggest that logic may not be their strong point. Perhaps they should revert to their more usual theologically inspired moral diktats which, while not making their ‘Reasons’ any more sensible, would at least allow them to plead faith as an excuse.
In the meantime I look forward to such sequels as ‘Sixty Seven Reasons Why Motor Cycle Helmets Spread Head Injuries’, ‘Sixty Seven Reasons Why Hospitals Spread Illness’ and ‘Sixty Seven Reasons Why The Anti-Condom Lobby Spreads Nonsense’.
— Yours, etc.,
Michael Nugent
The Irish Times, July 1991