Anti-Condom Cardinal to Run Position by God (in person)

Birth Control Watch, April 23, 2008 

By Cristina Page

Gillian Kane, of the International Women's Health Coalition, has a great post on RH Reality Check today detailing the controversial work and legacy of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo who died Saturday. Trujillo was one the Catholic Church's highest ranking officials and headed up the "Pontifical Council for the Family" which, among other things, was dedicated to justifying the Church's anti-contraception agenda in the face of damning evidence of the damage its has resulted in worldwide.

Kane writes,

Trujillo was particularly active in the developing world where he preached against condom use. He argued that condoms were an ineffective prevention method against HIV/AIDS because they actually contributed to its spread by encouraging sexual promiscuity. Trujillo also argued, rather unscientifically that, "The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." No matter that Trujillo's arguments were quickly debunked by the World Health Organization, and criticized by the European Union Commission and UNAIDS, Trujillo went so far as to recommend that condom packets include warnings, similar to those on packs of cigarettes, cautioning that condoms do not prevent but rather encourage the spread of HIV/AIDS. Trujillo wasn't single minded in his opposition to condoms; he disparaged all forms of contraception, which he referred to as "biological colonialism" imposed on poor nations by pharmaceutical companies and rich countries. This was certainly a polemical, if not persuasive, argument in regions dealing with the aftereffects of colonial rule.

In my book, I discuss in depth Cardinal Trujillo's writing "Family Values verses Safe Sex" in which he claims "those promoting the condom without properly informing the public of its failure rates (both in its perfect use and in its typical use, and the cumulative risks), have led to, lead to, and will continue to lead to the death of many." What was particularly interesting about the Vatican's approach was that it appeared to rely on science for outcomes that it found fulfilling for other reasons. In a rare act of journalistic doggedness, the British Broadcasting Corporation examined the evidence on which Trujillo based his claims. "All [the scientists cited by the Vatican] told us they believe condoms are an essential component of an effective AIDS strategy and oppose the kind of general prohibition on condoms that Cardinal Trujillo advises," the BBC reported. In fact, the BBC discovered that "all authoritative AIDS specialists cited by the Cardinal do in fact support the use of condoms against HIV."

In fact, the BBC worked with one of the scientists cited by the Vatican, Dave Lytle, a former senior researcher at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who, in the 1980s, lead an investigation on the effectiveness of condoms. "My reaction is one of disappointment," Dave Lytle told the BBC. "[Trujillo] didn't pay attention to the paper, he took a number out of it, and basically misused it." Lytle told the BBC that the laboratory conditions of his test were not comparable to those that occur during sex. For one thing, the viruses he tested were one-fifth the size of the HIV virus, which he didn't test. Also, the pressures he used to test condoms were higher than those present in the typical sex act. Based on his research experience, Lytle concluded the exact opposite of what Trujillo wanted people to believe: normal intact condoms are "impermeable to HIV."

The Vatican has camped out on the wrong side of history on this issue and the guide that took them scandalously deeper into those woods, Trujillo, is no longer leading the way. Luckily, most Catholics worldwide have already discovered the dangerous journey they were being taken on, and have taken a better, safer, way. As for the Vatican, the search begins for another evidence-manipulating extremist to fill the position.


Originally published by Birth Control Watch, April 23, 2008. Reprinted with permission.
Available  here on the Birth Control Watch website.