Studies of interventions to reduce HIV, STD’s, pregnancy, # of partners, etc come in two types: interventions with high-risk groups and interventions with the general population. The interventions with high-risk groups are notably successful, enough so that they improve the average of the general population. In fact, the improvement would lead us to expect a generalized improvement greater than that which actually occurs. One possible interpretation is that some interventions actually slightly increase the number of sexual partners in the low-risk group. I don’t know of anyone who believes in a large increase there.

It is all very murky to measure, as all interventions come in some kind of package which also includes information and instruction. Some interventions highlight harm reduction and some highlight abstinence. Both seem to do some good. There is reason to believe that different interventions work differently with different populations: high-risk females seem to respond more to interventions focusing on pregnancy, high-risk males to those focusing on STD’s. Harm-reduction strategies seem to work best with high-risk groups, abstinence strategies with low and medium-risk.

The thought experiment is one hundred drunken teenagers on a warm summer night. What are the factors, either prior to that night or immediately present, which would lead an undecided youngster to say “the hell with it” and have sex.

Increased condom use among American teens over the past 15 years strongly correlates with decreased HIV and pregnancy among same. I’ve never seen any study that condom use correlates with number of sexual partners.

If you KNOW your partner is HIV-poz, that’s at the front of your mind if you are thinking about having intercourse. You might choose not to take the risk. If you are thinking of having intercourse with someone and you don’t know their status, you want to take precaustions just in case. It’s the difference between buying a car that has been the subject of many consumer warnings, and buying a car without researching its safety record.

Condoms do work very well, just not 100%. They have certainly reduced the spread of AIDS in hi-risk populations. Reduced the pregnancy rate too.

It’s a bit dishonest to conflate “99% effective” with “not effective at all.”

Me too, and I’m in NYC where raising kids is really expensive.

This controversy is not new,

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9812/articles/contraception.html and the history of contraception goes back thousands of years

http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm

Certainly the impact of not using contraception is to increase the birth rate, and certainly the Catholic Church is aware of that fact. It isn’t all about making little Catholics, however – there is no allowance for extramarital sex if only you’ll ensure that the children are reared Catholic, and there is apparently no exception to the “no condoms” rule even when, as a practical matter, the use of condoms might increase the number of living Catholics by decreasing the incidence of HIV among them.

Honestly, that’s one of the things I like about the Catholic Church. They don’t decide that something is acceptable simply because it would be convenient, practical, popular, or even life-saving. It may make the Church a dinosaur eventually (some would say that happened long ago, of course), but it’s a principled stand.

I would say that it is implicit in a ban on artificial contraception that there would be,in the absence of abstinence,an increase in the birthrate.Compare average family sizes before and after the advent of the pill.

I am sure that the Pope is quite familiar with the words of Genesis http://www.bibleontheweb.com/bible.asp “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29

I am also sure that as a the head of a proslytising Church the Pope is aware of the implication that a declining numbers of the faithful,as in France, will have on the of the Church and ultimately its authority and existence.

Just my view,but Rome must remember its history and that ultimately the demographics are everything.

I agree with this myself. Relying on condoms is like relying on pills with no lifestyle changes to remain healthy. Anyway, everyone has the power of belief and habit, it doesn’t require condom manufacturing plants. On the other hand, this all reminds me of the 19′th century scourge of syphilis, people knew how it was transmitted, but that didn’t stop the widespread resort to prostitutes. Cellini, Paganini, Nietzsche, Schubert, Schumann, Smetana, Joplin, Hugo Wolf, just to mention mostly composers, suffered from syphilis. Lots of prominent sufferers. By the way, I have been told that the Firestone museum has an early specimen of the rubber condom. Let’s hear it for American inventiveness.

Love the blog, and can’t wait for your next book.

I think the “natural law” is the same idea I expressed earlier – acts have God-defined purposes.

I’ve forgotten what the rationale behind allowing the use of the “rhythm method” was, presumably it is a God-defined loophole.