Condemning Contraceptive Condoms

Despite the Philippine President's lack of support for universal access to contraceptives and her stated opposition to reproductive health policy, an official of the Department of Health (DOH) recently criticized the Roman Catholic Church's position against condom use.

According to Undersecretary Mario Villaverde, the opposition against condom use by the Catholic Church has had detrimental effects on the government campaign to prevent the spread of HIV AIDS. Alleging that the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention was an entirely different issue from its use as contraception, Villaverde stressed that the Department of Health supports natural family planning, including abstinence.

While he did not really clarify what he meant by the difference of condom use as a contraceptive and its uses in HIV/AIDS prevention, it is tempting to infer a lot of things from Villaverde's statement. Indeed, the use of condoms to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including  HIV/AIDS is not exclusive to heterosexual intercourse. In which case, he was on one level, correct to point out a difference. On the other hand, what is more probable is confusion within the DOH, of what their actual position vìs a vìs the condom is. In this context, however, it is nothing new.

In July, even the local Catholic Bishops' Conference indicated a qualified position on condom use. Edwin Corros, Executive Secretary of CBCP's Episcopal Commission for Pastoral Care for Migrants and Itinerant People announced that the use of the condom "as a last resort" by married couples, to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Corros claimed that the Church's position is not to endorse condom use but only to prevent deaths. He added that married couples ought to practice abstinence and faithfulness.

On the other hand, the CBCP is still aggressively blocking the passage of pending legislation on reproductive health in which both family planning and HIV/AIDS are addressed. Responding to Villaverde's pronouncements, and contradicting the qualified position issued by its own Episcopal Commission, Archbishop Aniceto insisted that: "It is the duty of the DOH never to propose for general public use any prophylactic that could increase the incidence of the disease it is supposed to prevent" and that the "idea of safe sex (by using condoms) lulls women and men into complacency."

The premise behind this of course is that "morally upright" lives can only be led through "chastity" that includes abstinence from sex outside of marriage, a part of Catholic teaching which even members of the Roman Catholic clergy find difficult to observe. Ethically, it would, however, be difficult to dismiss condom use as self-serving since the protection condoms offer, depending on the context, could be for one's partner too.

Reported HIV/AIDS cases in the Philippines remains relatively low compared with its closest neighbours in the Southeast Asian region at a total of 3,061 since 1984 or less than one percent of the population. The World Health Organization, however has warned that the actual number of unreported cases could be higher and the situation in the Philippine HIV AIDs situation has been described as "hidden and growing" since 2003. In 2007, the DOH noted an increase of 29 new cases per month from an average of 20 in the past years.

Thirty-five percent of new cases come from the ranks of returning overseas Filipino workers who usually get tested prior to renewing their permits to work overseas. Noting cases where returning HIV positive overseas workers infected their wives, Senator Pia Cayetano called the DOH's attention to the possibility and dangers of mother to child transmission. Cayetano added that information on condom use will give the government's information campaign on HIV AIDs prevention a big boost.

But the mere mention of condoms in HIV/AIDs prevention modules and sexuality education materials by the Department of Education is still controversial in this part of the world when the Catholic hierarchy proclaims its opposition. In fact, even the Philippine AIDS Control and Prevention Act of 1998 contains a curious provision that reflects this apprehension vìs a vìs the condom. While the law mandates the Department of Education (DepEd) to provide HIV/AIDS prevention education, it also provides that the modules on HIV AIDS prevention and control "shall not be used as an excuse to propagate birth control or the sale or distribution of birth control devices." Advocates who pushed for the policy in the late nineties attest to the contested provision of the law as the final "compromise" to calm the Catholic opposition.

Indeed, the ideal condom given the Roman Catholic hierarchy's requirements seems to be the stuff of science fiction imagination. If such a condom existed, it would only prevent HIV transmission but not necessarily function as contraception, and would only work for heterosexual sex between married couples. If such a condom existed, would the Roman Catholic Church endorse its use? Probably but consider the irony: in same sex relations, the regular condom already gives the same amount of protection from HIV/AIDS but does not function as a contraceptive.