We need to construct a compelling prevention narrative… One that inspires countries to mount permanent prevention campaigns that are socially inclusive, that combat public hypocrisy on sexual matters, that build AIDS competencies, and that systematically promote sexual and reproductive health and rights.
~Mr. Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director
In the fight against HIV and AIDS in the Philippines, UNAIDS has found a new ally: CBCP. In a meeting this morning, Steve Kraus, Director of the UNAIDS Regional Support Team for Asia and the Pacific, met with Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo. This collaboration might seem like the kind of thing you’d read about in The Onion.
Because this is the same UNAIDS that, in a position statement with UNFPA and WHO, said that
- The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
- Condoms must be readily available universally, either free or at low cost, and promoted in ways that help overcome social and personal obstacles to their use.
- HIV prevention education and condom promotion must overcome the challenges of complex gender and cultural factors.
And this is the same Church lead by a Pope who said that
HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.
When two organizations with diametrically opposed opinions work together, one of them makes a compromise. In this case — like in many others — it was the CBCP that didn’t budge. If this is any indication of what the responsible parenthood bill will contain, things don’t look so good.
In the four-hour meeting, “controversial issue[s] such as condom use” were not discussed. How can you play a “more proactive role in the fight against HIV/AIDS” without even trying to bring up condoms? It seems that Kraus knew what he was getting into.
Which is why his focus seems to be on getting the Church to help fight the stigma against people with HIV/AIDS. Kraus said that the meeting was “more about acceptance of people infected or living with HIV.” Sometimes you have to focus on things you can agree on if you want to get anything done. In this case, it’s that people living with HIV/AIDS do not deserve to be discriminated against. I fully support UNAIDS, CBCP, and any other organization in this endeavor.
It would have been fine if Kraus left it at that. But Kraus made some statements that are so patently false I suspect they could have been misattributed to him by the CBCP reporter:
Kraus said it’s high time to “speak on” about the epidemic because what drives the disease at present is “stigma and discrimination.”
By promoting community solidarity, the UNAIDS official said, the church can prevent new HIV infections…
So if there were no stigma and discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS, new infections would stop spreading? Like I said, I fully support ending discrimination in these cases. But doing this will not significantly control the spread of the disease. What really needs to be addressed is the stigma against sex, sex education, and contraceptives — all perpetuated by the CBCP.
On the other hand, Archbishop Lagdameo made it clear that although they said they would now be proactive in fighting HIV/AIDS, their decades-old position remains:
“Our support is selective which means to say we’ll help in raising awareness to the people, and address stigma and discrimination,” said Lagdameo, former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
“We will not join in the promotion of condom use; it will just worsen the problem.”
Even after hearing that, Kraus went on to refute “claims that the church is a hindrance to the campaign against HIV/AIDS.” Is Kraus really a representative of an organization that thinks “condom use is a critical element in a comprehensive, effective and sustainable approach to HIV prevention and treatment”? Either Kraus was misquoted (several times) by the CBCP reporter, or he went too far in pandering to the CBCP. Now I don’t know who’s the bigger hypocrite.
Why isn't there any mention of natural family plainning, seriously? The Church isn't stupid. If God has the answer to everything, the Church would not talk about a problem without offering a solution.
Thank you Maren Elizabeth.
[…] The Height of Hypocrisy: CBCP Proactive Against HIV/AIDS We need to construct a compelling prevention narrative… One that inspires countries to mount permanent prevention campaigns that are socially inclusive, that combat public hypocrisy on sexual matters, that build AIDS competencies, and that systematically promote sexual and reproductive health and rights. ~Mr. Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director In the fight against HIV and AIDS […] get more on Read more on Filipino Free Thinkers […]
Red, does the website get trackbacks?
I think so. Sometimes it just takes a while, I think.
There are two ways of looking at this: We should be happy that some progress is being made, or we should be disappointed that only this much progress is being made. Let me make it simple: If the CBCP were not in the picture, thousands of HIV infections and deaths due to AIDS would have been avoided. Yes, it's good that some people with HIV/AIDS would have it a bit better because the wouldn't be discriminated against. But if the CBCP hadn't meddled to begin with, a lot of them need not have been infected in the first place.
It reminds me of the time when the Catholic Church didn't allow inoculations when smallpox spread. Only after realizing that their prayers did not work and that the inoculated Protestants were indeed immune did they allow inoculations to happen. When they finally budged, many people thought, "Progress!" But what about those who were already dead?
Until the CBCP realizes that condoms are indeed critical in addressing the issue, every death that results due to ignorance and demonization of condoms is partly because of them, and any benefit they do contribute pales in comparison to what could have been had they not been meddling to begin with.
[It reminds me of the time when the Catholic Church didn't allow inoculations when smallpox spread. Only after realizing that their prayers did not work and that the inoculated Protestants were indeed immune did they allow inoculations to happen. When they finally budged, many people thought, "Progress!"]
I think this bit of information is worthy of an entire new post, don't you think Red? 🙂
No spoilers 😉
I wouldn't say that this smallpox thing and the AIDS crisis (and the Catholic Church's reaction to them) are exact parallels. I believe that certain well-meaning Catholics do support the Church stand because they want to promote responsible sexual activity and not because condoms are ipso facto demonized. The ones that matter to the Church are its middle-class followers, and they have a mind of their own already.
The logic of this Catholic middle-class is: sex, like all things, has consequences, and condom use just takes away the consequences. it does solve the problem of HIV infection, but what about people's attitudes toward sex? The fear (which the Church is trying to stir up to support its position) is that people will spend more time having sex, the society will become more sexualized, if condoms are promoted. Notwithstanding that Filipinos (in general) are hot-blooded, regardless of the presence/absence of condoms. We must realize it's not simply a "conservative v. liberal" problem.
So, perhaps, instead of campaigning squarely against the Church, we should ally with these middle-class Catholics so that the RH Bill (and secularism, in due turn) will gain support.
Of course they are not exact parallels, but they are parallels, and they're closer than you think. Do you know why the Church banned inoculations even if it worked? Because they believed that smallpox was God's way of punishing sins, and if you solved smallpox, people would be more sinful. The Church that banned smallpox back then also believed that sins have consequences, and inoculations just take away the consequences.
I agree that people's attitude toward sex needs to change, but not in the way the Church intends. Remember that not so long ago they believed that couples should only have sex for procreation, and it was only recently that they allowed for couples to have sex for love, provided that they allowed the possibility of pregnancy, rhythm method notwithstanding. Before that time sex was seen in an even more negative light, which I won't get into in this comment.
If there's something that needs to change, it's the mystery surrounding sex, which proper sex education can solve. There is nothing wrong about having sex provided people are educated and responsible about it. Fear mongering will only get you so far, and abstinence only education programs will get you nowhere.
Like I said in the article, I'm willing to work with the Church or any organization that plans on fighting discrimination. But I'll oppose the Church (or any organization) every time it tries to hinder or demonize progressive and proven solutions.
By the way, I'm not sure the Church will agree that "The ones that matter to the Church are its middle-class followers, and they have a mind of their own already."
[I agree that people's attitude toward sex needs to change, but not in the way the Church intends.]
Said way the church intends to spin the issue can be seen in the link below:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/04/head-of-belg…
[Like I said in the article, I'm willing to work with the Church or any organization that plans on fighting discrimination. But I'll oppose the Church (or any organization) every time it tries to hinder or demonize progressive and proven solutions. ]
My problem, Red, is that the these religious institutions are too often the root of said discrimination, when they decide to pretend that AIDs is some form of divine punishment, or if they consider homosexuality as some sort of moral wrong that needs to be corrected, and go about distorting data to prove their point.
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co…
I agree. Thanks for the links, Tim! 🙂
[The fear (which the Church is trying to stir up to support its position) is that people will spend more time having sex, the society will become more sexualized, if condoms are promoted. Notwithstanding that Filipinos (in general) are hot-blooded, regardless of the presence/absence of condoms. We must realize it's not simply a "conservative v. liberal" problem. ]
The problem is that they are willing to lie to prove their point, such as telling people how sex education programs will lead to promiscuity because it teaches people how to use condoms.
I get your point now. And I agree.
This talk is pretty old <a href="http://(http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html) but brings home the point of prevention. Though 5 years and millions of infected individuals later, many are STILL opposing the validity of prevention over treatment.
Looking forward to your analysis on the history of smallpox and the Catholic church.
Actually, addressing HIV-related stigma and discrimination could prove to be a strategic initial move by Kraus.
Jonathan Mann, then director of the WHO Global Programme on AIDS, identified three phases of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in 1987: the epidemic of HIV, the epidemic of AIDS, and the epidemic of stigma, discrimination and denial (Parker & Aggleton, 2002).
Breaking that silent barrier surrounding HIV/AIDS in the country could very well be a vital step towards the goal/s of UNAIDS by slowly introducing the topic to highly-sensitive interest groups in the guise of something like "community solidarity"…working backwards, if you will.
While it is logical to assume that addressing HIV-related stigma and discrimination will not DIRECTLY prevent new infections, this gentle nudge in the right direction (i.e. actual discussion) may just be the thing we need.
I agree. But I wouldn't say that stigma and discrimination are the main cause of the disease, and that addressing these will be the main component of the solution — which is what the CBCP article implies. Yes, it is a part of the solution. But it seems to me the CBCP is banking on doing just this while ignoring contraceptives and sex education, which for me is really what's lacking in this country. What's worse is they're not content on passively ignoring these solutions, they're intent on actively demonizing it.
Oops. Made a new comment instead of replying on this thread.
Sorry about that.
Hi Redtani, we are happy that CBCP is happy to do something about HIV/AIDS. That they will do something is better than not doing anything at all. The Church is a part of a broad, multi-sector response to HIV and we're happy to have them on board. We have other allies in civil society, national government and local government who will willingly take on the other aspects of HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.
Another important thing that the CBCP has done is to highlight that HIV is a problem in the Philippines. They picked it up and formulated a response ahead of some local government units and the national government itself.
Although stigma and discrimination is not the main cause of the disease, it hinders the establishment of an enabling environment that would allow interventions to be implemented successfully.
Thanks for keeping the discussion on the HIV issue alive. Everyone's contribution to the discussion is critical in coming up with an effective response.
As I've said in the article, I have nothing against the good things that they have been doing. What I don't like is the misinformation that they've been spreading about contraceptives and HIV/AIDS. They also make it seem (from the CBCP report) that the main cause of HIV/AIDS is discrimination, justifying their stance on demonizing contraceptives. What I'm particularly unhappy about is how the UNAIDS representative — if he indeed said the things attributed to him — is pandering to the CBCP, even outright lying, legitimizing their authority on matters like HIV/AIDS that they are absolutely clueless about.