The CBCP is an easy target. There is no fun or challenge in taking potshots at their lunacy. But while I was home having breakfast, sipping a nice hot cup of brew, I was assaulted by this idiocy.

So this is my rant. It may not be as organized as my other posts. Some expert writers have said that one should write with the heat of passion and then edit with cold objectivity. I don't think I'll get to the "cold objectivity" part.

Such is the story. The first part of the news item is the usual moral blathering of the Church--- condoms "desentisize the youth's delicate conscience" and "weaken their moral fiber as future parents."

To their credit, they are correct that condom manufacturers put a warning that “condoms may fail to protect from AIDS [Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome] and other sexually transmitted diseases." They are also correct that "consumer groups should insist on the right to know the real characteristics of products they use, and that corresponding labels be conspicuously displayed in packaging." Using a condom isn't a 100% guarantee that you'll be protected against STDs. There are studies that have shown that condoms do fail. The failure rate can be considered small---maybe even infinitesimal---but there is a failure rate. Many have speculated that the failure rate is due to misuse rather than actual condom failure.

But what infuriated me was the statement that “given its high failure rate, the condom cannot really put a stop to AIDS."

Say what? "High failure rate?" Where the frak did they get that? Ok, I guess the word "high" is subjective. For example, a 1% failure rate may be considered high. If we debate and argue on the phrase "high failure rate," we will never hear the end of it.

Here's another statement from CBCP: “It is unjust that the taxes of the people including Catholics are used for purposes against their moral beliefs."

This statement pre-supposes that the moral belief of the general population is against condom use. Has the Catholic Church even bothered to check? I know that the Church champions against condom use, but what do the people believe in?

The other obvious questions:

Do condoms weaken the "moral fiber?"

Is the use of condoms ineffective in combating AIDS and other STDs?

These are questions that probably can be scientifically answered. These are questions that nobody should answer without some hard evidence. The Church, with all its pompous arrogance, should provide the answer in a logical rational fashion without invoking the usual pontificating God-fearing, fire-and-brimstone statements.

It's actually not that difficult to present at least some hard factual numbers. One can, for example, cross-reference the countries with high condom use and their crime rates. Or their instances of spousal abuse. Or their numbers for teenage pregnancies, adoptions, and abortion rates. Or even correlate countries with low condom use. I would believe the numbers are there.

Coincidentally, I was also reading a book by notable physicist Richard Feynman. He gave a talk at Caltech in 1956 about the relationship of science and religion. He astutely mentioned this:

The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First — If I do this, what will happen? – and second – Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value – of good?

Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question – any question, philosophical or other – which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment (or, in simple terms, that cannot be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen?) is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science.

I claim that whether you want something to happen or not – what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?) – must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens – in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view – or the ethical aspect of religion – and scientific information.