Don’t believe everything you read in the Guardian. In fact, don’t believe anything you read in the Guardian.

After I read this story, I did a little research and ending up agreeing with the Vatican position - the overselling of the benefits of condoms would most likely lead to more HIV infections in Africa.

Paul, it’s not the Register reporting the Vatican stance alone, it’s a BBC report — that will be aired on BBC television tonight — that was picked up by the Register, along with Reuters and AFP, among many others.

And how does promoting the use of condoms increase HIV infection? More specifically, how is telling people that condoms contains microscopic holes that allow the HIV virus to pass at all justifiable?

It’s justifiable because it’s true.

The use of condoms does reduce the likelihood of contracting AIDS. But it doesn’t eliminate any possibility of getting the disease. On the microscopic level, condoms are simply not capable of keeping out a virus as tiny as AIDS. They’re not even perfect at preventing a relatively large substance, like sperm, from passing through. That’s not to say that condoms can’t help tremendously, but rather instead to point out the obvious fact that they’re really not 100% effective.

The Church’s argument that condoms should never be used is based on their argument against artificial conception. But this particular move is more based around the assumption, a right one I think, that organizations like the WHO are telling people that condoms will prevent you from getting AIDS, which is, in the end, a lie. Thus, people who might have refrained from dangerous sexual activities previously are reassured by using a condom, and end up contracting the disease when the condom fails.

What he said.