The answer The Malta Independent obtained from the Parliamentary Secretariat for Health on questions it submitted on what Pope Benedict XVI said about the use of condoms when he visited Africa recently was a surprise – in the negative sense.

The Pope stirred the condom controversy again when he maintained that the Church was against the use of condoms, and this in spite of their offering protection against the transmission of diseases such as HIV.

The Church has been adamant in its stand as it believes that sexual acts should always leave the possibility of procreation, and the use of condoms is a manifest attempt that is intended to avoid conception.

This newspaper has already commented editorially about the Pope’s statements, saying that the Church seems to be on its own as the world tries to combat the spread of HIV, with one of the most effective ways being condom use.

The Malta Independent followed up the issue by obtaining comments from Philip Carabot, consultant in genito-urinary medicine, who described the Catholic Church’s campaign against the use of condoms as being “obstinate and very dangerous”.

Yet, when this newspaper asked for a reaction to the Pope’s comments from the Parliamentary Secretariat for Health, the two-line answer received was simply that it is not in his secretariat’s remit to condone or otherwise comments made by the Pope.

This terse answer opens up many questions. For one thing, it leads to doubts as to whether there is a distinction between what the Church is preaching and what the government is doing to combat the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Is the government afraid to go against the Church teaching, even when it knows that, in this case, it is scientifically proven that the use of condoms is a way to fight against the spread of HIV and STDs?

We are supposed to live in a country where the State and the Church are two separate entities, and yet it often seems that the government finds it hard to speak out on matters that could go against the teachings of the Church.

It may be privately encouraging the use of condoms for reasons mentioned earlier, yet publicly refusing to take a stand which is the opposite of what the Church is preaching. Whatever the reasons that pushed the parliamentary secretariat to answer the way it did, it is wrong for the

government to try to ignore the problem. It should openly acknowledge that there has been an increase in the number of cases of STDs, as Dr Carabot explained to this newspaper, and openly campaign that the use of condoms will help to limit the risks.

The government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens and, as such, it is rather irresponsible on the health secretariat’s part to avoid the issue, or try to. If there are ways and means by which the quality of life can improve and, in this case, avoid the spread of diseases, then the government should not sit on the fence, as the health secretariat tried to do, but be at the forefront of campaigns in this sense.

After all, the prevention of diseases will mean less costs for the State too.

The government should not be afraid of taking a stand that is directly opposite with that of the Church, especially when this means the saving of lives. Condoms, apart from preventing an unwanted pregnancy (and the Church should not intrude on whether couples want or do not want children; after all, it is the couple who has to take care of their children, not the Church) are also a means to stop the spread of diseases that can kill.