This is a hugely important issue. Even more importantly, ideology has no place in AIDS interventions when it interferes with rigorous evidence-based practice. For anyone who is inclined to continue participating here, it would be wise to note the pope’s exact quote, and then to read Green in his own words.

Pope: "[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be
overcome by money alone, and that cannot be
overcome through the distribution of condoms,
which even aggravates the problems."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece

Green:
“Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom.
All people should have full access to condoms, and
condoms should always be a backup strategy for
those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually
faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004
"consensus statement" published and endorsed by
some 150 global AIDS experts, including
representatives the United Nations, World Health
Organization and World Bank.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

While conceding that in some limited circumstances the pope may have a point, Green argues very strongly that every evidence-based means available should be used to combat AIDS. This is very different to what the pope was saying.

Green’s most recent peer-reviewed publication appears to have been in 2006:
Green EC. Halperin DT. Nantulya V. Hogle JA. Uganda's HIV prevention success: the role of sexual behavior change and the national response. [Journal Article] AIDS & Behavior. 10(4):335-46; discussion 347-50, 2006 Jul.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1544373

The abstract makes it plain that ideological texts like the one quoted in the opening post of this discussion are not helping: “…the debate over “what happened in Uganda” continues, often involving divisive abstinence-versus-condoms rhetoric, which appears more related to the culture wars in the USA than to African social reality.”

In the article itself, Green and his co-authors find that the data strongly support the use of multiple interventions, including “empowering women, mobilizing PLWAs and involving them in prevention, fighting stigma, involving faith-based organizations.” It doesn’t help much when those faith-based organisations respond by cherry-picking the solutions that suit them, and attempting to discredit all the evidence-based solutions that don't.

Maxamillion
They are merely one part of the overall strategy, it works in other places, it would seem to fail in Africa and Asia only because of the low education rate among the general population.

You only need to look at the conditions they live in.

I recon, esspecially in Asia, if the did use them they would want to get at least a couple of uses out of them or they would feel ripped off.

Not controlling the spread of HIV could have other consequences. One that seems to be emerging is that an immunocompromised population can serve as a repository for other diseases. This seems to be happening with tuberculosis. How diseases will behave in such populations is unknown. So putting ideology before efficacy may threaten the chaste and virtuous as well as the fornicating heathens.