Vatican: No condom change

[ddarko]

The position is now: if a woman is at all worried a partner has HIV she can insist on a condom.

NO!!!

There are only two cases with a condom.

(1) Lets use a condom outside of marriage with my “partner”: IMMORAL because sex OUTSIDE of marriage is IMMORAL. They can use a condom but that doesn’t change the gravity of there sin of pre-marital sex.

(2) Lets use a condom with my husband: IMMORAL. Contraception within a marriage is … yes… you guessed it… IMMORAL.

So in either case, there is something IMMORAL happening if there is a condom involved. This is the BIG, FAT, OBVIOUS point you are missing my friend.

The only thing is that in (2), there could be some possibility that the person is going to realize the un-natural nature of there sexual act and get back on track. But nevertheless, it is STILL an IMMORAL act to be having extra-marital sex. Whether they used a condom or not is irrelevant. Your fixation is once again, as the Pope so nicely put it, is on the Condom so you are forgetting everything else.

God Bless

 

[buffalo]

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant

 

[BobCatholic]

The modern media is a global propaganda machine.

Agreed.

The sextremists are pushing their agenda through the media.

 

[wanner47]

This may help clarify.

ROME – In a startling change to the Catholic Faith, Pope Benedict XVI announced today that tossing people down elevator shafts could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility “in the intention of reducing the risk of having your own son electrocuted to death before your very eyes.”

The Imperial Mainstream Media Center has taken this as a signal that the Church intends to canonize Darth Vader for his saintly courage in tossing Emperor Palpatine down an elevator shaft as the latter was torturing Darth Vader’s son to death with huge bolts of electric Force energy. In addition, the Imperial Mainstream Media Center has also declared that the pope therefore means to say that destruction of whole planets, as well as the subjugation of billions of inhabitants all over the galaxy, the betrayal of his closest friends, the slaughter of the Jedi and their younglings, and his conversion to the Dark Side “don’t matter.”

But most importantly, according to an Imperial Mainstream Media spokesman, “The point is, throwing people down elevator shafts is now formally accepted by the Church as moral behavior and Catholics need to think about how to incorporate this new development of doctrine into their lives. If you feel that throwing people down elevator shafts is the safe and right thing for you, then,” says the Imperial Mainstream Media Center, “we believe the pope means to say, ‘Do it with my blessing.’”

But seriously, folks: Two things are beyond my comprehension in this latest kerfuffle from the incurably thick mainstream media and the reliably easy-to-blindside people at the Vatican who seem to make it their business to let the MSM turn Benedict’s sensible remarks into a “gaffe” or, sillier still, tinder for global conflagrations of “controversy.”

First, what’s the big deal with what Benedict said? His point, for anybody with two brain cells to rub together to see, is that somebody who has lived a sinful life can take a modest and imperfect step toward forgetting himself and try to do something for somebody else. That doesn’t automatically make him a hero or a saint, nor does it baptize the details of his attempt at self-sacrificial decency as a Good Thing. So when Darth Vader – after betraying the Jedi, killing a bunch of children, acting for years as the lieutenant of the Most Evil Man in the Galaxy, destroying Alderaan, torturing Han Solo, and trying with might and main to kill Luke Skywalker – finally feels a tiny pang of conscience after watching his own son be tortured in the most sadistic manner possible and tosses Emperor Palpatine down an elevator shaft, we can say that there has been “a first step in assuming moral responsibility” – a first eensy weensy, itsy bitsy step. We can’t say, “Pope approves throwing people down elevator shafts.”

 

[thomfra]

A couple thoughts

** I’m still trying to understand precisely what the Pope said and meant**. It sounds as though he was suggesting that it’s okay for male prostitutes who have HIV/AIDS to use a condom, that somehow it indicated some sense of responsibility on their part. A rather strange statement. No, I know he doesn’t in any way give approval to male prostitutes - of course, not. But to say that they can - and suggest that they should - use condoms to protect the partner from contacting HIV/AIDs is quite a step.

** Now, perhaps this has been raised already. **If a husband has contracted HIV/AIDS, as often happens in parts of Africa, why then would he not be justified in using condoms to protect his wife - or even another sexual partner, in fact? Because it is also likely to avoid conception, is this automatically wrong? Somehow, I think that the Pope should be at least as concerned and compassionate when it comes to protecting a wife than in protecting homosexuals, since the church so strongly endorses marriage while condemning acts of homosexuality.

** My own position, for what it’s worth, is that the dieheard Catholic position against contraceptives is wrong. **Why? To begin with. the Church accepts ‘natural birth control’ based on the cycle of the woman, which has the same goal: to impede contraception. In the second place, it seems to me that sexual relations between a husband and wife are private, and the decision as to family planning has to be theirs. The Church may suggest a position, but to make articial birth control a major violation of Catholic policy is self-defeating.

** I remember two cases in which the natural method failed** when the couple had been warned that bearing another child would endanger the life of both the mother and baby. One couple followed the Church’s teaching, trusting in God, and both mother and baby died, leaving a grieving husband, six other motherless children, and a family which then left the Church. The other couple reluctantly opted for an early abortion, the woman was severely scolded by the priest at confession, so they, too, left the Church.

** Most married Catholic couples, after they have the number of children they feel they can provide adequately for, use artificial birth control.** Probably no issue, except maybe the sex scandal, has done more to drive Catholics away from the Church, at least among people I know. It has effected my attitude toward the Church as well, and it take a special effeort to maintain respect for some of its policies.

** I also am inclined to think that lack of artificial birth control leads to more abortions. I certainly would prefer the first to the second, wouldn’t you?** When no conception occurs, with or without artificial birth control, no baby is killed, no baby is lost.

The medical world has implemented hundreds of ways of extending life which some might consider ‘against natural law’ or against God’s plan. We use surgery and pills, for example, to battle cancer or heart disease or other afflictions? Why is it that these medical acts also are not against divine law? Is there nothing to the old notion that God has determined when we are born and when we are to die? Should we not let nature take its course rather than try to buck nature through modern medicine? Some of this smacks a bit of Mormonism, which (as I recall) suggests that souls are just waiting in heaven to be born, so parents need to have large families, etc.

It’s time for Catholicism to adopt a new policy in line with reason, compassion, good health, responsibility, and family happiness. I know one devoted Catholic couple well who confidentially have shared with me that sexual relations for them is rare and even scary because they have three teenage children and do not feel psychologically or financially (and even for other reasons, too) that they should risk having another child. This reluctance to have normal and joyful sexual relations has injured their intimate relationship, but they also are convinced that they must suffer through this because the Church has spoken. Is that what the Church should demand?

Great post. Like a breath of fresh air!

 

[Nordar]

Yes, I read the reuters article today and was really confused. I just spent yesterday emailing a Protestant talk show host adamantly defending that this only applied to male prostitutes or perhaps homosexuals because there is no issue with the transmission of life (or preventing it as the case may be.) I thought I made an open and shut case to him, then I wake up today and see quotes from Father Lombardi saying that the pope says it doesn’t matter if it’s women or men prostitutes as long as they are concerned about the risk to the other. If it can be the case for prostitutes, how can it not be defended for married couples with HIV. I dont’ know how to defend church teaching anymore if this is true.

I am really confused and hope there is a clarification soon!!!

IF a reuters article quotes Lombardi directly, can we assume that it is NOT what he really said?

i am confused about that issue also, if prostitutes can use it to avoid speading AIDS, then why can’t married couples if one has AIDS not use it. I don’t know if anyone remembers when Paul Micheal Glasser ( he was the originally Starsky in Starsky and Hutch) His wife contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, She and the child she was carrying when she got the transfusion both eventially died of Aids, I trhink the little girl was 4 yrs old when she died. So why would it not be OK for Paul and his wife to have used condomes so that he did not get AIDS?
Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t Pope Benedict say a while back that condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

And he is still saying that. What he said is that the use by the male prostitute could be justified in that it atleast shows a move in the morla correct direction in that they are at least looking at ways to protect there partners. It is still wronge.

 

[Yorkshireman]

NO!!!

There are only two cases with a condom.

(1) Lets use a condom outside of marriage with my “partner”: IMMORAL because sex OUTSIDE of marriage is IMMORAL. They can use a condom but that doesn’t change the gravity of there sin of pre-marital sex.*

(2) Lets use a condom with my husband: IMMORAL. Contraception within a marriage is … yes… you guessed it… IMMORAL.*

So in either case, there is something IMMORAL happening if there is a condom involved. This is the BIG, FAT, OBVIOUS point you are missing my friend.

The only thing is that in (2), there could be some possibility that the person is going to realize the un-natural nature of there sexual act and get back on track. But nevertheless, it is STILL an IMMORAL act to be having extra-marital sex. Whether they used a condom or not is irrelevant. Your fixation is once again, as the Pope so nicely put it, is on the Condom so you are forgetting everything else.*

God Bless

Yes I get that but the Pope recognises sometimes people are just going to have sex. He would prefer in that circumstance, if one of the 2 has HIV, that the man wears a condom. To save lives.*

If a man gives his word of honour that he doesn’t have HIV is the woman obliged to have sex without a condom to have a chance of a baby (before you say it I know they’re not supposed to have sex outside of marriage but this is another example where sex is definitely going to happen anyway.)

Also, if sex is definitely going to happen, can a woman insist on a condom to protect herself if the man has another STD apart from HIV? After all, some STDs can ruin a woman’s fertility. *

 

[Yorkshireman]

i am confused about that issue also, if prostitutes can use it to avoid speading AIDS, then why can’t married couples if one has AIDS not use it. I don’t know if anyone remembers when Paul Micheal Glasser ( he was the originally Starsky in Starsky and Hutch) His wife contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, She and the child she was carrying when she got the transfusion both eventially died of Aids, I trhink the little girl was 4 yrs old when she died. So why would it not be OK for Paul and his wife to have used condomes so that he did not get AIDS?
Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t Pope Benedict say a while back that condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS?

The pope would have preferred Glaser did not have sex but if sex was definitely going to happen anyway then the pope now regards it as wise to wear a condom.

 

[wanner47]

It’s time for Catholicism to adopt a new policy in line with reason, compassion, good health, responsibility, and family happiness.

Catholicism already has. Society hasn’t. That’s the problem. I would rather follow Christ and His Church than do what society tells me I need to do to be happy. And I am MUCH happier as a chaste, NFP-using Catholic than I was as a less chaste, contracepting Lutheran.

Also, as a general comment, anyone who says a woman “could insist” that a rapist uses a condom is ridiculously naive. A rape victim cannot make demands of her rapist.
Rape is about power, not sex, and if a woman were to “insist” on a condom, he would refuse because it would mean relinquishing power.

Most rapists use condoms because they don’t want to leave DNA behind, not because they are concerned about their victim. That’s why the Pope used a prostitute, not a rapist, in his example.

 

[losh14]

Most rapists use condoms because they don’t want to leave DNA behind, not because they are concerned about their victim. That’s why the Pope used a prostitute, not a rapist, in his example.

That’s a careful nuance but a very important one to point out.

The more I think of it, the more I remember that Benedict is very academic. He likes to talk theory first and illustrate with concrete examples, which is a good teaching method. Here, though, the reaction has seemed to focus too much on the example - when we have evangelical talk shows saying “The Pope says homosexuality is okay!” we’re missing the point. I think ultimately the Vatican is just going to stop commenting on this, other than possibly issue a directive that reaffirms the stance against contraception, against homosexual activity, and against sex outside of marriage.

 

[losh14]

Yorkshireman, the Pope didn’t address any of these but we can think about them.

Yes I get that but the Pope recognises sometimes people are just going to have sex. He would prefer in that circumstance, if one of the 2 has HIV, that the man wears a condom. To save lives.*

He called this the ‘beginning of morality’ - the recognition that grave harm can occur and can be prevented. I wonder if he used the example of a male prostitute simply because it is a less common example, and it’s also sufficiently distinct from a married couple. Consider that there’s no possible contraception here (since homosexual sex is not procreative), and that there may not be true freedom in this situation. In some less-developed nations, the Church has to contend against sexual slavery, and a male enslaved into prostitution in, say, the Phillippines, is more common than any of us would like to think. Using this as an example is distinct from a fully consensual situation - say a marriage - and avoids confusing the good of preventing infection with the evil of contracepting. Based on it being the ‘beginning of morality’ it’s not the entirety of the story. It’s not ‘good’ but rather ‘less evil’.

If a man gives his word of honour that he doesn’t have HIV is the woman obliged to have sex without a condom to have a chance of a baby

He doesn’t address this, and I don’t have a 100% certain answer here. On the one hand, in a consensual situation we are not to have sex anyway, so the issue of a condom should not arise. On the other hand, some would argue that using a condom is less evil than getting an abortion. That said, I am still amazed that people have sex expecting that pregnancy won’t result - and want to take drastic action when it does.

(before you say it I know they’re not supposed to have sex outside of marriage but this is another example where sex is definitely going to happen anyway.)

I want to say “we’re not animals, we can control our sex drives” but people don’t exercise that control. So I hate to face arguments of “it’s going to happen anyway” because I know we’re better than that, but in a practical sense people don’t live better than that. So despite everything, people have unprotected sex - or even poorly-protected sex (the only thing worse than hearing a condom snap is hearing it snap while you’re both drunk and can’t think clearly enough to know what to do about it) and end up in terrible situations with abortions or marriages that shouldn’t happen, all of which could be avoided if we just kept our pants on. Yes, I know sex feels really good. That pleasure isn’t worth the consequences - temporal as well as eternal.

Also, if sex is definitely going to happen, can a woman insist on a condom to protect herself if the man has another STD apart from HIV? After all, some STDs can ruin a woman’s fertility. *

Let’s apply the Pope’s very short and incomplete answer. Using a condom is the beginning of morality for the man. I’m not sure what it is for the woman - who for some reason wants to put herself at risk of getting infected with a fertility-destroying STD. I know people don’t think rationally in these situations, but a simple thought of “Gee, you’re so hot, but why don’t you take some antibiotics and call me next week so maybe I can have kids later when you dump me two months from now because you hooked up with someone else.”

So if the condom is the beginning of morality, what’s the next step? What about treatment (where treatment exists)? It’s entirely asinine to keep having sex when you have a treatable and infectious STD, and I can’t think of any morally good situation that would require it. Going back to why the Pope used the example of a prostitute - this is someone who derives a living from sex. There’s not the same freedom to abstain as there is for someone who isn’t a sex worker.

If the example were of a husband and wife - say the husband contracts HIV from a needle-stick because he’s a doctor and he works in the ER - would the husband really want to put his wife’s life at risk? No, he would think of his wife’s life, this person whom he loves more than anyone else, and he would think of how to take care of his family when he eventually dies. No amount of sex is worth killing the one you love. And even if he didn’t, would the wife let him make love to her? She’s thinking of the kids, too.

 

[losh14]

The pope would have preferred Glaser did not have sex but if sex was definitely going to happen anyway then the pope now regards it as wise to wear a condom.

I don’t know if this would have applied because there was no knowledge. The transfusion was in 1981, while Elizabeth Glaser was giving birth. They found out about the infection in 1985, but Ariel was infected through breastmilk and Jake was infected in utero in 1984. Given that they were still having sex at some point in 1983, I’m surprised that Paul didn’t contract HIV. I would be surprised if they continued having sex afterwards.

 

[wanner47]

Fantastic article from Fr. Fessio, who used to be a student of the Pope:

Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?

No. And there was absolutely no change in Church teaching either. Not only because an interview by the Pope does not constitute Church teaching, but because nothing that he said differs from previous Church teaching.

Then why all the headlines saying that he “approves” or “permits” or “justifies” condom use in certain cases?

That’s a good question. So good that the interviewer himself asked virtually the same question during the interview.

The Pope made a statement in the interview, which statement has now been widely quoted in the worldwide media. Immediately, the interviewer, Peter Seewald, posed this question: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

The Pope clarified and expanded on his previous statement.

So let’s look at the two statements.

After saying that “we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms…” and that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality…” the Pope says: There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality” (all emphasis mine).

That is a heavily qualified, very tentative statement. Nevertheless, it prompted Seewald’s question, quoted above. But let’s first take a closer look at this statement. The original German for “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals…” is “Es mag begründete Einzelfälle geben…”. The English here is a faithful, accurate translation. “Begründete” comes from “Grund” = “ground”, and it means both the soil we stand on and a logical foundation. There is some ambiguity because it could have the weak sense of “some basis for” or a strong sense of “a logical or ethical foundation for”. This is perhaps why Seewald asked the follow-up question, so we’ll turn to that in a moment.

It is important to note that there are two very serious mistranslations in the Italian version of the Pope’s remarks, upon which many early reports were based, since the embargo was broken by the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. (That’s another story.) First, the German speak of “ein Prostituierter”, which can only be a male prostitute. The normal German word for prostitute is “ [eine] Prostituierte”, which is feminine and refers only to a woman. The Italian translation “una prostituta” simply reverses what the Pope says.

Equally problematically, “giustificati” = justified, was used in the Italian translation of “begründete”, and arbitrarily resolves the ambiguity one-sidedly.

The Pope responded: “She [the Church] does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality” (italics mine).

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified”. That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end. Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

But the crucial distinction here is between the “intention” of the male prostitute, viz. avoiding infecting his client, and the act itself, viz. using a condom. Since this distinction has been missed in almost every report I’ve read, it calls for some elaboration.

This distinction, in moral philosophy, is between the object of an act and the intent of an act. If a man steals in order to fornicate, the intent is to fornicate but the object is the act of theft. There is no necessary connection between stealing and fornicating.

In the case of the Pope’s remark, the intent is preventing infection and the object is use of a condom.

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said. Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging. The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use”, though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

 

[ddarko]

Yes I get that but the Pope recognises sometimes people are just going to have sex. He would prefer in that circumstance, if one of the 2 has HIV, that the man wears a condom. To save lives.*

If a man gives his word of honour that he doesn’t have HIV is the woman obliged to have sex without a condom to have a chance of a baby (before you say it I know they’re not supposed to have sex outside of marriage but this is another example where sex is definitely going to happen anyway.)

Also, if sex is definitely going to happen, can a woman insist on a condom to protect herself if the man has another STD apart from HIV? After all, some STDs can ruin a woman’s fertility. *

Sex outside of marriage is morally WRONG. Once again, you are too obsessed with Condoms to see that.

For some reason, the society of the west has come to a point where they think Sex outside of marriage is a must. If someone is still a virgin at 25, people think there must be something psychologically not right in the person. Contrary to that popular belief, not being a virgin before marriage in countries like South Asia and South America is scorned upon and VERY RARE. And you know what, they live happier long lasting marriages than the WEST.

So when you start off with some kind of messed up ideology like that of modern western society, it looks like sex outside of marriage is OK. But that IS the problem. Sex outside of marriage is a GRAVE SIN. Therefore it should not be happening. Wearing a Condom or not wearing a Condom is morally neutral in this case. It’s like asking can I eat while having pre-marital sex. If you don’t care about church teaching on sex outside of marriage, I really fail to see why you would care about Condoms. To me, that just shows your obsession with the Condom and not a need to exercise proper human sexuality.

God Bless

 

[thomfra]

Contrary to that popular belief, not being a virgin before marriage in countries like South Asia and South America is scorned upon and VERY RARE. And you know what, they live happier long lasting marriages than the WEST. God Bless

What earth do you base this on? Especially given the much higher rates of HIV infection in these countries…

 

[Yorkshireman]

Sex outside of marriage is morally WRONG. Once again, you are too obsessed with Condoms to see that.

For some reason, the society of the west has come to a point where they think Sex outside of marriage is a must. If someone is still a virgin at 25, people think there must be something psychologically not right in the person. Contrary to that popular belief, not being a virgin before marriage in countries like South Asia and South America is scorned upon and VERY RARE. And you know what, they live happier long lasting marriages than the WEST.*

So when you start off with some kind of messed up ideology like that of modern western society, it looks like sex outside of marriage is OK. But that IS the problem. Sex outside of marriage is a GRAVE SIN. Therefore it should not be happening. Wearing a Condom or not wearing a Condom is morally neutral in this case. It’s like asking can I eat while having pre-marital sex. If you don’t care about church teaching on sex outside of marriage, I really fail to see why you would care about Condoms. To me, that just shows your obsession with the Condom and not a need to exercise proper human sexuality.*

God Bless

I’m not obsessed with condoms I’m just noting that the pope is now recognising in the real world that sometimes sex outside of marriage is just going to happen and in that situation with a deadly disease around it is better that the man wears a condom. *

As someone can be HIV positive without knowing it, is the pope, in situations where sex is going to happen anyway, in favour of condom usage in all extra-marital relationships? Again, I know the preferred situation would be no sex.*

 

[wanner47]

I’m not obsessed with condoms I’m just noting that the pope is now recognising in the real world that sometimes sex outside of marriage is just going to happen and in that situation with a deadly disease around it is better that the man wears a condom. *

As someone can be HIV positive without knowing it, is the pope, in situations where sex is going to happen anyway, in favour of condom usage in all extra-marital relationships? Again, I know the preferred situation would be no sex.*

Oh, ok. Well, perhaps the Pope should tell rapists they can go ahead and rape all they want as long as they use protection, because rape is “just going to happen” anyway. Or he should tell abortionists that it’s okay to kill babies as long as they do it in a sterile environment, because hey, abortion will happen anyway.

Sin is never “just going to happen.” There is always choice involved. Moreover, Jesus never condoned sin or told people that sin is “just going to happen, so you might as well compound the sin with another in the hopes of mitigating the consequences of your first sin.” the pope is the Vicar of Christ and is following His example.

What the pope said is that if a prostitute uses a condom, it is a recognitio that sin can have deadly consequences. It is that RECOGNITION that is a good thing, not the sex or the condom use.

 

[thomfra]

Sin is never “just going to happen.” There is always choice involved. Moreover, Jesus never condoned sin or told people that sin is “just going to happen, so you might as well compound the sin with another in the hopes of mitigating the consequences of your first sin.”

People will always make bad choices. Wearing a condom to avoid disease transmission is not one of them. It’s that simple.

Having said that, I find the entire “secular media" (although I’d rather a secular media than any other type) argument that the same people who chose to have multiple sex partners are looking to the pope for an OK before they put on a condom a little hard to swallow.

…But I’m happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Yorkshireman]

Oh, ok. Well, perhaps the Pope should tell rapists they can go ahead and rape all they want as long as they use protection, because rape is “just going to happen” anyway. Or he should tell abortionists that it’s okay to kill babies as long as they do it in a sterile environment, because hey, abortion will happen anyway.

Sin is never “just going to happen.” There is always choice involved. Moreover, Jesus never condoned sin or told people that sin is “just going to happen, so you might as well compound the sin with another in the hopes of mitigating the consequences of your first sin.” the pope is the Vicar of Christ and is following His example.

What the pope said is that if a prostitute uses a condom, it is a recognitio that sin can have deadly consequences. It is that RECOGNITION that is a good thing, not the sex or the condom use.

I really don’t see why you’ve brought rape into this discussion. Also the pope wasn’t just talking about prostitutes. They were mentioned in an example. I know full well the pope does not condone extra marital sex. He has merely recognised that when it does happen, it’s morally a little less bad if those involved use a condom to cut down on HIV transmission.