The Pelvic Obsessed Media are going bat crazy over the Pope's "changing his mind" on the morality of condom use. No such change has occurred. The use of artificial contraception within the bonds of marriage for the prevention of procreation is always intrinsically morally evil. Sex outside the bonds of marriage is always intrinsically morally evil, so the Church has never felt it necessary to say anything about the use of contraception when it comes to adultery, pre-martial sex, same-sex sexual activity, etc.
What the Church has said about condom use to prevent disease is this: it is not a fool-proof means for preventing the spread of STD's. Only sexual abstinence is 100% guaranteed to prevent the transmission of diseases contracted through sexual activity. The only "change" here is that BXVI is saying out loud what common sense and logic dictates. In cases where one sexual partner is infected with an STD, it might be morally permissible to use a condom in order to protect the uninfected partner.
When it comes to making moral choices intention is vital. If you are married and you use condoms with the intention of preventing pregnancy, you are intending a morally evil act. If you aren't married and you use condoms. . .well, you are already engaging in a morally evil act--sex outside the bonds of marriage. The Church has never addressed the issue of whether or not artificial contraception is permissible outside of marriage. Why? Because sex outside of marriage is always morally evil. For the Church to say, "Yea, it's OK (or not) to use condoms if you're gonna fornicate or commit adultery" would be strange.
What about a case where a husband or wife commits adultery and contracts an STD? Is it morally permissible for them to use a condom? If the intention is to prevent the uninfected partner from disease, I'd say yes. We might even go so far as to say that not using a condom would be morally evil. Under the circumstances, the best option for them would be sexual abstinence, especially if there is a chance that a child might be irreparably damaged by the disease.
What about a case where a husband or wife commits adultery and contracts an STD? Is it morally permissible for them to use a condom? If the intention is to prevent the uninfected partner from disease, I'd say yes. We might even go so far as to say that not using a condom would be morally evil. Under the circumstances, the best option for them would be sexual abstinence, especially if there is a chance that a child might be irreparably damaged by the disease.
The example that BXVI uses to illustrate his point is telling: a male prostitute who uses condoms to prevent STD's. The Pope says the guy is showing some moral awareness by using condoms. He is already engaged in a morally evil business, so taking steps to lessen the evil consequences of his chosen occupation demonstrates that there is a spark of conscience at work.
Bottom-line: nothing has changed. The whole "Pope shifts his position on condoms" meme sells papers. Nothing more.
Follow HancAquam ------------>