"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."In de Solenni's analysis, this means:
"...he’s not endorsing condoms. He’s saying that it could be the first step of a particular individual to realize that their action is wrong. His example of a male prostitute is very particular. The Church doesn’t believe that male prostitution is a good thing; so it’s not going to endorse anything that would facilitate the behavior even if it’s ostensibly with the good intention of protecting one’s self or another. That good intention doesn’t change the nature of the behavior itself."So this may not represent the major departure that some headlines have portrayed it as. The Vatican is still clearly opposed to condoms, but some may see it as a sign of progress that the Pope is prepared to acknowledge that there is any circumstance where their use may be acceptable. One interesting aspect of this is why the Pope has chosen to make these remarks now - is it an indication that a further liberalisation is possible?
What do you make of it all? Do share in the comments.