So the Pope has declared that condoms can be used “In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,” which can be interpreted many ways depending on your view on the epidemiology of HIV transmission.
Given the example that he gave of a male prostitute, one might conclude that he is trying to confine it to homosexual anal sex which, whilst may not be considered politically correct, is actually the predominant form of transmission where accurate analysis is carried out on HIV transmission cases ( as opposed to places in sub-Saharan Africa where it is based on extrapolated statistics and generalised symptoms). However one assumes that he would not be taking that view as that goes against the widely espoused politically correct stance pedalled by the WHO, government agencies and the plethora of well-meaning celebrities which states that all forms of sex are equally risky in terms of HIV transmission. Given this, then a condom is acceptable for all forms of penetrative sex whether homosexual, or heterosexual, vaginal or anal – why would anyone distinguish?
I suspect that this is not the case – it might actually be that he is taking a stance.Could he in fact be challenging one of the great taboos that the paradigm about HIV, and what AIDS actually is, is in fact flawed, and the issue is around immuno-suppressive sexual behaviours – particularly with respect to unprotected anal sex as being the greatest cause of AIDS related symptoms. If the Pope leads the way in making this paradigm shift then his contribution to common sense will be immense.