This month be the month of double-talk. Maybe its an outgrowth of the recent election, but if so it must be contagious. Pope Benedict has recently stated that if you are a gay male prostitute, its permissable wear a condom. This is because there's obviously no chance that you will interfere with the one legitimate use for sex-procreation in the context of marriage.
Well, taking that at face value, does the Pope seriously believe that a female heterosexual prostitute who becomes pregnant is not likely to abort her illegitimate child, in most cases well before the third trimester? He couldn't be that stupid, could he?
Worse, does he think the prospect of catching AIDS, herpes, or other forms of venereal disease-purportedly his reasoning for allowing male gay prostitutes to wear condoms-from a female prostitute is unlikely, or a non-issue, or somehow not as bad?
The Pope and the Church itself is finding itself mired in controversy-again-over this utterance, but this seems to be one of these statements that only pretends to be for general public consumption. In reality, it might be intended as a veiled message to the Catholic priesthood itself.
The Church is not endorsing homosexual behavior or activities, any more than it is advocating for or condoning unprotected heterosexual sex with female prostitutes. The Church is trying to come to grips with a serious internal problem here and can't seem to get out of its own way.
The implicit message here would be-we do not encourage you as Priests of the Church to engage in homosexual relations, which is a deadly sin, but if you must, by all means we encourage you to take protective measures, and as such the use of condoms is not only acceptable, but advisable.
After all, as embarrassing as it would undoubtedly be for large numbers of Catholic Priests to become afflicted with venereal disease, especially those which are for now incurable, that would pale into insignificance in comparison to the outraged reaction that would result if these same Priests were shown by their behavior to have afflicted some lay members of their respective parishes.
If a large number of said lay members were, say, under the age of eighteen, or twelve, or eight, now that would really be a bitch.
I have to admire faithful and honest Church apologists, like The Anchoress, who are trying desperately to wrap their heads around this, but I don't see any other way of spinning it. Granted, you can point to criticisms of the Church over this issue, but by and large Church teachings are firm and non-binding. Contraception, like abortion, is a big no-no, and Church teachings are similarly firm when it comes to premarital and extramarital sex. Homosexual behaviors are similarly frowned upon. The Church isn't big on wiggle room. I have never seen an excuse for abortion ever hinted at, nor for contraception. Now that the Church has suddenly moderated its position supposedly for the benefit of those innocents who might be affected by affliction with venereal disease, I have to ask one simple question.
Isn't a wife more likely to contract venereal disease from a husband who has had unprotected sex with a female prostitute (who if she were to get pregnant is far more likely than not to abort the fetus) than she is to contract such a disease from a husband who has had unprotected sex with a gay male prostitute?
Maybe just as importantly, is the Church trying to get ahead of yet another scandal that might be brewing in its future?
