The Pontiff and plastic

So the Pope has finally spoken – condoms are acceptable.  Assuming he doesn’t backtrack and whittle away at this pronouncement in the future, what does that really mean for proponents of plastic protection?

Does that mean half the opponents to the Reproductive Health bill will now fall away, since their religious basis for objecting to condoms has disappeared?  Does this mean that those ridiculous litigants who sued the actor Robin Padilla, just because he endorsed condoms on television, will now slink away?  Will the reports we hear of parish priests using their pulpits to identify the names of condom purchasers, right in the middle of mass service, now fade away into history?

That would seem the most logical way the story should flow, but it may not be that easy.  Or guaranteed.

Just this week, more noises were heard from the pro-life advocates.  One was quoted in this paper as saying the Reproductive Health bill would, aside from the monsters of depopulation, marriage decline, and prostitution, induce a “constant longing” in couples to use contraception measures, leading to a “contraceptive society.”  I don’t really know what a contraceptive society is, except it sounds scary.  Which is probably the intent – to scare people away from the very idea of contraception. 

But it’s an interesting thought.  What exactly would a contraceptive society be?  One where condoms in every size, colour and material (so long as not lambskin!) are easily available?  One where the idea of purchasing condoms isn’t attended by stigma, embarrassment, or humiliation?  What’s so bad about those possibilities?  Unless, perhaps, the advocate was raising some nebulous future metropolis where couples pin condoms on their lapels as their sign of worship to the strawberry-flavoured God of Trojan? 

Of course, looking at the analysis of various publications on the pronouncements of the Pope hasn’t helped to clarify.  Apparently, the initial reports that came out quoted the Pope as saying it would be all right for a homosexual who had HIV to use condoms to protect his male partner.  In that already ‘immoral’ context, the use of a smaller evil to achieve a greater good (the saving of a life) was deemed acceptable.

Then, apparently in an attempt to clarify whether straight couples where one was HIV-positive could likewise use this loophole, the Pope’s response was reportedly positive (no pun intended).  So now both gay and straight couples could pop the plastic out.  Which leads us to the question, what if neither of them knew their HIV-status?  They just wanted to be safe, and deemed the condom to be their best bet?  Would they also fall within the loophole?  Or do they fall into the sinner’s category doomed to eternal damnation? 

What if they didn’t have HIV, but some other drippy disease like syphilis? (Or was that gonorrhea?)  Or, what if both of them knew they were HIV negative and totally disease-free?  Does that mean absolutely no plastic allowed?  They just have to use the rhythm and withdrawal method so favoured by the Church, or else?

There’s a lot of refinement and clarification still to be made, and meanwhile, the pro-lifers are probably holding their collective breaths, hoping not only for clearer direction, but that it doesn’t get any worse.  After years, if not decades, of staunch opposition to condoms under any circumstances, this latest missive is surely giving them heartburn. 

Meanwhile, for pro-protection activists, there’s more room to maneuver.  There’s now less threat of sanction or condemnation for distributing condoms at gay bars.  (I miss those days in Malate when the Library Foundation was handing out condoms and lube on the street.)  If the condom-pushers are accosted by anti-condomites, all they have to do is point to the Pope.   And say, ‘Bless you, my dear.’