No one institution has done more work in Africa on health issues than the Catholic Church. On the other hand, it is against Church dogma to employ any prophylactic measure in connection with the act of sexual intercourse. (No condoms for you!) So much for AIDS prevention.
Are there really no exceptions, though? Let us see.
The Church views sex as holy only in the context of a physical union between husband and wife. As defined by the Church, that means sex conducted in a manner to allow for the possibility of procreation.
Sterile married couples are still considered possible procreators - one can't reasonably deny religion its miracles - and therefore can have licit sex. But condom users violate the principle at issue, because the deployment of that device renders the body merely an instrument for pleasure.
Don't laugh. The Pope isn't the only one who makes a plausible argument that there's something absurd about that. Even hedonistic New Yorkers were amused at the notion of an "orgasmatron," as depicted by Woody Allen in the film "Sleeper."
Still, there is the tragic irony: the institution most committed to providing health care in Africa also is the one accused by critics of being the most obstructionist in the fight against AIDS, a disease that condoms alleviate.
Even so, the Church is immune to no claim of human suffering, and it does pursue whatever morally permissible interventions it can. Consider its willingness to reconsider the use of condoms - heretofore unthinkable - in the narrowest of circumstances.
Presently, the Church is examining whether when one married partner is infected with HIV or AIDS, condom use might be permissible as a lesser evil.
Exactly when is this lesser evil exception applicable?
To trigger it, one must be committed already to doing something wrong. At that point, when deciding between two wrongs - the greater and the lesser - one must always choose the lesser, according to the Church.
The classic example is the Monk who decides to seduce women. Should he take off his habit to do that? Recall here that the Monk has sworn never to remove his habit. However, it's clearly the lesser evil to remove it, rather than cause scandal in the Church. Similarly, if a priest decides to rob a bank, it would be nice of him if he removed his collar first.
By extension, if an infected spouse is committed to having intercourse with his or her healthy partner, it is the lesser evil to do so with a condom rather than expose him or her to a possible death sentence.
Problematically, if the Church were to countenance condom use in that narrow set of circumstances, the public relations fallout would be substantial. Gone seemingly are the absolutes that the Church has long held sacred. And while some Jesuitical casuistry could grasp the new case, the effect would muddy the waters enough so that the laity would lose its grasp on the controlling principle at stake.
What to do?
The answer might be found in another area of Catholic sexual ethics. Specifically, there are occasions when the Church permits the use of a perforated condom - one with pinpricks in its sheath - in order to collect semen samples from married men without having them make love to a cup (masturbation, being impermissible).
Why not, then, allow married couples where one couple is HIV positive to use a perforated condom? This would maintain the sanctity of the marital act and the possibility of procreation, while very possibly reducing the spread of AIDS in Africa and elsewhere.