Wrapping It for Christ

When I was a kid,condoms were called prophylactics; prophylactics were called rubbers; and rubbers were called scumbags. My friends and I would find used scumbags in vacant lots and alleys. Once I found a package of unused prophylactics in my father's sock drawer. Of the original dozen, nine were left. Each was tightly rolled, bound by what looked like a miniature cigar band. I selected one, took the band off and carefully unrolled it.

There was a legend printed right on the condom: "Sold In Drugstores Only For the Prevention of Disease." Actually, they were sold for the prevention of pregnancy, which is a condition, not a disease. These days, condoms do not carry that message, and they are used for the prevention of disease.

The national $170-million-a-year abstinence-only so-called sex-education program warns that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission one-third of the time, despite the fact that studies show that properly used condoms are nearly always effective in blocking HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

On Jan. 19, 2005, it was reported that the Roman Catholic Spanish Bishops Conference supports the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. The very next day, that support was retracted faster than a foreskin in heat, with an explanation that the Church still believes artificial contraception is immoral. A Mexican Catholic bishop later went with the Spanish Church's original endorsement, stating that condoms should be tolerated as a "lesser evil."

As an adolescent, purchasing condoms was traumatic. I'd buy other stuff to avoid being embarrassed. "I'd like a Batman comic book, and this candy bar-(whispering) and a pack of prophylactics-and a tube of toothpaste, please." By the late 80s, there were huge billboards proclaiming: "If you can't say no, use condoms," but the Gannett Outdoor Advertising Company held off putting up those signs until after the Pope's next visit to America, which wasn't until 1995.

The Catholic Church is faced with an interesting dilemma. On one hand, they are opposed to condoms as an artificial method of birth control. On the other hand, they're well aware that condoms can serve as a protection against disease. A group of bishops once argued that any educational program that included information about condoms should also stress that they are morally incorrect.

Compromise is possible. They could manufacture theologically correct condoms, with teeny tiny pinprick holes in the reservoir tips, just enough to give all those spermatozoa a fighting chance. That's fair enough. But the problem then is that if the semen can get out, virus can get in. They might consider those teeny-tiny pinprick holes paired with little feather repellents bearing the message, "Wrong Way-Do Not Enter-Severe Tire Damage."