Ermm, what the Church actually says is "no sex outside marriage". Blame the Church for many things, but the spread of STDs says more about your own prejudices than anything else.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967173.stm
It said the Pope's recent comments that condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/Aids were wildly inaccurate and could have devastating consequences.
The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use.
Isn't that basically the same as "no sex outside marriage"?
Please focus on the first part: "condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/AIDS".
The statement is wildly untrue, and makes the Church guilty of STD's spread.
Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?
It doesn't, but I think this is what happens in practice.
Her main concern was not for health problems but moral ones: she had sinned for sex outside of marriage and was repentent etc. When I asked if she'd "at least used a condom" she looked horrified "oh no! I couldn't do that"
The problem is that sex outside of marriage is a sin with reward; you get to have sex, that feels good. Condoms are not a necessary part of that act (I don't know of anyone who prefers them! :)) and so the sin is "easier to avoid". There is not necessarily a perceived reward for using contraception (at least at the time of the act). You can lose but not gain. etc.
Church argument: Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
I don't follow the church's argument, but crimes against humanity? That's just silly. So why are yall down-voting him?
I'm not a catholic, but you have to try to see it from their perspective. What kind of moral leader are you, if you say "don't sin, but if you're going to sin anyway, here's the best way to do it"?
To draw a parallel: Suicide is very very wrong. But doing it wrong will put you in a lot of pain and might handicap you - so we should make small pamphlets for teenagers saying "don't kill yourself - but here are some tips if you're going to anyway".
For someone who's not opposed to premarital sex or contraception, it's an unreasonably far stretch to compare - but I'm not at all sure that's not pretty much how they feel about it.
Specifically, I disagree with their interpretation of the passage about the man spilling his seed. It wasn't worth death because he spilled his seed, but because he deliberately deprived his brother of a child, rather than simply being infertile as other men who failed to father children were.
[edited]
Unfortunately, the message could be "if you are really going to sin, at least sin in a way that doesn't endanger yours and your partner's life" not "do not sin and damn the condoms"