i don't get it

Today I found a news article on encouraging the new Pope "to reflect on condom use" in Nature news, of all places! I was rather confused about why Nature was so concerned with Church doctrine, after all, I read Nature news to keep abreast of new scientific research, not to listen to journalists attack my religious and moral beliefs. I can get plenty of that elsewhere. I looked around to see what other sources had to say about the matter. A New York Times editorial, of course, was not the least bit afraid to publish a ridiculously aggressive article describing why the Church's stance on condom use is among the biggest mistakes the Church has ever made. I'm not sure I really understand what the Church is expected to do here. I guess they're hoping Benedict XVI will say, "Of course I condone the use of condoms for those engaging in illicit extramarital sex." The point is, how can you say that it's okay to use condoms, when you're not supposed to do what you're using them for in the first place?

I realize it isn't quite this simple. Yes, some people will have extramarital sex anyway. The fact that this seems to be such a battle suggests to me that those who oppose condom use are perhaps putting a little too much emphasis on opposing condoms and not enough on encouraging abstinence. Similarly, those who are making condoms available must make sure that this availability doesn't lead people to believe that they are condoning actions that are against Church teaching.