I agree, the recent changes to this original comments are a major breakthrough. His initial comments were about male prostitutes which by the RC moral theology, could not be moral under any circumstances since it is not potentially reproductive. But the change includes heterosexual sex as well as homosexual sex, implying that another good can supercede the good of reproduction in sex. This is not just a small crack, it undermines the whole logic the RC position that only potentially reproductive sex between married partners is morally legitimate.
In other words, once a married couple can use a condom to protect one partner from HIV it implies that other moral values come into play in sex besides reproduction. It also implies that stopping an HIV infected fetus/child from coming into the world is a good thing since if stopping one of the spouses from getting HIV is good, stopping a potential child from getting HIV is also good, which in turn replies that not all acts or reproduction are good.
I'd like to see someone on the board, maybe Stefan, defend the new position as consistent with the old position, and as consistent with the whole RC theory of sexuality adopted from St. Augustine.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13