sex out of wedlock with condoms is ok where health is concerned
That is the one assumption I cannot let slide. Here's why:
1. You have to know what types protect you from what.
2. You also have to take into account what happens if you put it on wrong, as well as put it on and then take it off and put it on again, especially inside-out. (There are some who are stupid enough to do this. I once heard a lady formerly from Playboy give an entire lecture on how foolish this is.)
3. You also have to be certain that it's a trustworthy brand (i.e., not going to break or leak due to being manufactured cheap),
4. that you and your partner are not allergic,
5. and that it will cover all possible areas of infection. (Hard to guarantee for those with genital warts.)
6. Naturally, it does not protect against either physical or psychological sexual addiction or anything that results from that.
7. It also does not protect against blackmail. (It is foolish to ignore that as a possibility; it always can be one, even if not always likely).
8. It does not protect against any illnesses that are transferred through the air.
9. It does not protect you from saliva-carried infections either.
10. Nor does it protect you from any infections you may receive if you are too rough and damage some of your internal tissues. (This is more a problem for women usually, since the tissues of the vaginal area are what they are; but any instance of fairy penetration can cause this to be an issue for man or woman.)
The way I see it; if you're going to screw up; do so boldly, so that the consequences will be severe and so the law can function as a curb. (Mirror, Curb, Guide - logic taken from Luther's Small Catechism)
Otherwise, you're spending 50 cents per piece of plastic to buy what could end up being false hope.
But I agree that no church denomination should ever be required to dispense condoms. The belief that "since they're gonna do it anyway, they may as well be prepared" is like saying: "since nobody cares at all what God says anyway, we may as well train them in the art of rebelling against his word like a professional, so that they delay the judgment and keep the cycle of deviance going longer."
To tell a church to subscribe to that is to prescribe suicide. Also, it's a lie. Every couple that has chosen to do what is right is evidence that the "wrong path" is not inevitable.
To say "don't do the wrong thing, but if you do; be good at it" is a mixed message that anyone with half a brain can see through the hypocrisy of.
The church should not be required to send that mixed message any more than it should be required to recant the teaching that "God is not the author of confusion."
To make the church recant either through word or deed the above declaration in scripture is essentially to outlaw the church and make its facilities venues for both the State and for the Sex Industry.
To let such a conspiracy gain any momentum would be a betrayal of the entire human race. Once a religion becomes just a shelf product, its value sinks to zero.
If indeed there are states or nations that are trying to get churches to fall for this kind of scam by reason of force or pressure, then they are crooked states indeed.
I'm not Catholic, but I fully defend the resistance of the Catholic church against this marketing scam. And I pity any congregations who may have surrendered to it.