Let me begin with a disclaimer: I consider myself a non-practicing atheist. (i.e., I don’t believe in gods, but I’m not evangelical about.) What follows is only logical.
A british artist has pulled one over on the Jesuits at America (a Catholic weekly magazine), buying an ad for a sculpture of the Virgin Mary in a condom (described as a ‘latex veil’). Many will consider the artist’s motive just, as he clearly does:

The artist, British-based Steve Rosenthal, said in a media e-mail on Thursday, “The primary aim of the work is to highlight the Vatican’s continuance of non-advocation regarding the use of condoms and I conceived America magazine to be the most suitable place to contextualize the work outside of the gallery space and produce a dialogue.”

Let me parse part of what Rosenthal said. ‘Continuance of non-advocation regarding the use of condoms’ is, stated another way, ‘failure to advocate condom use.’ The complaint appears to be that the Catholic Church doesn’t actively take an advocacy position on the promotion of condom use.
But is that really what the Catholic Church should be doing? Isn’t that asking the Church to cease being the Church?
Marriage (‘Holy Matrimony’) is one of the seven sacraments which Catholics believe were instituted by Christ as the basis of the New Law. They believe that Jesus writes the the New Law ‘on the hearts’ of the faithful, as he said in the Sermon on the Mount. It, and its sacraments, are thus part and parcel of Catholic faith.
Why do I bring this up? Because Catholics also believe that sex has no place outside of ‘Holy Matrimony,’ the greater purpose of which is the salvation of others (i.e., one’s family). The purpose of sex within the context of Catholic marriage, then, is to make more Catholics.
Incidentally, the sacrament of marriage is believed to restore the natural union of man of woman as found before ‘the fall.’ Catholics believe that sin introduced lust. You might as well lobby the Church to promote masturbating to internet porn: while most of us see the difference, Catholocism doesn’t.
And so it is completely out of the realm of possibility for the Catholic Church to advocate any kind of sexual activity beyond that outlined in one of its core sacraments. To do so would be to deny the importance of its own beliefs. It would tell the fold ‘aim high, but don’t sweat it if you miss.’
That’s why we in the West don’t allow religious law to write the state’s laws (i.e., there is no equivalent to the Muslim application of Sharia). The rest of us don’t accept the Catholic sacraments, and we don’t need the help of those who do in order to address issues outside their highly restrictive moral code. Our answer is condoms; their answer is not to have sex, and they can’t have any other.
Which explains the title of this post: the imagery of the condom on the Virgin Mary was meant to convey something quite different, but I think it’s best interpreted as symbolizing an attempt by non-Catholics (or even Catholics who defy or misunderstand the sacraments) to suffocate the Church by removing its most sacred beliefs.
What goes for ‘offensive’ TV goes also for churches: ‘If you don’t like it, change the channel.’ If you don’t accept a church’s beliefs, don’t join it.
None of this, however, addresses what might be a legitimate issue, and that’s whether the Church contributes to the spread of disease by actively opposing those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world.
Is that the case, and if so what do you do about it?