Will Someone Please Explain How Condoms Work to Pope Benedict

In the blog post "With 'no condoms' stance, Pope molests Africa," in The Smirking Chimp, Theo Talcott explains his opinion on the controversy of Pope Benedict's recent assertions that using condoms does not prevent and even worsens the spread of HIV. The author has a secular and liberal perspective on the subject. This is illustrated by the statement, "The Catholic Church is unhealthy about sexual issues and needs to stop screwing up public policy." His claim is that the Catholic Church is wrong and should adopt a more socially responsible stance on birth control.
The article does not provide hard facts or statistics to support his claim, but does provide empirical evidence on the benefits of using birth control. This is shown by the author's statement, "An unscientific willful ignorance is the enemy of a sustainable world civilization."
Mr. Talcott provides the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, then explains the underlying reason for this, and then states the risks associated with the Pope's actions. His logic is simple and to the point. He describes the dire consequences of the Catholic Church's position and goes on to explain the benefits of using condoms.
I agree with the author's sentiments. Birth control and AIDS awareness are a priority for the global community and should be adopted by the Catholic Church.
The target audience is the Catholic community. This becomes apparent when the author addresses them by writing, "Dear Catholic friends, I apologize for mocking things you hold sacred."
I believe the author's statements are dependable. He describes widely shared opinions. However, as a blogger his credibility is not rock solid. He is relegated to the status of a blogger without journalistic credentials. Therefore, the content of his posting, though intelligent and logical, cannot be considered fully reliable by mainstream media standards.

     In Peter Scoblic's editorial for NPR "Obama's Foreign Policy isn't Bush Part 2," he attempts to differentiate between Obama's and Bush's respective foreign policies.  Mr. Scoblic is defending Obama from critics who claim there is little difference between the two.  He draws comparisons between the ideologies of Bush and Obama; he believes that Bush had an us versus them attitude and Obama is taking a more diplomatic approach.  He illustrates this point by saying "Bush and the conservatives around him believed that the world was divided into good and evil," and also by quoting President Obama as saying "In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun."  I agree with the author's arguments.  Aside from the evidence provided in the article, I believe it is common knowledge that Obama is interested in employing diplomacy instead of deploying troops.