The use of condoms in natural intercourse is contraceptive, and contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Advising someone that they should consider committing an intrinsically evil act is explicit formal cooperation with that evil, and is itself an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act. Good intentions and dire circumstances cannot justify an intrinsically evil act.
The use of condoms in unnatural sexual acts is not contraceptive; its moral object is the prevention of disease. However, an act can have more than one moral object. This particular ‘use’ of condoms necessarily always implies the commission of a sexual act that has an evil moral object. So one and the same act has the good moral object to prevent disease, in that a condom is used, and an evil moral object in the deprivation of the unitive meaning (as well as of the marital meaning, since we are discussing extra-marital acts). So the act remains intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Again, advising someone that they should consider committing an intrinsically evil act is explicit formal cooperation with that evil, and is itself an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act. Good intentions and dire circumstances cannot justify an act that is evil, in and of itself, by the very nature of the act.
What one can morally do is to accurately explain all that is good and all that is evil in any particular type of act. The intention to prevent disease is a good intention, and there are some good consequences in disease prevention, but this does not justify an act that is intrinsically evil because it is non-marital or non-unitive or non-procreative.
Also, whenever there is more moral disorder in the three fonts of any act, there is greater sin. And whenever there is less moral disorder, there is less sin. But no type or degree of goodness in any of the fonts can justify an act that is intrinsically evil, nor reduce that act from a grave sin to a venial sin.
the reproach of Christ 