I just read this: "Theologically, he’s seen as a moderate: For example, Turkson has signaled openness to the argument that condoms might be appropriate for couples where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn’t, on the logic that the intent in that case is not to prevent pregnancy but to prevent disease."
"With Muslims, Turkson has encouraged Catholics to study the Qur’an as a bridge to understanding."
Link
An Opus Dei priest we spoke with regarding condom usage, said, "absolutely no" even past child-bearing years. He said you never stand in the way of Christ and His workings. I'll be surprised if this ruling goes toward condom usage. This cardinal concerns me.
The question of using condoms
for non-contraceptive purposes is one that has not been ruled on definitively by the Church, and thus Catholics are at liberty to discuss and defend different points of view, as I understand it.
An analogy would be hysterectomy for the purpose of sterilization (morally wrong) vs hysterectomy for the purpose of eliminating uterine cancer (not morally wrong.) Purpose counts.
As for the off-the-cuff remark about Obama, it's jarring all right -- wince-making---- but it does not necessarily indicate a political, still less a doctrinal stance.
As for reading the Qur'an? I think everybody should. It does lead to more understanding. It lacks a thematic, moral or narrative arc, as far as I can see: it's inconsistent to the point of incoherence. That helps me understand a lot. Not in a good way.
Keep an eye on Turkson, but don't leap to far-reaching judgments. (Though of course the Leap to Judgment is a major olympic sports preference for all us'n's at Free Republic!) 8o/