The principle function of padded pipes is neither to prevent heat loss in _hot_ water nor to prevent heat loss in _flowing_ water. The principle function of padded pipes is to prevent heat loss in cold static water; i.e. to prevent the water (cold) sitting (not flowing*) in the pipe from FREEZING. Why? Because in freezing it will stop flowing and expand in volume; in expanding it will try to expand the pipe, cracking it; when later on in time the temperature rises, the solid water will revert to its liquid state and flow out of the pipe, which will not shrink back to its previous size. Unlike a condom.

But is was very funny nevertheless.

* When the tap is on and hence the water is flowing, it is very unlikely to freeze.

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said. Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging. The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Father, I’m not sure this example works. The underlying assumption here is that mugging is equivalent to sexual activity exercised apart from the goal of reproduction. That is exactly what is controverted, therefore you’re begging the question, “Is it ever morally acceptable to use condoms?” Granted, there are some who would see mugging and sex outside of marriage/reproduction as morally equivalent… but to assume so misses the point on why the reaction to what the pope said is so perplexing to the world at large.