There is never any substance to these stories. We are not given what the medical journal objects to specifically, what evidence they have that what he says is against science, or anything that can be corroborated.
Instead, on faith that this is a leading medical journal, we are expected to defer to their decision against the pope.
If the condom is properly manufactured, if people use them every time, if the availability of a condom does not lead to a false sense of security and more risk-taking behavior, if greater condom distribution and acceptance does not lead to more promiscuity in a culture, if, if, if, then in those theoretical circumstances the pope could be said to being unscientific. Like procreative sperm, the membrane of a condom decreases the chance of passage of the HIV virus and AIDS.
I don;t think that the pope would disagree. Indeed, if the Catholic church disagreed, then their objection to the condom on the grounds of procreation would be wrong-headed too.
but it is precisely because the condom is an effective barrier to all exchange of fluid, diseased or otherwise, that the Church objects in the first place.
In terms or population though, the laboratory conditions where all the mitigating 'ifs" are accounted for does not happen in real life.
The grounds upon which a medical journal might object have not even been addressed in the OP article, let alone give any evidence at all in terms of refuatation.
As it stands, it is purely political opinion, with no grounds in science.