On the contrary, I think it's rather condescending to suggest marriages (and other relationships which are usually included) must be "handicapped" without a sexual dimension). I don't see sex as a fundamental human right, largely because I don't think its absence diminishes, let alone threatens, lives the way the absence of food, shelter, healthcare or free expression do, and, intentionally or not, if we said that it did we would be strongly implying that anyone without an active sex life is, as you put it, handicapped. I don't know of a single country with programs serving public health by making sex available to those unable to get it on their own; on the contrary, rather than encouraging prostitution in the interest of fundamental human rights, it's illegal in most countries (in large part because it's often accompanied by infringement on REAL fundamental human rights ignored and trampled because of how much higher than is healthy sex is commonly prioritized). Sex is awesome, and I've never disputed that; it is not, however, vital, and the idea life isn't worth living without it is best left in junior high school where it belongs.

Meanwhile, discouraging without forbidding sex where it carries significant health risks doesn't seem unreasonable, let alone criminal, to me. On the contrary, yet again, it seems more unconscionable to encourage the false notion that condoms create some magically impermeable and fool proof barrier to both disease and pregnancy: They don't, though they are much MUCH more effective against both than is unprotected sex. Even if they never break, tear or leak and are used properly every time, if a normal man has sex with a woman 50 times (or 10 women 5 times) she'll get pregnant; in practice it's more like 3 in 20. How many women do you think would knowingly roll those dice, let alone throw STDs into the mix? Granted, the Pope has other considerations in mind (namely, the official Roman Catholic doctrine that sex for any reason save procreation is inherently sinful) and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise, but that doesn't justify going all the way to the other extreme and saying the universal right to sex means it should be encouraged even by those who might KILL others as a result, because as long as they use condoms there's no risk. A statement, even an implication, like that is far more dangerous than anything the Pope is saying about sex.