**FYI…an excellent article on contraception…with the first Protestant actions on contraception.
**
The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
Mary Eberstadt
Copyright (c) 2008 First Things (August/September 2008).V
The adversaries of
Humanae Vitae also could not have foreseen one important historical development that in retrospect would appear to undermine their demands that the Catholic Church change with the times: the widespread Protestant collapse, particularly the continuing implosion of the Episcopal Church and the other branches of Anglicanism. It is about as clear as any historical chain can get that this implosion is a direct consequence of the famous Lambeth Conference in 1930, at which the Anglicans abandoned the longstanding Christian position on contraception. If a church cannot tell its flock “what to do with my body,” as the saying goes, with regard to contraception, then other uses of that body will quickly prove to be similarly off-limits to ecclesiastical authority.
It makes perfect if unfortunate sense, then, that the Anglicans are today imploding over the issue of homosexuality. To quote Anscombe philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe] again:If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation
in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a
legal term here—not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can’t be the mere pattern of bodily behavior in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition.
By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals.
Thus in a bizarre but real sense did Lambeth’s attempt to show compassion to married heterosexuals inadvertently give rise to the modern gay-rights movement—and consequently, to the issues that have divided their church ever since. It is hard to believe that anyone seeking a similar change in Catholic teaching on the subject would want the Catholic Church to follow suit into the moral and theological confusion at the center of today’s Anglican Church—***yet such is the purposeful ignorance of so many who oppose Rome on birth control that they refuse to connect these cautionary historical dots.
Below…shades (another flavor) of the Catholic logic/reasoning to justify voting for pro-abortion candidate Obama…this time on contraception
Thus FOX News host Sean Hannity, for example, describes himself to viewers as a “good” and “devout” Catholic—one who happens to believe, as he has also said on the air, that “contraception is good.” He was challenged on his show in 2007 by Father Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International, who observed that such a position emanating from a public figure technically fulfilled the requirements for something called heresy. And Hannity reacted as many others have when stopped in the cafeteria line. He objected that the issue of contraception was “superfluous” compared to others; he asked what right the priest had to tell him what to do (“judge not lest you be judged,” Hannity instructed); and he expressed shock at the thought that *anyone *might deprive him of taking Communion just because he was deciding for himself what it means to be Catholic.
(I saw this exchange…and Fr. Tom was quite courageous in coming on air…and Hannity for directly discussing it with him (but with a ton of arrogance about being instructed by a priest on the truths of the Catholic faith). Father Tom was not mean spirited in calling Hannity on the issue of being a “good Catholic” and yet rejecting a key teaching (sounded more like a doctor telling a patient that he had cancer and needed urgent treatment or he would die). The exchange immediately reminded me of a gospel episode…the Bread of Life teaching of Christ:
"This saying is hard; who can accept it (Jn6:60)…as a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him (Jn 6: 66).
And I pondered how many times have I quit following the Lord because his sayings were just too hard for me…for my pride to accept them!
Oh Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me a sinner!
Pax Christi
