Vatican II also promoted the idea that humans have free will, and must be responsible for their actions. A person (not under government control) still has the ability to choose. The whole contraception/abortion argument isn’t about license, but trusting women to know the alternatives, and make correct choices.

Unfortunately, this issue of acknowledging that women are free thinking beings who should be adult enough to control their bodies has caused the Catholic church to backpedal on the free will and tolerance front because those same women would not/will not conform to other arch conservative ideas of the church designed to keep people in shackles “for their own good.”

Anyone who argues that this planet needs more people(the result of Humanae Vitae, rabid pro-lifers and people wanting the church to grow by procreation (as opposed to people who are pro-choice and/or think the church has a good product to sell, so they want to join) has rocks in their head, regardless of gender.

This is malarkey- none of your measurements of the fall of civilization are measured! What is the baseline for lowered morality? Whose morality? When and how was this measured? Lessened respect for women- What? Women actually have rights and freedoms approaching men’s now. The coercive use of technology might apply to countries like China but it is not coercive as much as it is self-protective! Most humans realize overpopulation is a very real problem and we cant dismiss efforts to stave off famine and plagues as “big- brother is out to get us”
I think all of us 30 year olds know people who went from liberal to conservative once they had babies and started paying taxes. That is not vindication of a papal teaching.

As someone who sits squarely in the middle, I view the clash between liberals and conservatives altogether fascinating. I think the linked article is a wonderful read, and it presents some insightful commentary that unfortunately most liberals would never be open-minded enough to really think deeply about.

But….I find alarming the use of social science to prove some of the author’s points. I am well aware social science is the darling of liberals and secularists, so its funny to see it used against them, but social science can never prove that the introduction and widespread use of contraceptives CAUSES a general lowering of moral standards throughout society, a rise in infidelity, or a lessening of respect for women by men. They may be correlated, but causation is a whole other matter entirely. As an example how correlation doesn’t tell you much, take the example of seeing more umbrellas when it’s raining. Umbrellas and rain are correlated, but that doesn’t mean umbrellas cause rain.

The (seemingly recent) resurgence of Humane Vitae is really interesting. Humane Vitae’s broad themes are very appealing–much more so than the specific prohibitions on contraceptive methods in which most ground their opposition. However, when I look at the lack of well-reasoned theology in Humane Vitae (that’s not surprising given that Paul VI went against his own theologians), the fact that the weight of current theology is still against Humane Vitae, and Humane Vitae’s apparent contribution to the rampant sexism in the Church, I wonder whether the resurgence is on balance a good thing.

“a lessening of respect for women by men”

What a load of rubbish. Women in general (at least in the US and the Western world) have gained respect over the last 40 years. You need only point to the increased role of women in government and professional positions.

Places where women do NOT have respect are often found in religious settings (Catholic, LDS, and weirdo sects come quickly to mind).

Securalist you make an excellent point in your second paragraph.

I am all for the use of non-abortive contraception. My feelings on abortion stil stand the same, which is that once a unique human life with their own DNA is created (shortly after conception), that life has the same rights under the Constitution as I do. The fact that one body is inside another is moot.

The physical act of sexual intercourse may serve many masters, not the least of which is procreation. To bind them morally in a theological edict will create the opportunity to use human nature to predict the inevitable consequences and to view the failure to abide as proof of the edict.

It is this use of reason and theological expression of cynicism that I believe Jesus is here to transform.

Unfortunately, I think many people misunderstand that free will means being free to do what is RIGHT. In this case, doing what is right would be doing what is most respectful to both people in the act of sexual intercourse.

One other thing to note, and Tim’s comment made me think about it. Most women and men do not realize that many popular forms of “contraception” are actually abortifacients. For example, the “morning after” pill does nothing to prevent the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. It acts only to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting, thereby killing it. More and more, forms of contraception are aimed at preventing implantation in the uterus than preventing ovulation or killing sperm. Even the birth control pill now contains lower levels of ovulation-inhibiting hormones and higher levels of hormones that inhibit the fertilized egg’s travel and implantation in the uterus.

The pharmaceutical industry and the media have supplanted the term “implantation” with the word “conception” thereby conflating the two meanings. The industry uses this tactic to further target and manipulate those that believe life begins at true conception, i.e. fertilization.

The position of Humane Vitae was not consistant with the Church’s position on birth control. The Church has never explained the difference between putting a time barrier (having sex outside the period of ovulation) and placing a physical barrier (the pill.) How could the Church have a position on something that didn’t exist 25 years earlier - namely, the pill?
Her conclusions are in the eye of the beholder - no society or organization does more to belittle the position of women in its organizational structure. Its male employees are forbidden to even have a relationship with women.

1. A general lowering of moral standards throughout society.

I think moral standards have risen enormously, especially since the establishment of the US. The “classless society” and the notion that all men (and women, lately) are equal in the eyes of the state and the law is on of the most powerful engines of morality that I can think of. Let’s not confuse sexual chastity with morality. One can be quite capable of evil and obscenity without ever having performed the act.

2. A rise in infidelity.

I’d like to see how the numbers were arrived at. Infidelity is a pretty common theme throughout recorded history.

3. A lessening of respect for women by men.

The true arguement is really one of lessening respect period. That’s part of that equality thing, one earns it, not has it magically bestowed based on gender or social station. Except parents.

4. The coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.

I’m sure China will be willing to vacate that policy when manna rains down. Until then, you can triage in the womb or triage on the field, but either way, when the need outpaces the resources by the factors they are contending with, hard choices will have to be made.

“We are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential.”

I’d venture that Tantrics feel the same, but it is the kind of philosophy that only works for the hard-core believer or the libido-less. We can’t all be hard-core and if the Universal Church is to be truly universal, it needs to understand that it is working with flesh encased beings.