Sir, - Fr David O'Hanlon fools nobody by his emotive use of the word "contraception" to describe the artificial means of birth control and "natural family planning" as a euphemism for what is basically the same thing, i.e., avoiding a pregnancy. Both methods are forms of contraception. His presumption that I do not or cannot distinguish between spontaneous and induced abortion or between natural and assisted death is wide of the mark. He presumes too much. Of course, introducing other topics into a discussion is a well known debater's ploy to bolster one's case when it does not stand up to reasoned argument.
I fully accept that some so-called contraceptives are abortifacients, and that others cause adverse side-effects in women. There is also a contraceptive mentality out there which sees children as an irritant in the striving for the bigger job, bigger house, bigger car and the foreign holidays twice a year. I am not making a case for either of these scenarios.
However, I have to ask what is "natural" about spouses refraining from sexual intercourse at the time of the woman's ovulation, is a time when most women experience a peak in sexual desire. One is tempted to think that this is the most unnatural contraceptive method of all. I hardly expect that Fr O'Hanlon would have firsthand experience of this situation. I have!
It is worth recalling that the commission set up by John XXIII and added to by Paul VI on Population, Family and Birth had only four out of 65 members voting to uphold the Church's traditional stance on birth control. This commission consisted of cardinals, bishops, priests, social scientists, married and single men and women who saw, overwhelmingly, the need to change.
I rest my case. - Yours, etc., Brendan M. Redmond,
Altomunster, Germany.
