The Contraceptive Arguement

In this post and the many post that will come I am going to try to convince a very close friend that the giraffe outside really is a car. Your are very intelligent and a great friend and this is going to be really fun.

First of all before you read this read Humanae Vitae by Pope John VI here

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Instead of talking about the morals of this issue, I would like to first inspect the foundation. In the 1930's most of the beer in america came from germany (Anhieser Bush, Coores etc.), is it possible that proabition was more about germany, then about the morality of alcohol. I am sure that some people thought that it was morally wrong, but it is impossible to say that ratification of the 18th amendment had nothing to do with world war 1. Just the fact that the america entered the war in april of 1917, and then prohibition was passed by the senate in december of that same year provides the evidence of a connection. In the same way the feminist movement in the 1960's, along with the sexual revolution helped to strengthen the churches position on contraception. Even with all the political pressure from all these things there were still priest who wrote against this doctrine. Ask yourself this question my Catholic(or Catholic sympathizers) friends, If the Catholic church stated in this article that contraceptives were not sin, and in fact a gift from God for us, to help us to plan families better, would you believe that they were wrong or would you agree with them. Most of the arguements I hear are mostly based on the tradition of the catholic chruch, There is always more, but It is impossible to argue with someone that can back track to the catholic chruch, the purpose of this arguement is to make the defender of the Catholic churches stance step away from the "don't question the pope defense." which the pope makes very clear in the interpreting moral law section of Vitae. It calls for the other side of the arguement to argue from a more objective stand point. The church didn't release(or at least I can't find) any arguements or votes or such stuff about this issue, I assume to present a unified front.

However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church. Humanae Vitae

This to me shows doubt, and I ask my self if the issue was addressed today, would the church's stance on this issue be the same. I think it would be more of a discouraged thing then an outlawed thing. I will stop there for now and wait for the back lash of large words and quippyness, and the begining of a very interesting on-line debate, and since it is impossible for me to write a arguement with out being quippy myself, I will end the arguement by quoting the infamous Rush Limbaugh who says frenquently "I will debate this issue with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair." jokes aside much love, respect and encouragement to all who enter this debate.

God's best

Chris