When an article from my "to blog" backlog, a recent post from one of my blogging contacts, and an article from the most recent issue of a magazine I respect all converge, I can take that as a good suggestion for today's post.
Jennifer Fulwiler writes the Conversion Diary blog (formerly "Et Tu?"), which I've featured before (here, among other places). This is her article in America. John C. Wright is a science fiction writer. It was his blog post that alerted me to the First Things article. Read his introduction, but don't settle for his summary of the article. Instead, read Mary Eberstadt's The Vindication of "Humanae Vitae" yourself.This is bound to raise the blood pressure of a number of readers...but very thought-provoking. I can testify from experience to the coercive pressures of the Malthusian movement. It was the Global Warming of its time: part valid concern, part bad science and worse economics, all hype and politics, but a nearly irresistable force.
Perhaps it will turn out to be no more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to blame so many of the problems that now beset us on the great sea change half a century ago in societal attitudes toward the purpose, meaning, and regulation of sexual activity, fueled by the availability and use of contraceptive technologies. But it certainly bears investigating, for those who can bear the thought.It is an interesting article, alright - but strangely devoid of any explanation of the theological backing against contraceptives. Do you know where that stance derives from? The article quotes Luther and Calvin excoriating contraceptives, but fails to even touch on their reasoning, which would have interested me a great deal.
If you search around (try ccli.org) in Catholic literature, you can find reasoning. Some Biblical reasoning can be found from the story of Onan. A lot of the reasoning that I have read makes sense. Though from their arguments there, sometimes their arguments for why Natural Family Planning is ok don't make sense. It makes much more sense to me to lean completely on the "pro-life" side (that is, desiring new life and seeing it as a blessing) than to be sort of wishy washy and say "well, children are good, but here's a 'godly' way to try to prevent having them."
Grr. I'm too late. Now I need a subscription to view "First Things" articles from the last two editions. It's a pity, because I'd like to promote understanding between future husband and future in-laws. Maybe if I remember in a few months to check if it's out to the public. Please don't forget how frustrating it is to want to try to understand someone's actions but have them do little to provide resources for you to research!
[placeholder] I do have things to say on at least two sides of this issue, but have been too busy enjoying some of the fruits of the "children are a blessing and more children are more blessing" philosophy to get a thought in edgewise, let alone post about it.
I'm tempted to get a subscription to First Things just to have access, because it's a good journal. We'll see. The main problem is that I hardly have time to read the magazines I get already; the second problem is that it wouldn't help my blog readers access the article. In the meantime, John C. Wright's post (link above) quotes a good chunk of it.
