If our bodies are truly temples of the Holy Spirit, then is it irrational or heterodox to think of “each and every sperm” as sacred? Here’s a contrasting view of contraception and the zeitgeist’s regnant “public health policy”: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291514/pill-not-good-women-erika-bachiochi?pg=1

Best, Sed Contra

By the way, I thought I would point you to a great book by W. Bradford Littlejohn called “The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity.” This is a great little survey of the Reformed Catholic work of J. W. Nevin & Phillip Schaff in their conflict with the sectarian Calvinism of C. Hodge and the Princtonians in the late 19th century. In this book littlejohn points out how these guys had far more in common with Calvin and early Reformed thought and how Hodge (in his proto evangelical way) distanced himself from Calvin. There is also a chapter in the book that compares the Mercersburg theology to the Oxford movement (Tractarians) which I think you will find particularly helpful. All this to say, if you have the chance to take a look, It will prove that I am not a lone nutcase in saying that original Reformed thought was much closer to Anglicanism than the stuff that goes under the name Reformed today. Thanks

Todd

Nothing more has needed to be said about this matter ever since.

Has anyone ever noticed the fundamental absurdity of celibate Catholic clergy pretending to be the “authorities” on emotional-sexual matters, when they do not even do IT.

In every other area of human life if one wishes to learn and master any kind of practical or artistic skill one goes to a fully qualified teacher who has mastered the skill.

Yet in the matter of sexuality wherein almost everyone is confused and does not really have a clue as how to do IT with feeling-sensitivity, the presumed “authorities” on the matter have never done IT – that is mastered the necessary skillful art and techniques of pleasurizing and loving a woman (as described in the Kama Sutra for instance)

Very strange indeed!

But the conventional religious point of view which is full of puritannical double-mindedness about every aspect of the body, tends to keep everyone irresponsible, eternally parented, as if only nature in the abstract (not in the form of fully conscious human beings) can be responsible for life.

The notion of not wanting to “interfere” whether responsibly or irresponsibly, in the workings of “Mother Nature” is behind the common dogma relative to birth control.

When people assume full responsibility for their emotional-sexual being and presence in the world they will not have the problem of conceiving a child when it not desired. In a truly human culture almost all reasons for abortion disappear ( although an abortion may be justified for medical reasons), and the matter of birth control is removed from the prohibitive medieval context wherein you are automatically guilty of tampering with the workings of nature.

The question of birth control will thus not be a matter of whether or not to use such devices, but a matter of consciously chosen right and prudent use. Which is to say that in the context of a committed marriage relationship, men and women should ALWAYS use a non-toxic barrier method whenever they engaging in sexing occasions when they do not intend to produce/create a baby. Which is of course most of the time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290842/libertine-police-state-george-weigel?pg=1

And, in the quote from the Catechism: “giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses…”

Let’s say there is a small, non-profit soup kitchen, committed to provide food for anyone who comes through its door. The soup kitchen is explicitly Catholic in its mission, although it its small staff may include a few non-Catholics. Obviously, many–perhaps most–of the poor it serves are not Catholic. As a matter of prudence, the kitchen excepts only private funds–nothing from the government. Under the conscience exception, such a organization is nonetheless deemed secular, and must provide insurance for its employees that violates the teaching of the Catholic Church. This strikes me as profoundly problematic.

Who is the government to decide that such an organization is secular? The Church’s Catechism does say, after all: “The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is on of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God.”

A more hotly worded editorial makes a similar point here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-radical-power-grab-on-health-care/2012/01/30/gIQANB7XdQ_story.html