In response to Dr Mobbs' latest letter, maintain my belief that failure by the Catholic population and clergy to receive, accept, preach and practise Humanae Vitae has led to the holocaust and immorality we are seeing today, to the moral turpitude which overshadows our society.
Leaving aside his claims about "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", Humanae Vitae is a document relating to the sexuality between a husband and wife, and a warning to husband and wife not to follow the ways of the world (sexual revolution) but to honour each other and God, especially in their sexuality and as life-giving instruments.
Abortion rates increased because the Catholic population also decided that they would not listen to the Vicar of Christ whose teachings on faith and morals are guaranteed to be free from error, and followed their own consciences on the matter.
They sought to exercise their primacy of conscience over the primacy of "Peter's" words. "Peter", to whom Jesus spoke the words, "Whoever hears you hears me, and whoever rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16), is not to be obeyed.
Then Dr Mobbs brings in the China issue. If God has no place in China and only the regime has a say on these matters why are contraceptives not used everywhere? Might it be because the people may be more faithful (even unknowingly) to the rhythm of their own bodies and do not want synthetic chemicals inserted into their systems?
Are the abortions which sadly occur a sign of how much these people want children and are forcibly deprived of them?
How do I know that Humanae Vitae is a document "emanating directly from the mind and heart of God"? My answer is because it reflects the unbroken teaching of the Church founded and protected by Jesus Christ.
My statement, "Contraception is a deception and blasphemy against life", is said to be an exaggeration. But the language of the body is meant to always be the language of love and truth.
Yes the body speaks and it can speak the truth of love (open and free) and it can also speak lies and deceit (contraception).
The truth of love which the body speaks is one of wholeness, openness, joy, peace and unity with no hindrance (contraception) to the receptivity of these. The body speaks and receives the language of love.
"Agape" love freely given is always faithful and fruitful. So to protect marriage from false love, it needs to be free, fruitful, faithful and total. No contraception.
Dr Mobbs' comment: "The practitioner may never have heard of God or does not believe in God" is also a case of clutching at straws. We are talking about Catholics who have decided that they know better than the Holy Spirit, "Peter" and the Magisterium.
Those who do not know God have the natural law and they in good conscience and good will can listen to their conscience (Jer 31:31-33, "I have written my laws on your hearts"). God writes on all hearts (consciences) not only on those of Catholics.
Contraception says no to God. It says: God, in this matter I know better than you.
Dr Mobbs, again clutching at straws, says, "Contraception has prevented billions of births so the number of those who could be aborted has been drastically reduced." Really? How would he know? Has he counted them? But what we do know is that 11 to 17-year-old young girls are implanted with contraceptives which then give them carte blanche to do as their hormones demand. Imagine, 30-40 years of oestrogen/progesterone coursing through the body of a woman increasing the risk of all forms of feminine cancers, especially breast, uterine and ovarian cancers. Not a nice image.
The comment about other denominations doesn't warrant a response except to ask how Dr Mobbs would know "that most practise contraception", short of entering their bedrooms? Is this more guesswork or another sign of dissent on the matter?
As for the last paragraph: "I find it hard to believe they are defying God and that they do not love their wives. Indeed, they may be acting in harmony with the teaching of Humanae Vitae, art. 13: 'It is in fact justly observed that a conjugal act imposed upon one's partner without regard for his or her condition and lawful desires is not a true act of love, and therefore denies an exigency of right moral order in the relationships between husband and wife'."
Who is talking about forced love-making here? Is this a further case of clutching at straws?
Vermont South, Vic