Sunday, 07/27/08

John L. Allen Jr, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter and author of "The Rise of Benedict XVI", in the paper of record today:

In a nutshell, [1968 papal encyclical] "Humanae Vitae" held that the twin functions of marriage -- to foster love between the partners and to be open to children -- are so closely related as to be inseparable. In practice, that meant a resounding no to the pill.

The encyclical quickly became seen, both in the secular world and in liberal Catholic circles, as the papacy's Waterloo. It was so out of sync with the hopes and desires of the Catholic rank and file that it simply could not stand.

And in some ways, it didn't. Today polls show that Catholics, at least in the West, dissent from the teaching on birth control, often by majorities exceeding 80 percent.

But at the official level, Catholicism's commitment to "Humanae Vitae" is more solid than ever.

[...]

Advocates of the encyclical draw assurance from the declining fertility rates across the developed world, especially in Europe. No country in Europe has a fertility rate above 2.1, the number of children each woman needs to have by the end of her child-bearing years to keep a population stable.

Emphasis mine. Given the Times' copyediting standards, is it unfair to think that this isn't just a Freudian slip, and that to be the sort of Catholic who believes Humanae Vitae was correctly argued, you also have to misunderstand the difference between population averages, and the reproductive responsibility of "each woman"? Even when the number is expressed fractionally?

No, probably not, but between the copyeditors and Mr. Allen, there's still enough egg on faces to feed a good Catholic family breakfast for a week. 11:40AM «

Bits pushed by Movable Type