HOW TO EXPLAIN CHURCH'S LAW

Press muddle on Council and birth control
PROMPTED by an exchange of letters between a French doctor and the Holy See, national newspapers in Britain are hinting at a possible shift of the Church's attitude towards birth control.
The magazine "Family Planning" has published the text of a letter sent to the Holy Office by a Dr. Suzanne Le Sueur-Capelle, from France, in which she refers to the problems of married couples in the modern world.
She argues that there is no difference between the permitted "safe period" method and artificial contraception, because "in every case the intention is the same". She maintains that it is against nature to confine sexual relations to the infertile period, and she appeals to the Church to "reflect again".
A reply from the Holy Office assured the doctor that the matter would be discussed at the forthcoming Council, and that the Bishops were well informed of the difficulties raised in the doctor's letter.
A Catholic doctor, experienced in medico-moral teaching
and counselling, has commented to the CATHOLIC HERALD US follows:—
There are no grounds for thinking that the Church could ever countenance mechanical or chemical means of preventing conception; nor do I see any grounds to justify the adoption of hormonal means (the pill) to this end, although this has been discussed.
There has, however, been a marked development in the Church's thinking about the infertile period. It may be reasonable to expect a new statement about it stressing the positive aspects of a controlled, rational and "chosen" procreative activity, in cases where the safe period method is warranted by medical or economic circumstances.
These positive aspects include
New hall replaces 'village inn chapel
For the past seven years. Catholics in the Nottingham village of Bramcote have been going to the local inn for Mass, but this Sunday they will go across the road to a new church hall which has been built at a cost of £7,000. The new church hall replaces a chapel in an upper room of the "Sherwin Arms", kept by Mr. Tom Gardner and his wife who are both Catholics.
Little Way Assn.
Mgr. Coonan, Senior Chaplain to Overseas Students in England, celebrated Mass in the chapel of the Sacred Heart House, 19 Cedar's Road, S.W.4. on Wednesday to mark the permanent return of the Blessed Sacrament to the chapel. The Blessed Sacrament has not been reserved there since the Little Way Association took over the premises from a community of nuns this January. There are now 26 students staying at the hostel. the virtue of chastity in marriage. Dr. Le Sueur-Capelle has missed the essential reason why artihcial contraception is forbidden. Intention is not the point. Sexual relations without the intention to procreate are not inherently wrong. as appears from the fact that they may take place after the wife's change of life, or in spite of infertility in one or other of the parties. (The infertility rate is 10 per cent.) The real point Is one that Catholics sometimes find difficult to explain to others. even though they have no difficulty in seeing it themselves.
The way I prefer to put it is that artificial contraception is contrary to nature because it frustrates the completion of the sexual act—in all psychological and emotional aspects, as well as its physical ones.
All human acts have a built-in purpose, and it is an offence against nature to interfere with that purpose.
The purpose of the sexual act serves the possibility of procreation. Nature, and nature alone, decides whether or not procreation shall actually take place.
The couple may legitimately hope, in certain conditions, that they will be 100 per cent successful in avoiding conception by recourse to the safe period. But they may take no step which interferes with nature's choice.
A relationship between two people, touching the mainspring of human life and the deepest source of human intimacy. is not to be subjected to artificial conditions.
Dr. Ls Sueur-Capelle raises the old argument that restriction to the infertile period is against nature as it raises acute physical and psychological tensions. There is only trivial evidence for these assumptions, and much medical evidence against it.
Moreover, control for right reasons properly understood and accepted, is fulfilment, and not frustration. Human nature must be seen as a totality of soul and body. and not merely in its physical aspects.
As regards the pill, it is certainly legitimate to use it to regulate the menstrual cycle. But I can see no grounds for using it to prevent conception because this would simply amount to temporary sterilisation. The very nature of the sexual act presupposes an intact system.
Bodily functions may not be interfered with, save where the greater good of the whole body permits the sacrifice of a part, e.g., the amputation of a diseased limb, and there is no other way out.