I REFER to my letter criticising the policy of the Catholic Church on birth control (South China Morning Post, August 19) and the subsequent correspondence.
I acknowledge I did not give credit to the brave attitude of President Ramos in taking on the Catholic Church and pushing ahead with birth control measures. He is to be admired. However Mr/Ms Petero's letter (Post, August 30) seems to offer support for both birth control and the Catholic Church's abhorrence of it.
I pointedly did not mention abortion in my letter but just preventative methods of birth control, that is, birth control methods which prevent conception. Advocacy of these birth control methods does not suggest any support of promiscuity or sex outside of marriage, as Mr/Ms Petero alleges.
The letter from F. Galbiati (Post, September 5) says that the Catholic Church allows the rhythm method of birth control but not the condom, because the latter is a violation of natural law.
How that can be reconciled with the apparent acceptance by Catholics of modern medical techniques is beyond me. They are a complete violation of natural law yet even the Pope has undergone treatment when natural law would have decreed that he die.
Much of the letter from F. Galbiati was, in my opinion, religious twaddle and has no bearing on the daily struggle of millions of people to exist. They do not have the luxury of theological debate when they are struggling merely to survive. Most religious arguments against birth control are based on interpretation of doctrine established 2,000 odd years ago when every live birth was a necessity.
