FORT ROYAL, VA, November 30, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fr. Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International, is calling on priests and bishops to “directly confront the question of contraception,” which he which he says is at the heart of the modern culture of death and the breakdown of the family.
“Contraception’s destruction of the integrity of the marital act—as unitive and procreative—has dire consequences for society and for our souls,” writes Fr. Boquet in a recent letter to HLI supporters.
“Contraception, in other words, is a rejection of God’s view of reality,” he said. “It is a wedge driven into the most intimate sphere of communion known to man outside of the Holy Sacrament of the Mass. It is a degrading poison that withers life and love both in marriage and in society.”
Boquet quotes Fr. Paul Marx, HLI’s founder, who once told Pope John Paul II that “contraception is widespread, the rest is predictable.”
“Once you have contraception and legalized or widespread abortion, birthrates fall; nations collapse; young people follow their parents in the abuse of sex; increasing numbers live together without the benefit of marriage; adoption agencies dry up because some 90 percent of pregnant teenagers who do not abort keep their babies and thus start single-parent families; the prostitution of the medical and legal professions follows; venereal disease escalates; infertility increases; and, if you can kill before birth, why can’t you kill after birth? So euthanasia is inevitable,” Marx told the pontiff.
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
Boquet affirms that “we must, in charity and truth, demand that our priests and bishops more directly confront the question of contraception, and start teaching Humanae Vitae,” referring to the encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI condemning the use of artificial birth control as immoral. Humanae Vitae also warned of grave consequences to society that would result from the acceptance of birth control on a mass scale.
“Let’s stop pretending that by ignoring or downplaying this supposedly ‘divisive’ teaching we might find ‘common ground’ upon which to build some kind of consensus. We’ve tried this, and instead of a consensus on truth in a meaningful way what we get is a watered down, nice-sounding slog toward some kind of earthly justice, with ‘controversial’ issues being ignored,” writes Boquet.