Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 27, No. 4. 1964.
"Rhythm" Method
"Rhythm" Method
Thus, a couple using contraceptive devices to space a family of eight children (to cite an actual case I know of) would be morally blameworthy, while a Catholic couple using the "rhythm" method to have a family of two children would be morally praiseworthy.
Within this context, then, the difference between the two points of view does not look to be very large or very crucial, and Dr. Rock's contraceptive pill looks at first sight as though it were just what the doctor ordered to bridge the gap between the two and enable us so to speak, to have our cake and eat it. I mean that from one point of view the pill is an artificial device, but from another point of view it is as "natural" as the "rhythm" method itself.
It is easy to see how the argument goes: If steroids can be licitly used to establish menstrual cycles of uniform length (so as to allow "natural" birth-prevention by the "rhythm" method), why cannot they be used to bring about temporary sterility in the female at will instead of simply having to wait for "nature" to do it? In other words, if temporary sterility in the woman is "natural." and if the artificial induction of temporary sterility is licit in certain cases (as for establishing uniform menstrual cycles), what is it that makes the artificial induction of temporary sterility for the purpose of preventing contraception illicit? Is it simply the intention for which it is used which makes it illicit?