[Polycarp IV]

Certainly. Now we must flog Dr. Smith and burn her efforts because she uses post-conciliar texts and documents. And I always liked her, too, darn it.

[Maximilian]

Now we must flog Dr. Smith and burn her efforts because she uses post-conciliar texts and documents.

Flogging and burning might be a tad excessive. But we might ask that she do a better job representing Thomistic philosophers by:
1. Knowing and using traditional sources.
2. Thinking logically.
3. Presenting the truth of Catholic doctrine and not something designed to appeal to her audiences.
4. Offering a truly Catholic alternative to the prevailing contraceptive mentality.

Let me add in her defense that on point 4 she made a lot of progress in the talk I heard. She greatly de-emphasized NFP and strongly encouraged large families.

[old and tired]

Now we must flog Dr. Smith and burn her efforts because she uses post-conciliar texts and documents

I don't really think that's fair.

I seriously wonder if saying things like (contraceptors) resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives, and they turn to the solution of abortion makes her lose all credibility.

Think about how many couples you know who were surprised by a new life. Are their children really loved less?

I know there are many who disagree, but I think if NFP is to be discussed at all, it should only be in a religious context. There is no point to giving non-religious reasons why NFP is better than condoms, because nobody can go inside a marriage and deem one couple's motivations pure and another's selfish without first defining God's wishes for the couple.