I have never known of any that were not. As you say, if even Steubenville and EWTN are avoiding the subject, then who would that leave that would be providing morally sound guidance?
demean those who don't use NFP as savages or "providentialists".
Check out the post immediately above yours where Tax-chick attacks "providentialists" calling them "sexual gluttons" and lacking in consideration for the spouse.
Hermann the Cherusker: The shirking of the four children teaching by modern NFP promoters is the cause of all the confusion over this issue. If people clearly understood the traditional teaching laid out from 1860-1960 which I have brought to your attention before, that there is only a duty to society to provide for the replacement rate of reproduction (taking into account sterile couples and unmarried persons) plus some modest growth, this wouldn't even be an issue.
The whole NFP brouhaha is greatly clarified by sticking to the former consensus of moral theologians discarded by the anti-Humane Vitae heretics, and ignored by the "you must have 12 children" crowd.
5 posted on 09/23/2003 9:54 PM EDT by Hermann the Cherusker.
Maximilian,
Comments? Hermann would seem to come under the same criticism you level against TaxChick's post.