The article is very perceptive and accurate.
The first mistake was forming a commission. The second was allowing the commission to come to a consensus, have that consensus signed off on by nine cardinals and archbishops, then wait TWO YEARS before responding with an encyclical that reversed the commission.
Once the commission's opinion hit the press, the argument was over. Humanae Vitae was, by the time it came out, an afterthought.
Once the pope assented to the regulation of births, the method became incidental.
Excepting that any sort of *chemical* methodology necessarily induces actual, post-conception abortions, is it not true?
In other words, even if we grant that "Once the pope assented to the regulation of births, the method became incidental", would that still not ONLY apply, morally, to the question of "NFP" versus "Barrier" methodologies?
In the question of "NFP" versus "Barrier" methodologies, we are talking about the matter of "proper regulation of births". That's a debate that is going to get tied up on whether Onan's sin was in his Action, or in his Intention.
OTOH, in the matter of any kind of chemical "contraceptive", we are talking about abortion-murder. That's a Decalogual issue... absolutely foundational stuff.
No??
As for the comments about the commission, I would have to agree. But do you agree with the outcome? Or, do you think they were right to give the subtle nod to contraception? I think it has been so detremental in terms of the decline of the birthrate in the west. I, along with the author, dismiss the myth of overpopulation. To me there is a direct correlation between contraception and the devaluing of the sanctity of life in favor of personal gratification.