Amy Welborn has often asked this interesting question: Why, if the American Church was so healthy prior to Vatican II, did it succumb so easily to the zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s? ...I like to think that the Church post-Vatican II is neither as bad as advertised nor the Church prior to Vatican II as good. The Church before the 1960s was swinging a bat that had no donuts!
The Two Sleepy Mommies wonder about this a lot, too.
...Feminism can be thought of logically in terms of what it purports to be: pro-female. For what is more pro-female than being pro-life since half of all children aborted are baby girls? [actually, more than half -- PM] And what is more pro-female than being against contraceptives which typically harm the female body? And what is more pro-female that proclaiming the fact that the stay-at-home mom has a more important job in raising a soul than a female CEO has in raising profit?
The other night, a local talk radio program did an evening show on some new implantable hormonal contraceptive for men -- it sounds a bit like Norplant for guys. I only caught a snippet of the show -- enough to hear the host (Chris Core, who is a convert to Catholicism) and the callers speaking bluntly about the health risks of the Pill! (Basically, "women have been gambling with their health for years with hormonal contraception, should men be taking the same risks?")
You missed the best question that Chris asked... will the parents who put their daughters on the pill do the same with their sons?
I was driving down the GW parkway when I heard that, and I found the thought hilarious for some reason.