Sir, Unlike Peter Cox (CH 31 July, 98), I hold Humanae Vitae to be among the pivotal documents of the Church this century. Without it, or something similar, I doubt that 1 would still be a Catholic.The dichotomy between that
holiness to which all Christians are called and making love to one's wife with a piece of rubber stretched over ones genitalia in order that one may dump the seed of life down the closet, is stark and blindingly obvious.
I was very active in the ecumenical movement in the early years following Vatican II. I became disillusioned for two reasons. Firstly, I grew aware that many people on the Catholic side were only Catholic in the tribal sense. In reality their faith was far closer to that of our Anglican brethren than to the faith of the Church.
Secondly, I found the spiritual pride of so many Catholics involved in the movement distasteful. They seem to assume that it is selfevident that they personally have a better insight into divine
revelation, the mind of God, the movement of the Spirit and of what should enliven Christian people than Sacred Scripture, the living tradition of the Church and the authentic Magisterium put together not to mention the whole spiritual heritage of the fathers, Doctors and Saints of the Church.
An ecumenical meeting in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II in my parish would have attracted a couple of hundred people, the majority of whom would have come from the Catholic side. I revised the scene a couple of weeks ago out of nostalgia.
The meeting was chaired jointly by a charming Anglican lady vicar and a Catholic priest. The priest dissented from the faith of the Church at every possible opportunity. There were 27 people present of which only six, including myself, were Catholics — those who were truly of the household of the faith had clearly voted with their feet a long time go. The evening seemed in some melancholy way to just about sum it all up.
Yours faithfully, GRAHAM MOORHOUSE. Havant