cormacburke.me.ke

            Your issue of September 21st has just reached me.  Your Political Correspondent, commenting on a recent Judgment of Mr. Justice Rory O'Hanlon which quotes from my book Covenanted Happiness, seems to question the propriety of a High Court Judge invoking 'Catholic theology' on the matter of contraception.

            Contraception, divorce and abortion are certainly major themes considered in Covenanted Happiness.  But my book is not a theological work; and I do not base myself on dogma, nor do I invoke 'Catholic' principles nor indeed the tenets of any religion, in trying to show how such practices, instead of contributing to personal happiness, tend to undermine and destroy it.

            The book seeks to offer what I consider to be common-sense reasons in support of this view.  Justice O'Hanlon seems to have been convinced by these reasons; others may not be so convinced.  But it is putting up a smoke screen to write off such views as 'theology'.  I try to give rational arguments to show how such practices militate against human happiness, especially in marriage; how they tend to dehumanise life instead of humanising it.  I would ask those who favour contraception, divorce or abortion to give their reasoned arguments why these practices do good, and not harm, to individuals and to society; to state what human and humanising values they promote; and in particular to show (again with reasons) why they favour the happiness of persons, instead of - as I consider - leaving them subject to growing self-centredness, isolation and unhappiness.

            May I add a lesser but not unimportant point.  Your Political Reporter says that my book "denounces sexual intercourse which is not open to procreation".  While I am not fond of denunciations of any type, this statement cannot be left uncorrected.  What I argue in my book is that intercourse, if contraceptive, is no longer capable of expressing the unique union of marriage, being rather a contradiction of the unitive meaning of the marital act, as well as a denial of sexuality.  I in no way extend my argument to natural family planning which, whenever called for, can be such a benefit to married couples.