... or is there something a little, I dunno, creepily patronizing about this?
Peter Steinfels in the NYTimes on Humanae Vitae hitting the big four-oh says some thoughtful things, but:
The pope endorsed “responsible parenthood”; but unlike his advisory commission, he believed that the poor couple who had six children or a disabled child had no more leeway in choosing the means for being responsible than the affluent couple with no children.
... stuck in my craw.
The unmistakable subtext is I, Peter Steinfels DO believe "that the poor couple who had six children or a disabled child have more leeway in choosing the means for being responsible than the affluent couple with no children."
That there are things that might be objectively sinful for the well-to-do but them po' folks, they's got be cut some slack, they can't be expected to live up to the standards of their betters.
Oops, that was condescending, I meant, "they can't be expected to live up to the standards of their richers."
Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...
No comments:
Post a Comment