I feel there is definitely, if not a belief, then a very strong attitude in Islam which is antithetical to science and indeed most new trends in society.

If you mean Islam as practiced by most of the Middle East today, I would agree. If you mean Islam as practiced by those in the Middle East during the Golden Age (as some call it), then I would disagree. And I would cite Stacy's argument as support for my position. You can't have even a stillbirth of science if you have a society that at its core is diametrically opposed to science. Just like you can't have a stillbirth if you are totally sterile.

I genuinely wish that somebody had attempted a response to these fair questions, because they were some of the first I had, as well, when I read this article.

'There's nothing about the philosophy of Islam that would make this golden age end in every possible world. '

I beg to differ. I feel there is definitely, if not a belief, then a very strong attitude in Islam which is antithetical to science and indeed most new trends in society. There is a saying attributed to Mohammed in the ahadith (generally accepted stories about the life of Mohammed) that he said that innovation (bidah) was the work of the Devil.

'Jaabir (R) narrated Muhammad(S) said, "To proceed: The best speech is the Book of Allah and the best guidance and example is that of Muhammad, and the worse of all things are the newly invented things (in the religion), for every innovation is a error and a misguidance." (Muslim) "…Every innovation is a going astray and every going astray is in the fire." (Tirmidhi)'

Now the argument will be made that this only applies to matters of religion and perhaps that was the intent but that is only one interpretation (notice how the phrase 'in the religion' is in brackets implying it is not in the original Arabic. Having lived in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, all I can say is that the attitude, even if it did only refer to matters of belief, has bled out into all corners of Islamic societies and infected the mentality so that a truly horrendous conservatism has retarded and continues to retard Arab in particular, and to a somewhat lesser degree, all such societies. The Arab conquests were swift and so for many years the rich cake of intermixed cultures (not yet completely controlled by Islam) brought about the so-called 'Islamic' Golden Age'. But after a few centuries passed, once the majority of the population became Moslem, the rot set in and those societies stagnated and still do so today. We can see this in the failure of the so-called Arab Spring where they promptly exchanged Islamic tyrannies for secular ones.

You are saying that the social sciences are saying there has *not* been a huge increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases since the time Paul VI wrote?

I am saying that if you want to claim "huge increases" in all of these things, first, you have to cite statistics, and second, you have to provide some evidence that contraception is responsible. You also have to account for variations and changes in statistics, such as the fact that while abortions are higher than they were (in the United States) since when Humanae Vitae was written (before Roe v Wade!), they have been declining for thirty years. If contraceptives cause the abortion rate to increase, why has it been declining for decades?

Exactly how do contraceptives cause the divorce rate to go up? I have seen arguments that contraception does have some effect on the divorce rate, but is the divorce rate the result of the pill? How does contraception cause or lead to divorce? And is the only social change that has taken place in the last fifty years the use of contraceptives? What about the women's movement? More women in the workforce? More women than men earning college degrees?

And exactly how do you pin increases in out-of-wedlock births and abortions on contraception? On the one hand, people blame the extremely low birth rate on contraception (it works too well!) and also blame increases in out-of-wedlock births and abortions on contraception (it is ineffective!).

David, you are not really focusing on her argument. The part about teenagers is only a minor part of it.

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would "lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." That there has been a widespread decline in morality, especially sexual morality, in the last 25 years, is very difficult to deny. The increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases should convince any skeptic that sexual morality is not the strong suit of our age.

There is no question that contraception is behind much of this trouble. Contraception has made sexual activity a much more popular option that it was when the fear of pregnancy deterred a great number of young men and women from engaging in premarital sexual intercourse. The availability of contraception has led them to believe that they can engage in premarital sexual activity "responsibly." But teenagers are about as responsible in their use of contraception as they are in all other phases of their lives--such as making their beds, cleaning their rooms and getting their homework done on time.

You are saying that the social sciences are saying there has *not* been a huge increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases since the time Paul VI wrote?

Do you really need statistical evidence that American teenagers are having premarital sex at far higher rates than in the 1950s?

It never hurts to have statistics. What "everybody knows" is not necessarily the truth.

In any case, it was not Janet Smith's contention that the pope predicted teens in the second decade of the 21st century would be having premarital sex at a higher rate than in the 1950s. I repeat here her contention:

The availability of contraception has led them to believe that they can engage in premarital sexual activity "responsibly." But teenagers are about as responsible in their use of contraception as they are in all other phases of their lives--such as making their beds, cleaning their rooms and getting their homework done on time.

The facts show she is wrong about this. Her implication, as I understand it, is that contraception actually increases problems like unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases because, having contraceptives, people have a feeling that they are protected, motivating them to have more sex. However, they don't use contraception consistently and correctly, leading to consequences worse than if they had no contraceptives and had less sex for fear of negative consequences. The statistics in the article indicate that is false.

What, exactly, has been the impact of the pill and other, more modern, contraceptives developed since the 1960s? I don't think Humanae Vitae gives us any significant hints. But there is a wealth of social science research on the subject, none of which is ever cited by people claiming the pope made accurate predictions.

I don't think you read the "news story" carefully enough. The zinger this Planned Parenthood advocate ended with was,

Public health groups in the state are largely in agreement: ignoring the fact that teens are having sex is not as effective as giving them access to contraception.

Do you really need statistical evidence that American teenagers are having premarital sex at far higher rates than in the 1950s?

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Or perhaps a man whose wife uses NFP will, because of the more limited opportunities to have sex, be more inclined to assert his desires regardless of how she feels about it. It's easy to invent stories on either side.

It's also possible that relationships between real men and women are a little more complex than these caricatures. Something the Pope might know if he wasn't celibate.

Interestingly, none of the "predictions" seem to be about what impact contraception will have on the behavior of women.

A quote from Jennifer Worth's third book on being a midwife in the East End of London

The advent of the Pill in 1963 brought an end to it altogether. Women, for the first time in history, had control over their own fertility, and the birth rate plummeted. Throughout the 1950s there Sisters had delivered around 100 babies per month. In the year 1964 that number had dropped to four or five.

http://www.amazon.com/Call-Midwife-Farewell-East-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B002U3CC3S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1409698410&sr=8-3&keywords=jennifer+worth+call+the+midwife