To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The shallow treatment of the Birth Control Referendum issue in Professor Karl Sax's recent letter leaves several misconceptions in the reader's mind.

First, "Birth Control" as commonly understood (indeed as defined by Funk and Wagnalls) connotes the use of artificial means to prevent either conception or birth. Birth-prevention, or abortion, is legally equivalent to murder. Conception-prevention is but a subtler means to the same end. Both forms of birth control employ unnatural means, and hence are against God's law.

It is only in the very broadest sense--a sense in which few, if any, would take the slogan--that "birth control" is not against God's law. Restriction of births by the natural means of continence is entirely moral. . . .

As for the much-misunderstood "rhythm system," the true position of the Catholic Church is not one of "approval" but of tolerance. While condemning all unnatural devices, the Church withholds judgement on this natural means. She neither approves nor condemns it, but does caution that justification for its employment must be strong indeed.

Finally, the statement that "the great majority of married couples" in Massachusetts practice birth control invites two queries: IF they do, why bother trying to repeal this statute? IF they do, doesn't the failure of the last referendum prove that they do so against their consciences? Aloys A. Michel '50   Andrew F. Burghardt '49   Paul Flanagan '51   Carlos von Bertrab '51   Carl B. Schmitt '51