I'm currently reading Janet E. Smith's Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later. I was hoping to finish it by tomorrow, but it's a tough slog. It's not that it's a poorly written book -- it certainly is a very good book -- but it's a book that requires you to think, unlike that Stephen King novel I scarfed up in two days last week.
Janet Smith likes the Latin word, munus. It's usually translated into English as duty or obligation, but it also includes the hint that it is a gift (as in God's gift). It's a positive word, unlike the negative connotation the word 'duty' has. That word is very important in the following paragraph that seems to succinctly express her book (at least as far as I've read it):
What is key here for an understanding of Humanae Vitae is to recognize that to reject the procreative power of sexual intercourse is not simply to reject some biological power; it is to reject a God-given munus and all that it entails. The resistance to the procreative power of sexual intercourse that accompanies the desire to use contraception predictably involves an underestimation of the value of the family: to God, to the spouses, and to the larger society. Ultimately spouses must come to realize that to reject the munus of transmitting life, to limit the number of children they have for selfish reasons, is to limit the number of gifts and blessings that God gives them; it is to limit the gifts that they return to God and their opportunities and ability to grow as Christians.
She's very good, isn't she? Most of book has this sensible sort of tone (as far as I've read that is), but she quoted this letter written to the National Catholic Reporter, which had I been drinking milk at the time, I would have been squirting milk through my nose. I don't want to quote the entire letter, but the author of the letter describes her initial dissent to Humanae Vitae when it was first published. She described the terrible consequences to her friends who had ignored the Church's teachings, and how her marriage was in trouble when she and her husband decided to give Natural Family Planning (NFP) a shot.
Sad to say, I was past 35 when I finally realized the Church was right after all. Not the grab-your-sincerity-and-slide church of Charlie Curran, but the real church, the church we encountered through laypeople in the Couple to Couple League, the Catholic church. The Church is right about contraception (it stinks), right about marriage (it's a sacrament), right about human happiness (it flows -- no it floods when you embrace the will of God). It gave us depth. It opened our hearts to love.
Put that in your graduate seminar and smoke it.
*Chuckle* Beautiful, simply beautiful.
I left the following in Mark Shea's comment box, that should anyone come across it, it will probably generate heat. But I can't be sure of that, since that blog entry is almost 24 hours old (ohmygosh! it's stale!). The entry follows:
"No one here wants to legislate homosexuality as crime."
Gene, that's not true. I'm sure I'll alienate the libertarian sensibilities of over 90% of those who read and post here at Chez Mark, but I would favor legislation against homosexuality.
In an age where political correctness rules, I should be careful. I am talking about the second definition of homosexuality given at m-w.com: "erotic activity with another of the same sex." That is, simply, I would support laws against sodomy.
I would also support laws against adultry, contraception (including late term contraception, also known as abortion), prostitution, and fornication. And in case I haven't offended every libertarian sensibility here, I'll throw in pornography as well.
I sure that's all quixotic to many of you, but I don't see that it's in opposition to the principle and ideals of the founding fathers of this country.
After a successful run at GIGO, the soapbox essay has been posted here.