I do not accept the argument that the value of an activity is lessened by being shared by the animals (see discussion on eating down below). I don’t remember stating that eros was the greatest human activity although I will freely state that Love as defined by Paul is.

(part of rational argument, a part that I admit I sometimes fail at myself, is to refrain from arguing against claims that were never made by the person you are currently addressing.)

I think it is offensive to speak of Christ as a sexual analogy. Don’t give me “everybody knows”. Everyone used to know that the highest human activities are prayer and contemplation.

I thought that everyone used to know that the greatest human activity was to love (and serve) God and that prayer and contemplation were part of this, much as when we love another human we want and should think of them and talk to them.

If it is offensive to use the analogy of marital love to speak of Christ then the Bible both old testament (Isreal is frequently referred to as God’s spouse) and new (where the Church is referred to as Christ’s bride) is offensive. The mystics who often used this analogy must also be offensive.

The fact that like other animals we must eat does not mean that we need to eat like animals in fact we often put much ritual and meaning until our meals.
Nor did it stop Christ from giving us one of the greatest of gifts in the form of eating.

Why must the other functions we share with the animals be automatically considered to be merely animalistic? We were created in the image of God with bodies , told to be fruitful and multiply, and God saw that this was good.

The ends do not justify the means, and the ends certainly do not make the means morally or even rationally equal. By the definition you use, total abstinence or even suicide are “contraception”.

Perhaps we’re not being clear enough in the language of our discourse. If “contraception” is defined as “any means to avoid or prevent the conception of a child” then we take an absurdly wide definition that falls into the trap I mentioned above. If “contraception” is defined as “a chemical or physical agent designed to prevent the proper workings of a healthy reproductive system”, which is what I intended it to mean, then it is quite clear that NFP is not contraception. Contraception, which I’ll call artificial birth control (ABC) for clarity, is aimed at “preventing life” either before conception or as an abortifacient. NFP may be used with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, but it expressly does not attempt to “prevent life” by allowing the user to have sex with the aid of some ABC thereby separating the procreative and unitive parts of intercourse.

It appears that the last part of this series will deal with this question. Perhaps Mr. West will respond to your point in a clearer manner than me.

Sabr.
It’s just silly to say that NFP is not contraception. I refer you to the NFP’s promotional literature which proudly assures the reader that this method is 90% plus effective. Did you think they meant effective in the production of an “immortal soul”? They’re talking about preventing conception– Contraception. I think you agree. The contraceptive mentality is equally immoral, whether artifially or “naturally” applied. So if you were using it as a form of communication or to become more aware of each other, or whatever other “felt needs” you may be so highly expressing, those reasons are secondary. The primary purpose is to prevent life.

Have you read HV? Section 18 specifically deals with your argument. In part, “But this is no reason for the Church to abandon the duty entrusted to her of preaching the whole moral law firmly and humbly…it would never be right for her to declare as morally permissible that which is truly not so.”

janinej,

NFP is not contraception.
– HV 16 specifically deals with this question.
– If NFP was contraception, Planned Parenthood would teach it pre-teens. Let me know when that happens. I can assure you I’ll see the second coming before that day comes.
– As someone who used contraception in the past and saw the light after reading HV, my personal experience tells me they are not the same.
– NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and in that case would be just as morally impermissible. When “used” correctly, NFP is really a worldview about sexuality, marriage, and responsible parenthood that is always open to new life. Contraception is a tool to have sex whenever you want, with whomever you want, with the expressed aim of always being closed to new life.
– The funny thing is, people who are contracepting and arguing against NFP always go to that gun first “NFP is contraception. They have the same end.” If I then say, “OK, well then why don’t you switch to it?” they will backpedal faster than you can possibly believe.

I could go on and on, but I’ll stop there. If you truly want to understand more, read Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage”, read the TOB channel here on CE, or listen to a talk by Janet Smith from One More Soul. It could truly change your life.

If you’re wondering, I’m almost 32, married 11 years and the proud father of 6 (10, 8, 6, 6, 3, one on the way). And before you say, “Oh, you’re the poster boy for why it doesn’t work” I’ll say that I want it this way and if you are using NFP properly, it is impossible for it to ever “not work”. Because even if you have an unexpected pregnancy, you were using NFP because you are always “open” to the blessings of a new child. I’ll add, also, that my twins were conceived while we were using contraception. We have no history of twins in my wife’s line. Shows you have much “control” we had using birth control.

What greater thing can a man do with his life than cooperate with God in the creation and upbringing of an immortal soul?

To deny that it can be the ultimate expression of eros is to deny the common thought and felt reality of the vast majority of humans.

Language whether of the body or speech is something best known from within.

PS there are a few distinct differences between NFP and artifical birth control…. this is not to say that NFP can never be misused but in truth the saying that the ends are not the means is a valid one. It seems to be a common failing in our society to assume that it does not matter how a goal is achieved as long as you meant well.

I have tried to get discussions going in the ‘Faith & Life’ round-table, as we had in the past, with limited success.

The only way I can get a debate going is by ‘piggy-backing’ on others articles. However the thread soon disappears into the outer space of cyperland and is never responded to again.

Is there any way we can get discussions in the ‘Faith and Life’ round-table? Can we get signatures automatically added to posts, previews of posts, as well as italics and quotes etc. in our posts?

The Theology of the Body section does not allow responses to posts. Can this be changed?

God bless,
Noelfitz.
______________________________________________________________
IN NECESSARIIS UNITAS, IN DUBIIS LIBERTAS, IN OMNIBUS CARITAS.
______________________________________________________________