Note this evolution:

From the headline

"Most Catholics disagree with church's stand on birth control"

to the first line:

"Most Texas Catholics disagree with the church's position on birth control"
francis | 06.02.05 - 6:15 am | #

I was actually surprised that *only* 74% of Catholics disagree about birth control. I guess the Natural Family Planning promoters are getting the word out in Texas!
Jane Lebak | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 6:52 am | #

Greg Popcak pointed that out recently on HMS Blog. In fact, if you put together all the Catholics - minority though they are - who do agree with the Church's teaching, you end up with a group of people who outnumber several major Protestant denominations.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 7:44 am | #

I have a thought, tho' I am but a krazy Protestant kid.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that every marital act should be open to conception. Natural family planning is allowed, because while practicioners are reducing the chance of conception, it still can occur.

The problem is, it does, far too often. This results in more Catholics (a good thing for the Church).

However, it may not be a good thing for the children thusly conceived, or the families they are conceived into. Maggie Sanger many have said some nasty stuff, but her commentary about families with 11 kids who can only afford to feed 5 is really not up for debate.

So, a modest proposal. Every Roman Catholic couple who practices natural family planning and winds up with an umplanned pregnancy should present themselves at the local rectory, tax returns and copies of all bills in hand. They should say: "Father, we did as you taught us, but we now have 6 children and can only feed three. We love all our kids. The Church is so wealthy and we are so poor. Will you help us feed, clothe and shelter our family?"

If enough people did this, I wonder how long it would be before the next encyclical stating that the poor are called to abstinence within marriage?
joe | 06.02.05 - 8:35 am | #

Disagreeing with the Catholic Church's teaching on non-NFP birth control does not boil down to choosing between the Pope and Margaret Sanger. That's a huge over-simplification.

There are many thoughtful, good, holy Catholics who have studied the Church's teaching on BC over the years and who have found it seriously lacking in consistacy and logic. There are also many Catholics who disagree with the Church's teaching on BC and who do not use hormonal contraception for pro-life reasons. There are many good, holy Catholics who use non-NFP birth control more prayerfully and responsibly than some Catholics who use NFP.

Please don't generalize and over-simplify in an attempt to demonize people you don't know and whose reasons for disagreement and/or beliefs you are not familiar with.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 9:09 am | #

Ugh! No! This is outright silly!

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. There is no 'majority rule.' I like the saying, "The truth is still true, even if everyone denies it.

This is outrageous! I'll take that survey with a few grains of salt.

Also, to the posters who mention NFP, birth control and Catholic teaching: read this.
Jeff | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 9:29 am | #

Joe,

How many families do you know, Catholic or otherwise, who have 11 kids? How many of those can't afford to feed them all? I am not saying this is never the case, but I think you may be overstating things.

Also, NFP, if practiced correctly, does work. My wife and I have been married for 12 years, we have 3 biological daughters and are adopting a son from Ethiopia. We have been using NFP for the majority of our married life. It is not always easy, but it does work. We probably will not have any more children after adopting. It won't always be easy, but we will continue to use NFP.
Dan Jasmin | 06.02.05 - 9:29 am | #

Nope, it's not a democracy. But it's not a military dictatorship, either, and membership is strictly voluntary, as are financial donations. When I see Rome requesting that all those who do not agree with every single teaching 100% please refrain from putting their envelope in the basket on Sunday, I'll take all that "this is not a democracy!" stuff seriously.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to God, not the Pope or anyone else. So I'm not real worried about thinly-veiled threats implying that I must walk in lock-step with Rome OR ELSE!!
Nina | 06.02.05 - 9:38 am | #

Following Jeff's link, I got this: "Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20)."

Wow. So we're back to 307 AD, and if you have more children than you can afford because of following the Church's teachings, hey, that's your problem, pally! Don't ask Rome to foot the bill - we just give you marching orders.

Dan, I'm glad NFP worked for you and that you can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and educate 4 kids. (Bravo on the adoption too!) Some couples are, shall we say, exceedingly fertile. And for some of them, more than one kid is one too many, even if both work.

My point is, although the Church is not a democracy, they ought to finance all the kids they encourage to be brought into the world, whether by accident or design.
joe | 06.02.05 - 9:42 am | #

Dawn:

Read that article again: The "atheist" does *not* defend the RC teaching regarding condoms. Rather, he's saying that we can't state what the effect of that teaching has been with respect to AIDS deaths, but that the teachings on fidelity in marriage are more anti-AIDS than condoms would be.

And I would agree with a previous commenter that your comment "wondering whether you should heed Pope Benedict XVI or Margaret Sanger" is a bit over the top. Most people arn't "heeding" Sanger. They may agree with her, but there is no causality there.

That said, the use of condoms constitutes a violation of natural law, and a rejection of the teaching authority of the Church. And the horrific practice of abortion is the great shame of the West. If Catholics reject these truths, they should consider why they consider themselves Catholic at all. There are plenty of Protestant churches that think otherwise...
Ian | 06.02.05 - 9:46 am | #

For the record, I'm no longer Catholic. Took my sweet self, my husband, my kids and left as I was so often told I should if I didn't agree with everything all the time, no questions asked, just shut up, don't think and do what we tell you, thank you very much.

The point is that the automatic, knee-jerk reaction to anyone who uses non-NFP BC as some kind of racist, baby-murdering, selfish sex fiend is getting real old real fast.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 9:54 am | #

Nina, you forgot the part where they tell you to get out your checkbook after you sit down and shut up.

My family left too, when I was a kid. And when the Episcopal Church welcomes you, they aren't kidding. I've attended the same church for 35 years, and anyone who - as the current Pope did - tries to tell me that my faith is 'deficient' merely because it isn't Roman Catholic will get nothing but giggles from me.
joe | 06.02.05 - 9:58 am | #

Joe:

"The problem is, it does, far too often."

Are you speaking with first or second-hand knowledge of NFP "failures?" NFP effectiveness is 99% with perfect use. (I'm not talking old-fashioned rhythm method.) The pill has the same effectiveness rate, and condoms are 85-86% effective, 95% when used with a spermicide. Again, these are PERFECT USE statistics. The rate for all of these goes down with human error. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm not certain it happens "far too often."

And I'm also not convinced that a couple who is faithfully practicing NFP would have the attitude you express about asking the church to care for their "excess" children. I know more NFP couples than contracepting couples, and the attitude towards a new baby is always one of joy and blessing, never regret. Is it hard sometimes? Yes, but that's what being faithful is all about: carrying your cross daily.

Nina:

My husband and I came to the Catholic Church in our early thirties, after having contracepted for over 10 years. When we learned the church's teaching about artificial birth control, we were amazed by its consistency AND logic. Up until THAT NIGHT, we intended to use sterilization as our future method of birth control (after our second child, who was then in the womb, was born.) It is not a question of disagreement but one of obedience. To paraphrase a recent Michael Medved statement, when you disagree with the church you assume you are right. When I disagree with the church, I assume the Church is right.

There's something to be said for occasional chastity and self-control - even within a faithful marriage. Our marriage has always been good, but having gone from contracepting to non-contracepting I can tell you that our marriage is much better now. It's amazing how good it gets when you hold nothing back from each other. How wonderful to say to your spouse, "EVERYTHING I have is yours." Baby #5 is due in September, and we couldn't be happier - not an "accident" or an NFP "failure." Just a blessing brought forth by our complete, self-giving love.


As for the atheist in Africa, he touched on a good point - why would people who don't follow the church's teaching on pre- and extra-marital sex care WHAT the church teaches about condom use?
Kristin | 06.02.05 - 10:07 am | #

Joe and Nina,

I am sorry you have left the Catholic Church who is our Mother and Teacher(Mater et Magistra). The Church proposes, she does not impose. I am glad that you had the integrity to leave if you could not accept what She proposes.

It is hard, I went through a time myself when I could not except what She proposed and I also left. By God's grace I have returned to Her. Like the Apostles after hearing Jesus teaching on the Eucharist, I had to also come to realize:

68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."


The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was established by Jesus as the means to proclaim the Gospel and administer the Sacraments to the nations. Once I came to accept this, I had to accept ALL of Her teachings.

The Catholic Church is either who She claims to be or else She is the whore of Babylon. That was my choice, remain Catholic or else become an anti-Catholic Fundamentalist. Anything else, to my mind, was being wishy-washy.
Dan Jasmin | 06.02.05 - 10:12 am | #

I am Catholic and use BC. It will be left to God to decide if this will keep me from entering heaven, but I won't allow my decision to use BC to remove myself from the Catholic church or allow it to hinder my faih.

We all have to face God on our own. And may He have mercy on all of us.

To quote a line from the book, Hermit Bird: “But God knows. That’s the only thing that’ll ever save us. God knowing what we truly mean.”
Adriana | 06.02.05 - 10:14 am | #

Kristin, it's great that you have the resources to care for 5 kids. I'm sure that you realize that not everyone does, and rather frequently, those who do not are more prone to mistakes in using NFP. Not sure where your 99% efficiacy statistic came from. I have a failure rate of 2% to 30% (!!!) during the first year of use from here: http://www.rho.org/html/cont-nfp.htm

We are called to be Christ-like, not to carry a cross. Christ did that so we wouldn't have to. It's one thing to make sacrifices, and another for an institution to come up with an edict that punishes its members for following it. Every child is a blessing, but it's not unreasonable to call the Church to put its money where its edicts are.

Just sayin'.
joe | 06.02.05 - 10:15 am | #

Mindless obedience would be an insult to God. For me, it's about God, not men.

And spare me the my-marriage-is-better-than-yours-because -we-use-NFP-and-you-don't nonsense. You don't know me, my husband, or anything about our marriage. You don't even know whether or not I use non-NFP BC or not. I'm also more than a little sick and tired of the idea that my husband and myself are holding something back from each other because we choose to responsibly plan our family. We don't hold anything back from each other. And, on the same note, NFP forces the woman to hold her most sexually-receptive and responsive periods back from her husband, so

If it works for you, great. If you find the whole thing logical and consistand, more power to ya. Go for it. Enjoy. But don't assume that because your situation has brought you happiness,contentment and a closer relationship with God that the same situation will have the same effect for other people.

Marriage is not ever anyone else's business but the couple's and God's. Period. So to make blanket statements implying that any one form of BC makes marriages stronger or better than another is just way, way out of line. You can only speak for yourself. You can't ever speak for someone else on that topic. You just don't know, and you never will.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 10:21 am | #

Dan--

Um, so because I'm no longer Catholic, I'm now an anti-Catholic fundamentalist?

Huh?

And, actually, why pretend you're sorry I've left -- isn't that what you want -- that all the less-than-perfect "cafeteria" or "bad" or "hippie" Catholics all go? S'matter, Dan, feeling a little guilty?

I believe in giving people what they wish for. It usually learns 'em real quick. The perfect Catholics want me to go. I go. And now you're sorry? Talk about being wishy-washy! You got what you wanted. Don't apologize for it now. That's a loser's game.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 10:26 am | #

Joe, what is this about "but her commentary about families with 11 kids who can only afford to feed 5 is really not up for debate."
I am one of seven and I couldn't be happier coming from a big family. Sure we did with less than some other families but people must decide what is important in life. Most of the debate over birth control in the West is less about what people can afford and more about lifestyle choices.
Whenever I go to family get togethers with my large family and my many large family cousins I feel sorry for those from small families. The bigger the family the more love their seems to spread around.
Peter - Australia | 06.02.05 - 10:27 am | #

This is like the Baby Boomers' Greatest Hits (on the Church).

I don't blame anyone for rejecting "Pay, pray, and obey," but that's not the whole story and that's certainly not every parish, or even a majority of them. And if you'll forgive the krazy Katholic, my observation is that the diametric position, when boiled down, evaporates almost entirely, and many mainline Protestant churches are emptying in droves. Making doctrine optional in the end means having no core teachings at all, so that it is not unusual to find bishops denying Original Sin and fudging fundamental truths about how man ought to live. That doesn't satisfy the soul.

Also, it's a total non-sequitor to ask the Church to support the families that can't support themselves "because they're wealthy." First, the Church is not wealthy; they wouldn't be closing Catholic schools everywhere if they could afford to keep them open, and that has been one of the backbones of the Church's ministry in the United States for 150 years. Second, the Church already does this; through Catholic Charities, through her laity volunteering time and donating to agencies, through food and clothing drives, through soup kitchens and shelters, through Dan's adoption of an Ethiopian child...

To say that the Church ought to just start cutting checks betrays a mindset that really does think of them as a government, not a Church; that their citizens are equally entitled to services and a vote, as if they were a representative republic. Remember that the Church doesn't tax its "citizens." All of that is voluntary; you can put as much or as little into your envelope as you please when the basket comes around. But why wouldn't you want to support your parish? I hear people saying that the Church is grasping for even passing the plate, but that cuts both ways - why would one want to participate in the life of the Church without contributing to it? You're not buying Buicks for the deacon, but light bulbs for the rectory. The priests have wholly given over their lives and sworn to build no family of their own in order to minister to us; that's not worth a tenner every week? The very thought is insulting. I realize that wasn't anyone's intention per se, but that's how it comes across - an invitation to be ungrateful and selfish.

And doctrine is not an invitation to stop thinking - it's just the starting line. Hundreds of years of brilliant thought and strong prayer has already gone into formulating and explaining the Trinity, the Creed, the meaning of the Sacraments, teachings on sexuality and integrity, and the like. Why reinvent the wheel, unless you're really convinced that it's square?
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 10:32 am | #

I'm certainly not sorry we left either, for many of the reasons that Nina articulates. I stop very far short of being anti-Catholic: just because it impeded my relationship with God doesn't mean it does that for everyone. For many, the Roman Church has enhanced their spiritual life and provided a framework for them to get to know God better, so who am I to criticize that?

However...

God created me with a mind, and I'm not afraid to use it. Nor, it seems, is Nina. She correctly points out that the Roman response to questions is: "Sit down, shut up, we have divine authority." Adriana also correctly pointed out that her decision to use BC is between her and God.

At the end of the day, we all have to face our Maker. If the Roman Catholic path works for a person, that's great. But it isn't very ecumenical to try to impose it on those who have chosen another way.
joe | 06.02.05 - 10:35 am | #

Nina,

I'm sensing a little hostility...what's up with that?

I did not say YOU are an anti-Catholic fundamentalist, I said that is the choice I had to make. I tend to think in black and whites, it can be a flaw I know. But for ME, it seemed I had 2 choices the Catholic Church was the true Church or it was evil. I am not saying everybody comes to this same choice and obviously for you, it didn't.

And I am sorry that you have left. The Church is a family and you never want any family members to leave. Sometimes a member of the family will become so disruptive to the well being of the other members of the family, that the only choice is for them to leave. But it is alway in the hope that like the prodigal son, they will return. And just so I am not misconstrued, when I say disruptive, I am referring to not being able to believe what the Church proposes.
Dan Jasmin | 06.02.05 - 10:36 am | #

Hey, Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that imitating Christ, or being Christ-like, involves following his command to "take up your cross and follow."

Um, and my parish will and does support parents who walk in and ask for help. I've never heard of a parish who doesn't, but I've hardly taked to all of them.

The other statement we haven't seriously considered here--and we must--is Christ's to Peter: "What you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven, and what you bind will be held bound." Regardless of whether that statement establishes papal authority, or the authority of Peter's faith, it's a promise made by Christ. If your denomination tells you, "Don't do X," and you believe that Christ fulfills his promise to loose and bind, can you do X with a clean conscience? Can you disobey knowing that Christ keeps his promises? RCs are not the only ones anti-BC, so the issue is broader than dissenting VS traditional Catholics.

Oh, one last note: you can raise a lot of kids on very little money, with one parent out of work for long periods of time, whether by design or accident. My parents did it with five of us, and my husband's family with six. That situation is faced every day by people who become pregnant unexpectedly (most of whom, in my circle, were actually on the Pill), and who choose not to abort. There are worse things that can happen.
Kate B. | 06.02.05 - 10:41 am | #

Actually, we were buying hush payments for pedophile priests in many cases.

And when people actually start getting the ministry they are told they're paying for, then maybe they'll start chipping in at a higher level.

On the one hand, I hear the uberCatholics bemoaning the fact that preists today are all a bunch of touchy-feely, warm, fuzzy, effeminate buddy-buddy types who don't minister appropriately, and then, when someone suggests that perhaps the Church shouldn't take money from dissenters, all of a sudden these same preists are a bunch of self-sacrificing, hard-working spiritual guides who we should feel honored to support.

*shrug*

Whatever.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 10:41 am | #

PS - Nina, Dan's sorry you left because he feels like he's lost a family member. I observe that you sound awfully bitter for a person who's happier now that she has gone. It sounds to me as if you feel driven away rather than freely leaving, especially when you rant on "it's what you really wanted, isn't it?"

Leaving is the last option when all the other options are worse. If the choice is A) remain and be miserable; B) remain and undermine, causing everyone to be miserable; or C) go elsewhere, then C has to be it, but it isn't a good thing... it's simply minimizing the failure to effectively evangelize. (And to tie in to the original post, when 74% of your members in a certain area don't agree with you, you're probably not explaining yourself very well, a common failing with Catholicism in practice. Most of us could barely talk intelligently about the most important of any of our doctrines, much less a controverted teaching like this, flying in the face of popular culture.)

Further, I'd like to point out that Kristin never assumed her marriage was better than yours. She said that since NFP her marriage improved - not once did she compare it to anyone else's. Nor is NFP "force." It's something one chooses to do, or not. "Force" is irrelevant when one "forces" oneself by free will.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 10:46 am | #

Yeah, well, Dan, guess it's a good thing I took my li'l ol' disruptive self away from all the goody-two-shoes. Wouldn't want to spoil your piety-party, would I?

Yes. You sense a lot of hostility. I'm just wondering if you have the same problem with the people who obviously don't agree with the Church's teachings on charity, or unjust wars, or the death penalty, or stealing (and there are plenty of little Catholic thieves out there happily receiving communion with their pious little noses in the air -- they may not stick up 7-11s, but they cheat on their taxes or engage in shady business dealings and the like...), etc., or if it's just with women who won't be pushed around by a bunch of men who don't have the first clue what it is to be a husband and a father and who won't be used as a bunch of brood mares for the Catholic Church?

And I'm not your family. I have a family. I have a husband who loves me (contrary to what all the NFP-practicing women out there would like to imply), and I have four great kids, and I have parents, and brothers and in-laws and so on. _They_ are my family. They know me and know who I am and what I believe and what's in my heart. Not you.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 10:47 am | #

I've always been curious about this, so please bear with me, if you will.

If you are/were Roman Catholic and currently oppose the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on ABC, (1) did you ever attempt to adhere to its teaching and use the approved method, (2) and if so, for how long?
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 10:53 am | #

Nina,

God bless you and your family.
Dan Jasmin | 06.02.05 - 10:54 am | #

Hey, what's with all this bs about "unthinking obedience!?" I'm offended - my obedience is anything but unthinking, as Nightfly points out. I think the Church, like any parent, will settle for grudging obedience, but she wants an intelligent incisive obedience that, having faith that the Church is Christ's instrument and founded on Christ's promise that He would never abandon her, seeks instead to understand the Church's teaching to the best of our abilities, like a good student, or a scholar who values truth above all else.

But it really does come down to faith, more than obedience. And if you don't have faith that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded for our well-being and redemption, then, whether you show up on Sundays or not, you're not living a Catholic Faith.
Kate | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 10:59 am | #

Kate B.:

Working in reverse order - I know all about doing more with less, as I have 2 kids of my own. I'm just saying that since the Church mandates a practice that results in sacred life being conceived, that obligates them to assist when adherence to that mandate is required. I'm not talking about: "Oops! Now I have to drive a Taurus instead of a Beemer." I mean: "Another baby! We'll have to sell the house!". There would be a LOT more of such parents if every Catholic practiced NFP.

It's interesting that you bring up conscience, as Ratzinger has stated that when your conscience conflicts with Church teaching, it's a sin. He's infallible, so, so much for that!

I'm curious as to the motivation behind RCs who hear this doctrine and choose to disregard it. The ultraorthodox might veiw them as 'disruptive' or 'morally bankrupt'. I don't, but I'm not Catholic. Any thoughts?
joe | 06.02.05 - 11:02 am | #

There are many good, holy Catholics who use non-NFP birth control more prayerfully and responsibly than some Catholics who use NFP.

Nina, how many people do you even know who use NFP? I know quite a number of Catholics and the number I can think of who actually even use NFP is miniscule. Each of those couples are devout Catholics, btw. I have never met one of these irresponsible NFP-using Catholics you are talking about. My husband and I use no NFP, no anything, and we haven't gotten pregnant yet. Are you Catholic? If you don't agree with the Church's teachings on birth control, perhaps you should give any of one the hundreds (thousands?) of Protestant churches a try. And please, don't give me the exuse that you just can't imagine parting with your beloved Catholic faith. What would be leaving exactly? (Bad music, funky architecture? watered-down homilies?)If it is the Body of Christ (the Eucharist) you'd be missing, then you need to *accept* that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and submit to the Magesterium. As someone said in an earlier post, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Get over it, or take your hours of careful study to another church. I'm sure it doesn't trump 2,000 years of the Church's wisdom.
Maureen Martin | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 11:05 am | #

If you think the Church wants "unthinking" obedience, you're not paying attention to what the Church - e.g. (and especially) John Paul II - has been saying and offering.

If you read - e.g. - his Love and Responsibility, or the Theology of the Body series of lectures - neither of which is exactly a secret these days - you'll see a great deal of thought, and an invitation to join in.

I pretty strongly suspect that there's FAR more unthinking rejection of the Church's teaching on this and other matters than unthinking obedience thereto.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 11:06 am | #

Maureen doesn't miss her beloved family member Nina. She thinks she should shut up and get out. Wow. How evangelical! How ministerial! How... Christ-like! *eye-roll*

Maureen, with people like you defending your faith, it needs no enemies.
joe | 06.02.05 - 11:10 am | #

My apologies to Nina --

You *have* left. OK. Please forgive me flying off the handle and posting a hasty response. One question: if you left, why are you still arguing this point? If you think you are right, why not just be happy with it? Something tells me you are not.

I want to apologize to everybody on the board for my hasty reply. I get really tired of explaining to family members, friends, etc., what the Church says and why. I just don't understand why people keeping blaming the Church for everything from AIDS to poverty, and throwing out erroneous arguments. Anyway, I love the Church, so I get kind of passionate about it. Please forgive me.
Maureen Martin | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 11:12 am | #

No, Jeff/Dale...

I was told every waking freaking moment of my life that I was God's little joke on my mother, hahahaha, isn't that funny, blahblahblah...

I was a Vatican roulette baby, and I wasn't allowed to forget it for a minute. It was as plain as day that I wasn't wanted and that I was resented just for being born -- for being conceived.

I'll be damned if I'll do that to any child.

And then, when I don't choose to do that to a child, I'm "disruptive", so please go, thank you. And, then, when I DO go, I'm "hostile".

Yeah. I chose "C". I left. And I'm not alone.

Be careful what you wish for...God might hear you...

You'll get the Church you want. Just remember that you wanted it when you get it. And lay-off the phony hand-wringing, whiny oh-we're-really-sorry-you-left routine. No one's buying. It's like all those idiotic "The Cafeteria Is Closed!" Ratzinger fans. They're yippin' it up because "their guy" is finally going to get rid of "those people".

You have no idea how bad I want to be there when those types explain all this to God come Judgement Day. No idea. I want to see you run this attitude by Him and watch you squirm when it finally occurs to you that it wasn't all about you all the time.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 11:17 am | #

Joe,

Notice on your link that the 2-30% statistic "depends on a woman's ability to identify the fertile period of each menstrual cycle and COUPLES' MOTIVATION AND DISCIPLINE TO PRACTICE ABSTINENCE WHEN REQUIRED." And it is also for the first year of use. NFP is a method you get better at the longer you use it. This is the human error I mentioned, and happens with other forms of birth control as well.
My statistic comes from John and Sheila Kippley's book The Art of Natural Family Planning, where there is an entire chapter just on the studies that were done and their findings.

I thank you for your congratulations on our new addition, but "affording" them is relative. I was once told I had the "luxury" of staying home with my kids by a woman who lives in a $700,000 house and drives a brand new Volvo SUV she and her husband picked up in Sweden right before their only child was born. And all I could do was stare incredulously. It has to do with our priorities and the choices we have made, and nothing to do with "luxury."

Nina,

I never said my marriage was better than yours - you're right, I have no idea. What I said was that my marriage is better now than it was when we were contracepting. A comment I can reasonably make because I've had it both ways.
Kristin | 06.02.05 - 11:18 am | #

Kristin, I read the whole link before I posted - it doesn't change my position. One kid born to parents that can't afford to feed him is one too many for me.

NFP clearly works for some and not others. My question is: is the Church willing to take responsibility for the consequences of its members following its rules? When that consequence is a human life, it ups the ante quite a bit. No red herrings about 'relative affordability', please; I mean kids who will starve because their parents followed Church teachings if the Church doesn't help.

If ALL RCs follow NFP with the varying success rates we've seen (due to human error), will the Church step up to feed, clothe and educate the human lives it has shepherded into the world?

Based on what I've seen of the RC Church taking responsibility... on the one hand, charitable works are their forte. On the other hand, this might overwhelm their capacity. And Rome isn't very big on admitting error - they go so far as to say they are infallible.

Knowing this, I wouldn't chance it, and a lot of practicing RCs agree.
joe | 06.02.05 - 11:37 am | #

You have no idea how bad I want to be there when those types explain all this to God come Judgement Day. No idea. I want to see you run this attitude by Him and watch you squirm when it finally occurs to you that it wasn't all about you all the time.

Nina m'dear, you seem the absolute last person here who should worry about other people's attitudes, nor decrying "it's all about you all the time" when the only thing you've brought in here is vindictive self-justification.

We all need to heal, and we all need to be forgiven; all that changes is the subject matter. You're reading your own bitterness into everything everyone else has written, and you're turning reasoned debate about a teaching or about membership and obedience into an imagined personal attack on you, with no basis in fact. As you observe, it's not about that, it's about God. We're always trying to figure out how best to give Him ourselves.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 11:42 am | #

I was going to let this go, but it came up twice. Infallible church teachings about dogma and doctrine are those that are proclaimed "ex cathedra" or "from the chair" (of Peter). This has happened three times in church history, and neither of those had to do with teaching on birth control. (The first to proclaim that "ex cathedra" teachings were infallible and the next two having to do with Mary.)
Kristin | 06.02.05 - 11:55 am | #

Nina:

Let me let you in on something--not every Catholic who refuses to use ABC hates your guts. God's honest truth.

Some of us even hate to see people get s--t on by their own parents and people in the Church, your blanket condemnation and gleeful anticipation of me getting mine before the Throne of the King of Kings notwithstanding. Rest assured the latter will happen, but perhaps not for the reasons you anticipate.

I'm sorry your parents repeatedly told you you were unwanted. Believe it or not. I know a non-Catholic family that told their youngest the same thing. "Vatican roulette," "IUD baby"--it's the same vicious crap, even when it isn't intended to wound.

Also know that my wife and I have had three children born between September 6, 2001 and September 16, 2004. Girl boy girl. Those births coincided with truly unplanned loss of better than 40% of our family's income (though much--but not all--of the loss has now been replaced, thank God). Despite the fact the last two of our children were surprises (well, not completely so--we did understand we were having sex), I cannot fathom the idea of telling my son or youngest daughter they were "unwanted." Yes, we have experienced the financial, physical and emotional pressures that come from not using ABC. It's a legitimate fear that shouldn't be dismissed. It can also be exaggerated, too--there's never a perfect time to have a baby, to be honest.

Which brings me to this: consider also how your comments are being received by people on the other side. "Brood mare," "mindless obedience", "irresponsible"--these, too, are the words of harsh, even pharasaical, judgment. Frankly, they are a condemnation. Our decision was the farthest thing from mindless obedience. It was, and continues to be, a source of struggle and, yes, even anguish. I don't care to hear it mocked in such terms.

It's daunting when a complete stranger comes up to you, out of the blue, and tells you "you need to be fixed." I had this happen to me less than six months ago--it wasn't said with malice, but neither was it a joke. I respectfully submit many of your comments are of the same order, only from the opposing side. Because, as you correctly note, we all will answer for them.
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:07 pm | #

Well I am not an expert on this but since Kristin brought it up and her post is somewhat imprecise, I guess I'll take a crack.

The Pope is given the power of infallibility when makes an ex cathedra definition. This is usually done when there is a dispute about a doctrine to be held by all of the faithful. But those teachings taught always and everywhere by the Ordinary Magisterium(the Pope in union with the world's Bishops) are also to be considered infallible teachings. The teaching that abortion is wrong and therefore a sin would, I think, fall under this latter category. But again, I'm not an expert in this area, so please, someone like Kevin, please jump in and help out here.
Dan Jasmin | 06.02.05 - 12:09 pm | #

What seems to be missing from this, very fascinating, discussion so far is the acknowledgement of the existence of RC parishes that take a more liberal stance towards some of Rome's stricter edicts. Example: I am an atheist. My wife is a practicing Catholic. When we got married we did it in her parish. We spoke with the priest prior to the wedding, and had a very engaging and insightful conversation. I was baptized Catholic but never made confirmatin or communion. On our wedding day I took communion with the rest of the assembled, as did my mother, who has been divorced and, per Rome, is not eligible to receive--all under the guidance and advice of the parish priest. (And yes, when we spoke with him we were completely honest about my atheism) This same priest has been called up to the Diocese for reprimands throughout his career for doing things like inviting divorced Catholic to receive at Mass during the homily.

Now, if priests can disagree with some of the pronouncements handed down from Rome, and actively work to get them changed, why should we assume that a practicing Catholic must leave the Church if they are not prepared to abide by every dictum? My wife and I practice birth control, for one, and yet she has no inclination whatsoever to leave, nor would I imagine her parish would want her to. And I can't imagine this is exceedingly rare, that she just happens to be part of the one parish in America with this viewpoint. I guess my question, if I have one, is why should Catholic like my life leave the Church, when their parish itself doesn't seem to want them to?
John C. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:10 pm | #

John C. - Liberal Catholics are often derided as 'squishy', or of 'fuzzy theology'. More orthodox RCs seem to view them as even worse than non-Catholics, because the 'should know better'.

A new era of ultra-orthodoxy appears to have been ushered in by the selection of Ratzinger as Pope. So, enjoy your free-thinking parish while you may, as Bishops will soon be instructed to crack down. Your priest 'can' disagree with Rome in the sense that he is able to, but he 'may' not, in the sense that it is forbidden.
joe | 06.02.05 - 12:21 pm | #

Two quick points:

Since the Church is not just Rome, then the actions of the faithful with regards to feeding and clothing each other and each other's kids is still the Church acting. This is why individual parishes run schools (to which they often offer scholarships) and help out when people ask. This is why grandparents babysit. So, yes, the Church has a long history of fostering the lives she has demanded we create.

We will all be there on the Judgment Day (according to some medieval writers, we will be tightly packed in a valley, and the holy will be floating in order to leave more space on the ground). We'll all get ours. We will get what we wish for: that's the definition of Heaven, as well as of Hell. We all follow conscience, but conscience is not infallible (if it were, there would be no regrets). Conscience must be informed, and by those whom we trust. Following the Church is not a matter of blind obedience; it's a matter of trust. The Catholic Church is the combined experience of two thousand years of Christians--individual people--plus the how long? before that of Hebrew experience. Yeah, I think they've picked up a few things I haven't. We'll all be wrong at the Judgment. No two ways about that. We won't be in any position to pay attention to who else is wrong, though (We'll be too busy cramming into Purgatory, the Great Kegger in the Sky).

Third quick point: To say that following the Church we choose as a path to God will lead us into desolation and--gasp and swoon--poverty, is to stop observing the lilies of the field. It's also to stop listening to Hamlet (not always a bad thing, that): There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we may. If it is not now, then 'tis to come.

It all goes back to asking who you trust.
Kate B. | 06.02.05 - 12:30 pm | #

joe

At what point is a "crack down" justified? When the priest starts denying the Trinity? When he starts denying the real presence? Changing the Creed?

If the Church doesn't crack down at times it ceases to believe anything because everything goes in the name of "free-thinking."
David Ross | 06.02.05 - 12:32 pm | #

joe:

Well, the priest in question has since retired to a life of golf and advocacy in Florida. Be interesting to see if the parish changes noticeably in the next several years though.
John C. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:33 pm | #

John C:

Contrary to joe's lovingly-nurtured caricatures, not every orthodox Catholic is just waiting to unleash his inner Torquemada on his brothers and sisters in the pews. I have no doubt that most of the people at the parish do not adhere to Humanae Vitae or Casta Connubi. But, to be honest, I can't tell because none of them broadcast dissent to all and sundry. Ditto our priests. The Church is a hospital for sinners first and foremost, and a womb for Saints second.

Where most, if not all, orthodox Catholics draw the line is where those in positions of trust and authority, whether within the Church or in public life, take it upon themselves to publicly give the finger to Church teaching (and by natural extension, to those stupid and mindless enough to follow it). That appears to be the approach of the Church, too, which doesn't take upon herself the role of disciplining your average member of the laity--or even your average workaday priest/religious, for that matter.
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:37 pm | #

David Ross:

I can't answer your question as to where precisely the line should be, but from where I stand allowing divorced people to receive would definitely be above the "crack down" line. As would allowing the use of birth control.
John C. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:38 pm | #

Fair enough, Dale, but what really irked me to begin with was Dawn's assertation that if you're Catholic and you don't agree with the Church's teacing on BC, you're choosing between the Pope and Margaret Sanger. Pretty much the same thing we're all accusing each other of, then, isn't it?

Or the implications (a few here and many, many elsewhere) that non-NFP BC using Catholics (or anyone, I guess) are all just selfish, materialistic, immoral people who only want a lot of expensive toys and immediate sexual gratification.

Or the hints that people who don't use NFP don't share the same level of marital intimacy as those who do.

The truth is it's Just. Not. Anyone's. Business.

It's not. Don't start with the brother's keeper stuff, either, unless you're willing to make your life an open book and are willing to let me comment on your shortcomings, too.

The only reason this topic gets so much attention is because there's tangible "evidence" (at least in the minds of the finger-pointers) everyone can comment on. "Oh, did you see that couple over there in that pew? They've been married as long as I have, and they only have two kids. Bet they're contracepting..." Said oh-so-smugly. Or, "Look at that car. And they only have one kid. Some people are so shallow and materialistic!"

You don't get this with death penalty advocates, or those who would willingly support the slaughter thousands of people in an unjust war, because we can't see that and whisper about it during the slow bits at mass, can we?

If you want to use NFP, if you want to have a dozen kids, if you want to never use any family-planning method, if you want to adopt one for every one you conceive, THAT'S FINE!! Go ahead!! Do it! Just don't tell me I have to, too, in order to be "worthy" or "good" or "obedient".

I only ever have to be obedient to God and to what He tells me. I don't have to be obedient to a bunch of men who aren't ever going to be married or have children and who have been wrong before.

For ME, this would be mindless obedience. If you choose it, then, whether or not it is isn't my business. But don't tell others that they're being selfishly disobedient if you don't want to be told you're being mindlessly obedient. And don't tell me that if a Catholic doesn't follow this teaching, they've chosen to espouse all of Margaret Sanger's nonsense, either.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 12:42 pm | #

John C.,
With all due respect, you and your parish priest are apostates. One of the baptismal vows is "I believe in God." If you were willing to say that--willing to lie in public--and that priest was complicit in the lie, I'm not sure why you or anyone else should trust any of that priest's advice. Integrity is lacking, and I have my doubts about whether that sacrament is valid.

Remember, the sacraments depend on the participant's knowledge. If we eat and drink KNOWING that we do not discern the body, we eat and drink judgment. If, on the other hand, the priest is secretly a scumbag, but we have no clue, the sacraments he confers are still valid. Our faith--our interior disposition--is mucho important in the validity of the sacraments. You, sir, knew full well what you were doing, and who you were doing it with. Not kosher. Do I want you to leave? No, but I'd prefer that you weren't spitting on the things I hold sacred while you're here.

And why is it a bad thing for this parish priest to do what he's doing? Well, Joe and John, there is only one answer:
He is imperiling souls. He is allowing people to eat and drink Judgment ("Where they eat nought but burning hot coals and drink nought but burning hot cola"). Not a good thing. The Church's mission is to lead souls to salvation. Anyone who does the opposite is not in the Church--automatic excommunication. Yes, as the pastor of souls, the Church has not only the right but also the duty to reprimand the wolves. It's not about this life, m'dears. It's about the next. This one is the road, though, and must be cleared and paved and made passable. Hence, the duties of teaching and of charity. But it's not for the sake of this life. When did we lose sight of that fact?
Kate B. | 06.02.05 - 12:43 pm | #

David - I never said that a 'crack down' wasn't justified. I'm not Catholic, and I can't speak to that. It's up to the leadership of the Roman Church to determine what's acceptable and what is not in the way of liturgy, etc.

It's up to us as individuals to decide whether following the Church's teachings will get them closer to God or not. Put another way, "If you don't like Catholic teaching, don't be one." That's probably one of very few things I would agree with an uber-Roman Catholic on, but I agree with all my heart.

Kate - I trust God, but I just don't believe that the Roman Church is my facilitator with Him. And that's just fine with me, and it sounds like it's ok with you too. (BTW, your description of the medieval view of Judgement Day sounds a LOT like my morning commute. Perhaps God will be merciful and count those hours as time served?) :)
joe | 06.02.05 - 12:46 pm | #

I am a married Catholic who embraces and lives by the Church's 2000 year old teachings regarding human sexuality. It isn't always easy, but then again it isn't as difficult as pro-aborts would have you believe. In fact, as a way of life, it is very positive. It strengthens my family life and my spiritual life.

That fidelity to the Church should be a) sometimes difficult and b) boundlessly rewarding should be of no surprise.

What is a surprise is that every protestant around seems to rejoice at the infidelity of Catholics. I don't get that one. I woulds assume that if one is an Episcopalian one ought to actually abide by that belief system...if one is a buddhist one ought to abide by the rules of being a buddhist. Why is being an unfaithful Catholic somehow seen as a badge of honor. If you want to be a bad Catholic...why not just become an Episcopalian? You get all the pretty liturgy with none of the opressive committment to truth.

Bottom line: The Catholic Church isn't a democracy, so it really doesn't matter what percentage of people think contraception is a great thing. It ain't a numbers game folks.

I for one have found great joy in living my life in accordance with God's will as interpreted (infallibly) through the teaching of the magisterium.

One last thing: practicing NFP does not mean having 11 kids. The only possible way it could is if someone either wants 11 kids or they remain completely ignorant of how female fertility works. Of course such ignorance is common these days: Blame the pharmaceutical companies who profit by convincing women they are too stupid to learn how their bodies actually work.
Tex | 06.02.05 - 12:51 pm | #

I often struggle with the question on whether liberal catholics should remain in the RC or not. I have come to the conclusion that they should not.

By definition a Catholic is one who assents to the Teachings of the Catholic Church. This assenting is an act of faith: "I believe that the Church can speak infallibly." (When it does is often misunderstood- generally all encyclicals and ALL Councils are infallible). In this act of assent we are not to ask any questions. After we have assented, by faith, we then proceede forward, as has been mentioned by an above poster. We try to figure out why this is true- what are the causes- with full faith that it IS true.

For anybody that is not of the faithfull, or full of faith in the RC, then if they remain they are being hypocrytes. I am all for everybody being true to themself- and thus being true to God. There are other ways to God other than the Catholic Church; the faithfull simply believe that this way will never mislead you on Doctrine.

If you call yourself a Catholic and cannot assent blindly- then you are not of the faithfull- and will have a hard time reaching God, not because you are not of the faithfull but because you cannot be honest with yourself. Joe and Nina I fully believe that you are much better off without the Church than with- in your current position. I ask you to pray for us all.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:51 pm | #

Kate B.
Whats an apostate? As for the rest, you'd have to ask the priest for his take on why he did the many, many things he did during his (long) tenure as a priest that many might look at askance, including his encouraging me to receive during our wedding (I do attend mass regularly with my wife and do not receive then; the wedding was a one-time thing). All I can tell you was that he was adored and respected, and a deeply, deeply holy man. And, with all due respect right back at you, I am, as I have admitted during other discussions and do so now, more or less ignorant when it comes to the source of and theological reasoning behind the Church's teachings. So I am in a position to take a) the view of a faceless writer whom I know nothing about, or b)the view of a dedicated, long-serving priest whom I saw incredible respect and love for from hundreds of Catholics. So, yea, I'm pretty comfortable in listening to his positions on matters of faith.
John C. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:52 pm | #

Jacob G.
I have to wonder how dramatically the RC Church's membership would drop if all heeded your advise. How many RC members, especially in Europe and North America, "assent to ALL (emphasis mine) of the Teachings of the Catholic Church." I know probably 30-50 Catholics personally, most family, and I'd be shocked if any of them could pass that litmus test. My guess is that the drop in numners would be well above a mojority of all practicing Catholics. If my hunch is right, yours is a bold statement--in effect, you are saying that most Catholics should leave the church.
John C. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 12:58 pm | #

Thank you Jacob, for being understanding. The Church could use a few more like you. As for Tex, Episcopalian-bashing is the favorite sport of some RCs, but I won't get down in the mud with you. All I'll do is paraphrase what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in response to Ratzinger's remark that we (and all other Christians) have a 'defective' faith: there's nothing defective about it just because your truth is not our truth.
joe | 06.02.05 - 12:58 pm | #

Wow. It's a strange feeling to wake up at 12:30 after going to bed at 5:30 and find 56 comments to my tiny little post. Glad to see you've found so much to talk about while I've been gone.

That said, I'd just like to remind everyone to please make sure that no matter how intense things may get, you keep it polite--no ad hominem attacks, etc., you know the drill. Your cooperation is appreciated--thanks very much. We now return to our regular programming.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 1:10 pm | #

Hmm, well since I am going into the Jesuits here pretty soon, I'll start practicing defending the Pope now.

He meant 'defective' in either 1 of 2 ways both are true. Either first, we Catholics are supposed to believe that the RC has the fullness of light whereas all other Christian Sects have partial light. Here we mean not the people, for there are Plenty of non-Catholics who are holier than Catholics, but the organization itself. Padre Pio words were beautifull, he said, "Although Catholics have the full light, take great joy that others have most of the light".

Secondly, there are many things which the Church puts down as unnatural. If any Christian Sect were to think these things were good then they would be defective in that way- Again not wholly defective but only in the specific way that they are unnatural.

Ratzinger is first a Theologian and so he puts things very logically, very dryly. He has focused on that part which does not have the fullness of light instead of that part of which is lit. John Paul II was great because he focused on the part that was lit. Both men are completly right, just focusing differently.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 1:17 pm | #

John C.,

An apostate is someone who makes a vow and then walks away from that vow. And if you trust that priest on communion, then you don't trust St. Paul--the two contradict. One can be holy and loving, and still be mistaken. Happens all the time. I can understand why you'd trust someone you know, but the source of the teaching on that issue is pretty easy to find.
Kate B. | 06.02.05 - 1:19 pm | #

Kate B.
I don't doubt that it is. But I'm also sure that he's aware of the contridiction you mention, and could, were he here, provide reasons for his actions, and for why he would feel that his actions were appropriate. Alas, I am a very poor representative for him here, and it is entirely my own fault for not having a better understanding of his position.
John C. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 1:28 pm | #

Nina:

I don't lecture people who have lovingly brought into the world and raised four children, so I'm not going to start now. In fact, I haven't lectured anyone on birth control, especially since I used it for years before gradually--and painfully, prayerfully--coming to the conclusion that it was wrong. I can more than empathize with those who use it because they are struggling financially, medically and so forth. Children are a huge responsibility, and have to be lovingly cared for.

However, I have been on the receiving end of plenty of unsolicited advice and implicit condemnations about family planning from others, including a member of my immediate family. I know I am not unique in this respect, as the godfather of our youngest has experienced the stern disapproval of his own father about having three (and now four) children in 12 year of marriage. I'm just asking you to keep this in mind when you inevitably find yourself on the receiving end. Odds are, the lecturer is bearing her/his own scars. It doesn't mean you have to passively absorb insults, but perhaps some sympathy is in order.

Moreover, not everyone--not even most--on the other side is one of "them"--a hateful, judgmental fanatic. The internet is an awful medium for reasoned discussion, probably the worst. Consequently, indiscriminate use of the term "you" is not helpful.

The last point I will leave you with is this--I think one of your arguments is a little too relativistic. "I choose to ____, but you have no moral right to oppose me even though you choose the opposite/It's OK for you but not for me" is a fatally flawed argument for someone, like you, who believes in objective truth. In that light, I would suggest that you consider the arguments on the other side concerning whether there has been a real societal, as opposed to personal, cost resulting from widespread artificial contraception.
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 1:29 pm | #

joe: "but I won't get down in the mud with you."

To review:

"I wonder how long it would be before the next encyclical stating that the poor are called to abstinence within marriage?"

"you forgot the part where they tell you to get out your checkbook after you sit down and shut up."

"the Roman response to questions is: 'Sit down, shut up, we have divine authority.'"

I'd hate to see you actually start flinging mud at Catholicism.

Oh, and another thing:

"We are called to be Christ-like, not to carry a cross."

It's a nitnoid point, but since our parish started its bible study with the Gospel according to Matthew, I am compelled to disagree:

http://www.biblegateway.com/pass...7& context=verse
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 1:44 pm | #

Small quibble, Dale, with your quote: "The internet is an awful medium for reasoned discussion, probably the worst." I would give the (dis)honors there to talk shows (radio or TV), which must attract ratings and therefore cater to scoring points over laying out reasonable positions and defending/rebutting them. Online one has as much time and space as one needs, so the politeness and sense of the discussion depends far more on the commenter than the format.

In all my years online, I don't think I've seen any other group that is as consistently charitable in disagreement than the group here, BTW.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 1:44 pm | #

Dale, but that's another question...

Just because I believe that one can use non-NFP BC and still be a good Catholic, and certainly a good Christian, doesn't mean that I don't agree that BC (including NFP) can be abused, or that I don't think Planned Parenthood has done an incredible amount of damage to society in general and to young girls in general.

Advocating for non-NFP BC is not the same as advocating for premarital or extramarital sex. One could technically use NFP towards those ends, too, anyway.

Irresponsible, self-gratifying sex is not a good thing. But the wrong is in the intent, not the tool.

As for the "I choose _________" thing, well, I don't believe that using non-NFP BC is morally wrong -- I don't believe there's a logical, moral difference between using a diaphragm, for example, and using NFP, within marriage. I choose to use one thing, someone else another, but the intent is the same -- yet the general attitude seems to be that if you use NFP, then you're okay no matter what.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 1:53 pm | #

Dale, yes, you would hate for me to do that, so I won't.

I stand by each of my (out of context quoted) statements. Please don't invite me to articulate them further. "Pray, pay and obey" did not come from me, it came from one of your own.

There are many paths to the top of the mountain. I respect all of them.

Re: the cross... Well, for me, taking up the cross involves neither a trip to Home Depot to get railroad ties nor intentionally risking having more kids than I can raise.
joe | 06.02.05 - 1:58 pm | #

Nina,
>>I choose to use one thing, someone else another, but the intent is the same
The outcome might be the same, the intent is not. You choose to use one thing (condom, diaphram, etc.), while the NFP user chooses not to engage in the act at all. They are not USING anything. The ABC users is engaging in the act and preventing the natural consequence. The NFP user is simply not engaging in the act. There is a real difference there.

>>yet the general attitude seems to be that if you use NFP, then you're okay no matter what.
Every NFP educator/series/book I have ever seen/heard has clearly stated that from a moral perspective NFP can take on a contraceptive mentality, and that this is not acceptable. I have never heard promoters of NFP say, use this method and 'you're OK no matter what.'
Catholic Gunslinger | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:05 pm | #

Well, yeah...you're supposed to take up your cross, not invent crosses. 'Specially since the crosses we'd mostly likely invent would probably be pretty easy ones to carry. And we're not supposed to be building crosses for our neighbors, or comparing our crosses to theirs, and all that.

The whole cross thing is really between the person and God. I guess that's what irks me the most about so much of what the Church teaches -- it all seems to be designed to make sure there's someone standing between you and God and making sure neither you nor God does anything they can't control.

Someone said it all came down to what or who you trust. Well, I trust God. I don't trust the Catholic Church.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 2:06 pm | #

Nina,
I'd also like to point out that (as of yet), to my knowledge Dawn is not Catholic, AND I think her comments were made (as many of them are) somewhat tongue in cheek. Though that's for her to confirm or deny, I think your reaction was a bit overly sensitive to her comment.
Catholic Gunslinger | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:08 pm | #

Gunslinger:

NFPers use highly developed charting methods and thermometers. This is not guesswork. They they themselves brag about how they've fine-tuned the process to the point where it's as effective as the pill. That, actually, is one of their biggest selling points. If you're really all about the no-"unnatural" stuff involved thing, go back to the old rhythm method. When the Church tells you to put away your ovulation detection kits and thermometers and charts and to wing it, then we'll see which side everyone ends up on...

Sex for unitive purposes is just as important as sex for procreative purposes. Sometimes that need is there when a baby is not possible under whatever conditions exist at the time. This is between a husband and a wife and God. No one else.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 2:11 pm | #

>>NFPers use highly developed charting methods and thermometers. This is not guesswork.

First, the Natural in NFP is meant to imply the use of the natural rhythyms of a womans body in detecting fertility/infertility. It's not meant to imply that it's natural as in hands off. Artificial likewise does not mean the actual matter involved in ABC (lamb-skin condoms are 'natural' in that regard, but still prohibited), it means the artificial subversion of the natural function of intercourse.

>>Sex for unitive purposes is just as important as sex for procreative purposes.
You make this claim based on what? subjective preference? It's as obvious as that a nose is for smelling and breathing that intercourse by design is for unity and procreation.

>>Sometimes that need is there when a baby is not possible under whatever conditions exist at the time.
I've seen no one here so far advocate a misuse of NFP as a race to have as many kids as possible. Part of it's use is the attempt at prayerful responsible discernment.

And your response didn't address the difference I explained. You said there was no difference, I explained there was, then you simply ignored that. Do you see the difference between ABC and NFP?
Catholic Gunslinger | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:19 pm | #

nina,
i'd say that using nfp in a selfish, uncommuncicative way would be a heck of a lot harder than using BC in a selfish way. Not that BC is always used that way, but it lends itself to it, since for most methods of BC one partner ultimately holds the power to make the decision to contracept, without any discussion or even knowledge on the part of the other. Whereas with NFP, you pretty much have to at least discuss it, adn then have a reason good enough to withstand the power of your sex drive.

I really can't conceive of a pair of casual lovers having the consideration for a woman's cycle and the forethought and discipline necessary to do NFP.

My point being that means, as well as ends, do matter and have properties and indicators inherent to them.
Kate | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:19 pm | #

Nina:

First, I forgot to mention that I agreed with your point that one cannot equate good-faith users of ABC with the grotesque Sanger.

[I also can't resist this tangential point--for all of her gruesome views, Sanger was fiercely opposed to abortion:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Co...02/ 139rdqpe.asp]

Second, I'm glad to see considerable common ground on the social impact of ABC--that was at the heart of the argument in Humanae Vitae.

And I agree that NFP can be--and likely often is--misused with an intent indistinguishable from that of those who use ABC with bad intent. Nor am I arguing that users of ABC are the equivalent to advocates for adultery, etc. Though I have to admit the idea of an adulterous couple using NFP is kinda funny:

"Hey, baby--before I put the quarters in the vibrabed, I have to update the chart.

What was your waking temp again? 98.3?--got it.

And how would you describe your mucus? 'Tacky'--good. According to the manual, that's 'less fertile.'

And one more thing--about your cervix..."

The point along those lines is that widespread ABC has enabled much more premarital and extramarital sexual activity, with all that entails for families and society. I'm simply saying that these realities make the Church's opposition a lot more sensible, and a lot less the product of the envy of some out of touch, elderly celibates a continent away. There is simply no way to limit ABC to loving responsible generous couples within stable marriages. Authorizing it for some means tolerating it for all in modern Western society.

Finally, I accept that you do not regard barrier contraception as being morally wrong.

[BTW, I think that's the single best argument against the Church's teaching--that there's no practical moral difference between NFP and barrier (as opposed to abortifacient) methods.]

But, in a sense, that confirms my argument--that it boils down to a matter of inviolable personal discernment, good or bad only depending upon the person's judgment, making it essentially relativistic.
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:25 pm | #

Nina, not to pile on you but I have been with you for quite a while in this forum up to here,

"When the Church tells you to put away your ovulation detection kits and thermometers and charts and to wing it, then we'll see which side everyone ends up on..."

The Church won't ever tell people they cannot use NFP. They have already infallibly stated, Humanae Vitae, that NFP is good. The Church in nearly 2,000 yrs has never, never gone back on something it infallibly has said. Why? Well, Catholics believe because it was infallible, hehe.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:33 pm | #

Slow your roll, Joe - "Pay, pray, and obey" wasn't my coinage. I only brought it up because it accurately described the charges leveled against my Church in these comments; the phrase itself is older than I am, a shopworn derision invented and hurled by the Church's enemies time out of mind. And my whole quote was "I don't blame anyone for rejecting 'Pay, pray, and obey.'"

Ironic that you take me out of context in a complaint about being taken out of context. On the other hand I'm grateful that in all of my comments so far that's the only thing anyone has quibbled with. =)
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:36 pm | #

joe:

Ah, yes--"out of context." You are correct that there is no need to articulate them further. It's pretty clear where you are coming from.

Despite your repeated protestations (too much?) of respect for the path chosen by orthodox Catholics, it seems clear that the "respect" is on the order of that you would have for the members of a cargo cult: make sure the head-shaking laughter is done outside the presence of the poor benighted souls.

Or likely it's even less respect than that--for all of its problems, the ECUSA has minimal tolerance for the culturally insensitive.
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:37 pm | #

Dale
>>BTW, I think that's the single best argument against the Church's teaching--that there's no practical moral difference between NFP and barrier (as opposed to abortifacient) methods.

I realize you are probably not advocating this, but do you think this is really a strong argument? As I've outline, there is an obvious difference between engaging in sexual intercourse, and preventing the natural consequences, and not engaging in the act at all.

Do you agree to that moral difference? Just curious why you think this is the best argument as it seems rather hollow to me?
Catholic Gunslinger | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:40 pm | #

John C,

To your comment on how many people would leave the church. I was raised a pagan and those who stay at the church yet disobey make a mockery of God. They think they are being compassionate or inclusive but what they are really doing is proving that God is really god and not worthy of any ones attention.

Also I know many may leave the church- if it happened and the church was worked like silver in the fire- There would be more than enough pagans to fill the empty seats. See when you see a pagan "worshipping" trees or nature what they are really doing is seeking a reconnection from nature back to the devine. This is the truth of the catholic church. You reconnect with baptism once and the Eucharist weekly. I wanted the Catholic church to be true so badly when I was young but it took me from the time I was 15 till this past Easter Vigil to join because of all those dissenters. There is that line in the bible about turning the little ones away and millstones.

Throughout my childhood they left the church and came to my faith. And it was weird.. They had abortions became lesbians yelled and moaned about hating kids and what not.. When I was really young we had one group of friends and then all the sudden we had another they all had funny hats and you had to lick the chick at the front crotch to get one of those hats. Next thing you know there was this suction machine that was used to clean out one ladys fathers nose and what not as he was disabled.. Well they started using it to do abortions and claiming it was precious blood and making up rules about having sex and being a family bonded together because of it. Its called the great rite. If they still call it that. Catholics get real freaky when they leave the faith for other stuff and it doesnt seem to matter where they go. But there was a joke in the community I was in in Ark. Dont worry about getting christians or catholics out of your groups- theyll eventually do something so freaky itll scare them back to thier church... Well now I wonder if it wasnt hunger for the eucharist that brought them back. I die if I miss a sunday. Its horrid.

Yeah I say let those who want to go. sometimes all you need is a little fast and some time to think about it.
josephine | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 2:50 pm | #

CS:

Believe me, I'm in no way claiming there's no difference between having sex and not having it, which I've found to be one of the better overall NFP rebuttals. There's a clear moral difference, yes. But that's not what I'm referring to.

Where I find the barrier comparison effective is in the idea that, as far as an NFP using married couple and an ABC-using married couple engaging sexual intercourse are concerned, both are employing "barriers" to conception. One uses an artificial one and the other a natural one (the infertile symptomology of the female). And, yes, I do recognize the moral difference between "built-in" periodic infertility and the artificial kind. The point is that there is no functional difference--especially during the actual infertile period--which is what makes it a solid nuts and bolts argument.

I hate to do this, but I'm going to be abandoning the thread for the afternoon.
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 3:02 pm | #

Well, Dale, both right and wrong in the same comment.

Wrong because you presume to know my heart on the issue of orthodox Catholicism or any other faith, but thank you for presuming. As I've often said here, we'll all find out sooner or later who's right.

Right, because the ECUSA is very intolerant of the culturally insensitive. I'm proud of that. Respecting the dignity of every human being - not just Episcopalians, or white people, or rich people, or people who live as we do - is a central tenet of our faith and part of our Baptism and Confirmation liturgies.

I'm not laughing at you outside your hearing, even though I disagree with you. And I don't think the Roman Church is a cult, either, since you asked. But to not acknowledge its flaws would be patronizing.

Every religious institution has its flaws, Dale. The Episcopal Church is grappling with its own, but I'm not worried. God will ultimately speak on this and every other issue. We have only to wait - and listen.
joe | 06.02.05 - 3:11 pm | #

Interesting discussion. The fear that Catholics will leave the church en masse if doctrine is enforced is wonderfully bizarre. The whole appeal of the Catholic Church is that it has preserved apostolic teaching for 2000 years (as Christ promised it would).

The idea religion has an obligation to modify its message to increase its membership is a bit wierd, isn't it?

This isn't a marketing exercise were engaged in here.
Tex | 06.02.05 - 3:16 pm | #

Dale,
>>Where I find the barrier comparison effective is in the idea that, as far as an NFP using married couple and an ABC-using married couple engaging sexual intercourse are concerned, both are employing "barriers" to conception. One uses an artificial one and the other a natural one (the infertile symptomology of the female). The point is that there is no functional difference--especially during the actual infertile period--which is what makes it a solid nuts and bolts argument.
-------
Please don't think I am debating this with you as from what I gather you accept the Church's teaching here. I am only pressing because I am really not seeing the logic of the argument. On the macro, the goal might be the same, but in the micro (each instance of intercourse or abstinence) is where the judgement seems to be important. And even the macro, I can't see the 'barrier' in NFP use? How can a system using abstinence ever be a barrier. That logic would hold that the chaste engaged couple is doing nothing different than the contracepting engaged couple. I think there is a little bit of funny wordplay (not by you per se) in calling NFP a barrier in order to try to make an equivalence where one does not exist.
Catholic Gunslinger | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 3:41 pm | #

Gunslinger:

I understand the technical and mechanical differences between NFP and a diaphragm. I don't believe the difference you state is enough to make any real spiritual differnce. Besides, the proponents of NFP can't brag about it's extremely high efficacy rate on the one hand, and then say it leaves them open to conception on the other. If anything, given the efficacy rates and the fact that I still have intercourse when I'm fertile, my diaphragm leaves me much more open to conception than your NFP. There's a lot of fast talking when it comes to NFP, but when you get right down to the nuts and bolts of it, you're working to increase your ability to have sex and avoid conception. Same difference.

I think you're falling into the trap of asceticism. You're saying using NFP is good because you're denying yourself something. I think asceticism in itself is a bad, bad thing. It's selfish, when you get right down to it.

I've heard lots of women condemn another woman for using non-NFP BC even when it's for the exact same reason they use NFP. To me, that's saying that the tool itself is the license for the behavior.

Kate:

I don't know that that's necessarily true. When you get right down to it, the onus is on the woman with NFP just as much as it is with most other BC. Plus, not all people who use NFP are Catholic, and they are perfectly comfortable with having sex that doesn't involve intercourse during their fertile periods. A woman could practice NFP on her own and behave according to what her charts tell her when she hits the bars. It could happen.

Dale:

Same response as to Kate -- people can have lots of great sex and never have intercourse. So, technically, while unlikely, a woman or a pair of non-married lovers could use NFP for a casual relationship.

[Nina - I cut out your response to Jacob G. because it was against the comments rules, which are clearly posted. Please keep your comments within the bounds of polite discourse if you wish to continue commenting on this site. Your cooperation is appreciated - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Nina | 06.02.05 - 3:56 pm | #

Huh?

I didn't insult him at all. I just said that the whole infallibility thing in the context of his comment was circular and self-serving...

Whatever.

I'm done.

I can't stand censorship, especially when it's completely unfounded.
Nina | 06.02.05 - 4:16 pm | #

Nina, you said simply, "How horribly self-serving," or words to that effect, without elaborating. That's not polite discourse, that a gratuitous insult. The least you can do when you call someone self-serving is to specify to which comment of theirs you're referring, rather than giving a blanket condemnation of everything they've written. Sorry you feel "censored" after spilling thousands of words on my blog.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 4:24 pm | #

>>you're working to increase your ability to have sex and avoid conception. Same difference.
----
It is very obvioius from this comment that you simply have no real experience with NFP. Anyone who thinks that increasing you ability to have sex by using NFP has no difference with contraception hasn't had to deal with two weeks (or more) of abstinence per month, or months of post-breastfeeding fertility sign ambiguity imposed abstinence. The HUGE difference is that NFP requires a level of self discipline, denial and sacrifice that is absent in contracepted sex.

>>I think you're falling into the trap of asceticism. You're saying using NFP is good because you're denying yourself something. I think asceticism in itself is a bad, bad thing. It's selfish, when you get right down to it.
---
You shold be alot more careful about judging others motives. I use NFP because I beleive it's morally correct. It don't think it's good BECAUSE I deny myself something. As a fallen, sinful human being, I hate denying myself. I hate abstaining. Yet I can see that good that comes out of it in teachig me the meaning of giving myself and my desire up for a good (my wife's well being for instance). I likewise try to limit what I eat so that I can stay healthy. Is that form of asceticism unacceptable to you as well? And in all these things, I often fail miserably. Yet, as with Christ carrying his cross, I attempt to struggle back to my feet and push on towards the goal of selfless love. If you think that all we are here to do is indulge ourselves, I'll just have to look at the crucified savior and respectfully disagree.

>>I've heard lots of women condemn another woman for using non-NFP BC even when it's for the exact same reason they use NFP. To me, that's saying that the tool itself is the license for the behavior.
---
It's not for the exact same reason. The goal is the same, but the proximate reason for ABC is to be able to engage in sex and not get pregnant, while with NFP it's to not engage in sex.
Catholic Gunslinger | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 4:39 pm | #

>>Whatever.
Sounds like the reponse I used to give my parents when I was an immature teenager. Dawn if that's outside the bounds, please feel free to 'censor' me. I won't go off in a hissy fit. :-D

>>I can't stand censorship, especially when it's completely unfounded.
Do you know what censorship is?
Catholic Gunslinger | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 4:43 pm | #

Hold on a second - the Church's claim is that She transmits Christ's teachings faithfully. Ergo, the Church's teaching on ABC is Christ's teaching. Ergo, ergo, if it results in a "Vatican roulette" baby, don't expect the Church to support it (after all, She is just the messenger) - ask God to (He's better at it anyway).
c matt | 06.02.05 - 5:53 pm | #

I struggled for a long time to come to an understanding of what Paul VI was saying in Humanae Vitae.

It comes down to this, I think: Intent.
There are four causes to everything: Final, Agent, Material, Formal.

A potter is a great ex. The potter is the agent, the clay is the matter, the vision the potter has is the final cause, and the shape the clay actually takes -that shape- is the form.

Sex in NFP, while lacking the material cause to have a baby (the egg)- which is natural- does not lack the final cause. The couple are, eerrr are supposed to be anyways, trying to get pregnant in THAT act; the final cause is present.

In contraception, the act excludes the final cause. It further,in fact, actively tries to negate it.

The point is that in THIS action the intent is there and theirs.

'No it is not, for when they can get pregnant they don't.'

This took me a while to understand. Just because, they don't try does not mean the final cause is excluded- for there is no action for there to be a final cause of. The action, and all the causes are negated, not excluded.
First time I have ever wrote this but I think it is right. Intent vs. no Intent. Opinions??
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 6:02 pm | #

Also, please spare me the I-can-think-for-myself-therefore-I-am-too-smart- to-be-Catholic shtick. There have been people with 1000 times the brainpower of anyone posting here (Augustine and Aquinas, anyone?) who fully accepted the Catholic Church with full use of their mental capacities.

People who have a beef with the Church's teaching on ABC either don't know it, or simply refuse to accept it not because it is not logical or consistent - it is perfectly so - but because they want to have sex when they want without getting pregnant. Period. In case you haven't figured it out, one of the main (if not the main) purpose of having sex is to GET pregnant. Just like one of the main purposes of eating is to get nourished. Eating, and then avoiding the consequence of nourishment by vomiting it up, is generally considered a disorder. Disconnecting procreation from the pleasure of sex is in the same category as disconnecting tasty food from providing nourishment. You cannot disagree that you are disconnecting the act from its purpose; the Church finds that disconnection sinful, and is perfectly logical to do so.
c matt | 06.02.05 - 6:07 pm | #

I choose to use one thing, someone else another, but the intent is the same -- yet the general attitude seems to be that if you use NFP, then you're okay no matter what.

NFP uses the natural fertility cycle, whereas ABC does not. One "respects" the rules of the game, the other cheats the rules. I can score a goal in soccer by dribbling the ball with my feet and kicking it past the goalkeeper, thereby, respecting the rules. I can also score by knocking the goalkeeper senseless with a baseball bat, and then shooting, but that would not be respecting the rules. Thus, the means, not just the end or intent, determine an act's morality.
c matt | 06.02.05 - 6:26 pm | #

Sex for unitive purposes is just as important as sex for procreative purposes.

Ergo, by the transitive property, sex for procreative purposes is just as important as sex for unitive purposes. Certainly, you would agree that sex without respecting the unitive purpose is immoral - eg, engaging in rape or prostitution. If you do, then you must logically agree that sex without respecting the procreative purpose is equally immoral. See, Catholics can think logically and consistently.
c matt | 06.02.05 - 6:35 pm | #

thank you c matt. there is definately a difference in the means.

just one addition: nfp orgs and most of the mfp using couples i know well have serious discusions about when nfp is legit reasonably often.

Anyway, the diff. between NFP and BC seems pretty obvious to me. When I have sex during my infertile time, whether as a part of using NFP to avoid conception (for a suitably grave reason) or not, I am changing nothing about that act. It will not produce a child. When I do not have sex during my fertile time, I am simply not having sex - I am not trying to change what sex is, or in the Pope's language, I am not trying to change the 'meaning' of sex, I am simply not having it.

Whereas, every form of BC changes the act in some way. Barrier methods prevent sperm from being transmitted, rejecting the husband's contribution. Hormonal methods artificially alter a women's very body! as well as making the womb a hostile place by changing its ph.

The difference? Assuming my intent is unselfish and conscientuous (not frivolous), when I have sex while using NFP, I am just having sex, as it was designed and intended. When a contracepting couple has sex, they have to mess around with the act, or their very bodies.

Isn't that a huge difference?
Kate | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 6:45 pm | #

I can understand the hurt done to Nina from being called a "Catholic roulette baby" and that she would never do this to her children. Unfortunately this is the same argument used to promote abortion. No child should be born when not wanted therefore an abortion will solve the problem.
The real problem is the attitude of the parents and the community to the value of human life.
My mother was in her 40s when she had my two youngest sisters. She was told by some people she should abort them as she was too old and/or her family was big enough. I thank God every day that she didn't listen to them. They have grown to be two beautiful, loving women who I am blessed to have been able to be a part of their lives.
I do not say to ignore the practicalities of life but just remember the hoies and blessing that every life is.
Peter - Australia | 06.02.05 - 8:16 pm | #

holiness not hoies.
Sorry, I need to learn to type better.
Peter - Australia | 06.02.05 - 8:17 pm | #

"We are called to be Christ-like, not to carry a cross."

I am reminded of one of the best sermons I ever heard. It included the story of a prominant man being asked to do something morally correct and important, but which would also subject him to scorn and ridicule and public diminishment.

He wouldn't commit.

"It's the Christian thing to do."

"Look I'm a follower of Christ, but I'm not going to follow Him to Calvary!"

"If you're not willing to follow Him to Calvary, you're not one of His followers, you're just one of his fans."
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 8:33 pm | #

I've been following this off & on today but too busy to comment. Very sad. I can only hope Nina's wounds will be healed in time. Sometimes it can be horrible to contemplate how much power parents have to hurt their children.

Regarding Joe's repeated challenge about couples risking children they can't afford to feed: that problem exists whether the couple uses ABC or not. Continuing Peter's train of thought above, the idea that there is some sort of right to sexual intercourse without pregnancy is the fundamental rationale for abortion.

The human race, at least in the industrialized world, wants to believe it can transcend nature by its own efforts. One needn't be a Catholic to remember that nature bats last.

Garrison Keillor has become pretty nastily anti-Christian in recent years, but I think his Lake Woebegon (sp?) priest nailed the contraception issue a while back: "If you didn't want to go to Minneapolis, why'd you get on the bus?"
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 9:42 pm | #

joe:

I don't have to read your heart when I can read your words. The contempt comes shining through. Your retreat into "context" clinched it.

If you "respect" orthodox Catholics, then the Pharisee "respected" the publican, too.

But on the bright side, I'm sure the Pharisee was proud of his intellect, too.
Dale Price | Homepage | 06.02.05 - 10:16 pm | #

>Continuing Peter's train of
>thought above, the idea that there is >some sort of right to sexual >intercourse without pregnancy is the >fundamental rationale for abortion.

Ahhhhh... no. There are a lot of pretences behind abortion. Delayed ensoulment. A superstitious dread that something more precious than human life would be lost on the slippery slope if abortion were discouraged, let alone legally restricted. Although one of the major motives for getting an abortion is to pretend that the act of conception never happened, supporters always admit that an abortion ends a pregnancy rather than preventing it.

It is the position of Planned Parenthood that what everyone knows is a form of infanticide is comparable to an act of spermicide. Agree with this position, and you are essentially in agreement with Planned Parenthood.

Something else the Pharisee was presumably proud of was being so much holier than God that God's law was not restrictive enough for him, and he was compelled to derive new comandments from his tuchis.
Dave Munger | Homepage | 06.03.05 - 1:17 am | #

"Thus, the means, not just the end or intent, determine an act's morality."

Whether NFP or contraception the means is the exact same. A piece of rubber does not change anything about the means. Although, it does not allow for an end.

Like driving to a town 100 miles away. I have a car and a road. Those are the means. But if I decide to stop half-way there, although I still have the means to continue, I no longer have the end.

'But a condom is like a giant wall blocking the road'

That still does not change the means. I still have a car and a road. A sign of this is that pregnancies still can occur. The difference is that when they do the child is unwanted. 'Unwanted' means 'undesired' and desire is about intent. Hence the difference must be the intent or the lack of respect for the inherent dignity of the human.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.03.05 - 11:56 am | #

I'm a late-comer to the conversation, so you'll all forgive me if I repeat sentiments previously stated in this blog.

Anyway, I find it interesting and a bit sad that the first line of Catholic defense on the teaching proscribing birth control has to be to promote Natural Family Planning and defend the differences between NFP and birth control. The differences are real enough. But I'm always a little sad to see the "children as blessings" reasoning shifted to a side-show.

A while back Joe said: "Maggie Sanger many have said some nasty stuff, but her commentary about families with 11 kids who can only afford to feed 5 is really not up for debate."

I think this is exactly the debate. Who alone bestows the gift of life? God does. We cooperate with Him in our marriages, but He alone bestows the gift. If He gives life, will He not provide? I don't believe in a God who won't.

I'm sure someone could give me a string of examples and web sites showing how children are starving to death and overwhelmed, stressed-out mothers are committing suicide ...

There could definitely be a discussion/debate about those matters.

But for me the bottom line is: children are always a blessing from God -- He tells us as much in Scripture (and I might add at a time when maternal mortality rates were staggering compared with those of today and the resources we have today just didn't exist).

Blessings don't always come in the form of temporal happiness. Our ultimate goal in this world is Heaven. Children bless marriages by being our helps in attaining heaven. One cannot enter heaven without being filled with love and love requires sacrifice. Sacrifice hurts.
It means laying down your life. Dying when the time comes for it. You can't proport to love a thing and not be willing to die for it. (Paraphrase of Chesterton.)

NFP is licit in grave circumstances. True enough. But sometimes I wish Catholics would raise the bar in discussions, aim higher and encourage the heroic virtue of giving all creative power over to God.

Perhaps that is too much. I don't know. But when I got married, I understood that love of my spouse and procreation of children is exactly what marriage is for. It's not always fun; it's rarely easy; but it's always worth the cost.
Suzanne | 06.03.05 - 4:46 pm | #

Brava, Suzanne. Spot on.
Kate B. | 06.03.05 - 4:53 pm | #

Suzanne,

Ive struggled with this. I want to leave it to God but I would need another van and a bigger house which I cant afford. I have other struggles that compel me to wait. I need to reread all the encyclicals to find a real definition. Id be perectly happy to dive in and give it all to God. Of coarse my cycles are getting longer and my periods shorter so I may not have a whole lot to leave to God before too long.
Josephine | Homepage | 06.03.05 - 5:09 pm | #

Suzanne, bravo!
Sure, babies change everything, but I've never seen one that wasn't a blessing, in one way or another. I, too, have struggled with the emphasis on NFP (which, however, is exceptionally useful for TRYING to get pregnant!) It always seemed to me to diminish the stronger argument of the church, and instead muddied the waters, making the whole thing to be simply an argument between the FDA approved method and the open-market Mexican method. (I'm trying to draw an analogy to getting drugs from across the border as opposed to your local pharmacist and I can tell it's not working as well as I'd like). God does provide, in ways we can't even begin to imagine. I don't regret one struggle we've had, economic or otherwise. There's an old Jewish saying, "There's too things you can never have enough of: children and money. And one follows the other." (I think that is an old Jewish saying. At least it seemed that way when told to me by old man Moskowitz.)
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 06.03.05 - 5:34 pm | #

Whether NFP or contraception the means is the exact same.

The means of NFP is not the same as contraception. NFP is periodic abstinence. In order to contracept, there must be some act with potential conceptive consequences which you are contracepting. With NFP, there is not an act that is being contracepted, there is simply no act to contracept.

I think you are confusing the means with the tools used in carrying out the means. The end in your example is to travel to the town. The tools may be the car and road - but the method by which you achieve your end is to drive. The problem with the analogy is that in the example, the action used (driving) is the same, but the methods (that is, the actions taken to achieve the end) wrt NFP and ABC are not the same. Strapping on a piece of rubber is simply not the same action as abstaining, thus the methods used, and therefore the means to achieve the end, are different. One is to strap on rubber. The other is to not engage in intercourse. Driving is not the same method as not driving.

To use another traffic analogy, the natural fertility cycle can be analogized to the traffic laws - to cross an intersection, your light must be green. If you cross while red (eg, perform intercourse during fertile time) you run the risk of getting a ticket. You have three options - (1) follow the established traffic signal cycle and hence "not cross" during the red light (eg, abstain); or (2) cross during the red light and accept the risk of getting a ticket (maybe, in fact, you want a ticket -i.e., get pregnant) or (3) thwart the established cycle and its consequences by introducing an external element (artifical birth control) - eg, a license plate obscurer (condom) so you cannot be identified and hence avoid the ticket.

Thus, there is a difference between the means of NFP (working within the natural consequences of the cycle and accepting their risks) and artifical contraception (introducing something outside the natural consequences of the cycle to eliminate or reduce the risk).
c matt | 06.03.05 - 5:46 pm | #

Speaking as an anti-environmentalist, what's so great about the natural part of natural family planning? You're still treating potential children as the enemy.
Joseph Hertzlinger | Homepage | 06.05.05 - 8:53 pm | #

c matt,

Hmm... I think we are equivicating. Namely on NFP: NFP is the act of having sex only when she is not fertile. The effect of this statement is that the couple does not have sex when she is fertile.

"...is simply not the same action as abstaining," here is the heart of it.
Abstanance is not an action. Hence it cannot be the means, that by which you act, of NFP. It is an effect of the action of only having sex when she is not fertile.

This is why I think my arguement holds. Same means, different ends- namely lust, and unity. If your defining NFP as abstanance then the end is the same- not to get pregnant- and inherent in that arguement, it seems to me, is the lack of respect for human dignity.
Certainly not to say in any way that you don't have that respect.
Your friend,
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.06.05 - 1:35 pm | #

Joseph Hertzlinger,
I think you are correct only if you define NFP as an abstanance, instead of abstanance as an effect of NFP- namely of the couple only having sex when she is not fertile. Hence under this def. NFP is completly natural.
Jacob G. | Homepage | 06.06.05 - 1:38 pm | #

Abstinence isn't an action? I disagree. Planned, prepared, deliberate abstinence with a specific purpose in mind is very much an action, especially when one must plan and prepare for this period of abstinence through a series of deliberate and chosen actions taken every single day.

I have participated in or followed discussions on this subject several times now, and I've yet to hear an argument that leads me to believe NFP is any different than using a condom.

It all boils down to intent, and the fact that the couples in question are all taking deliberately chosen actions in order to achieve the same purpose: avoiding pregnancy. It's all conception-avoidance. It's all about still being able to have the opportunity to enjoy certain aspects of married life while avoiding the outcome of those actions.

Whether you choose to abstain from intercourse during fertile periods, or whether you choose to use a barrier during those fertile periods makes no difference. You're still taking very deliberate, willful steps to circumvent the possibility of pregnancy.

Also, these discussions often tend to degrade into the NFPers pulling superiority and claiming they have better marriages, etc., because of NFP. Well, the only divorced Catholic couple I know are my brother and sister in law, and he couldn't take it anymore -- she was lying about her fertile periods because she wanted more babies closer together, and he was under tremendous financial strain, and he felt manipulated and used and as if he was merely a sperm donor, so he opted out, and I can't say that I blame him. This only goes to show that NFP can be problematic for some couples, can be abused, and can drive a wedge between them rather than bring them closer.

Personally, I think this is all very private stuff and an area where everyone ought to be minding their own business.
Lannister | 06.08.05 - 7:52 am | #

NFP is not about lying, Lannister. You can't tar the entire practice because someone is following it in name only.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.08.05 - 1:01 pm | #

I'm not "tarring the entire practice" at all. I said it was my only experience with a divorced Catholic couple, and the divorce was the result of NFP being abused and causing undue stress and difficulties in the marriage. That was to address the usual arguments one encounters where the NFP-using person tells the condom- or diaphragm-using person that NFP marriages are better and closer and stronger. That's not always the case. I gave one example, and I'm sure there are others.

Personally, I have yet to see a convincing argument that NFP in itself is any more morally superior than using a barrier method. That doesn't mean I think NFP is bad or shouldn't be used. It means I personally have yet to be convinced that it is morally any different than using condoms.

I also disagreed that abstinence was not an action, and that that particular argument didn't hold water for that reason.
Lannister | 06.08.05 - 1:28 pm | #