Why Are We Pushing NFP? Because Sometimes It's Needed.

Emerging from my blogging hiatus to address a particularly tiresome article from the "holier-than-thou" Church brigade.

This time it's Michael Voris hosting an article by Dr. Jay Boyd, claiming that the Church is wrong in "pushing" NFP.

Note that Boyd claims NFP is licit, but claims that those using it to avoid pregnancy aren't adequately discerning grave reasons to do so. She implies that there are very few grave reasons in which it is necessary for a Catholic couple to avoid pregnancy, and it's far better to simply have has many babies as physically possible and leave the rest up to God. (Which is kind of like throwing yourself off a cliff and trusting God to save you.)

This is the comment I left in reply, in its entirety:

From Gaudiem et Spes, by Pope Paul VI:

"Let [parents] thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else [not Jay Boyd, and not Michael Voris] should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate."

I've heard Jay Boyd make the claim before that use of NFP is not virtuous. However, she has never been able to back up that claim with actual Church teaching.

The Church, contrary to what Jay Boyd and Michael Voris claim, does not teach that every couple MUST use NFP. She teaches that the parents themselves, and no one else, should make decisions regarding family size in the sight of God (see quote from Gaudiem et Spes above). Sometimes that means using NFP to avoid. Sometimes that means using NFP to acheive. Sometimes that means not using NFP at all. A Catholic couple can do all three in the course of their married life, depending on their circumstances.

It makes no sense, as Jay Boyd is trying to claim, that the Church says NFP is licit but that it should not be used. If it is licit, then Catholics can freely discern whether or not they should use it, and if their reasons are just. Those reasons, however, are subjective, not objective, and only the couple themselves, in the sight of God, can decide if their reasons are just.

It seems Dr. Boyd and Michael Voris are practicing Matthew 23:4: "For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them."

Michael Voris is not married. Dr. Boyd had a tubal ligation after two children because she was unaware of Church teaching re: sterilization. They have never had to shoulder the burden of a large family in tandem with the financial difficulties of a subpar economy, mental stress and/or illness, physical illness, etc. (Please note that large families are WONDERFUL and joyful, and those who have large families are to be commended for their great generosity. However, the blessing of a large family also comes with great responsibility, especially financially, unless one is blessed to be independently wealthy.) So it is easy for them to say that couples "overuse" NFP. But thankfully the Church does not teach what they claim it does.

Edit: And because I'm sure I'll be asked - my husband and I have been married since 2001 and Catholic since 2003. We have 5 children on earth, and 3 in heaven. My most recent miscarriage was in June 2015. My doctor has recommended that we avoid pregnancy for 3 months in order to give my body a chance to heal. I'm sure Jay Boyd and Michael Voris would think this reason is not sufficient, but my husband and I have discerned through prayer and reflection that it is, and thus we are using the Marquette Method of NFP to avoid pregnancy. Thankfully we, not them, have the final say in the sight of God. We reevaluate our reasons for avoiding at the start of every cycle to determine of they are indeed just reasons to avoid.

Not surprisingly - although hilariously - Mr. Voris redacted my comment, claiming it was an "ad hominem" attack, and that the details of his and Dr. Boyd's personal lives were irrelevant. [Note: since that time, a moderator for Church Militant contacted me to let me know that he, not Mr. Voris personally, redacted my comment. I have since been banned from commenting at Voris' blog. I guess he just can't handle the truth.]

On the contrary, I think it is very relevant. It's simple truth that those facts are VERY pertinent given the scope of their arguments against NFP. They've never been "in the trenches," so to speak, yet they claim authority on this topic. Neither of them have never had any experience whatsoever with needing to discern their family size in the context of Catholic moral teaching, yet they claim that those of us who are obligated to make this discernment are somehow not being generous enough (despite Church teaching that says no one else can make that judgement except the couple themselves in the sight of God).

Have you heard the conservative argument that it's very easy for liberals to be generous with someone else's money? In the same vein, it's easy for the unmarried (Voris) or sterilized (Boyd) to be generous with someone else's fertility. It's no trouble at all to claim that others can and should have 10+ children when you don't have to bear the burden of feeding, clothing, educating, cleaning up after, and spiritually tending those children.

It's easy for them to tell another couple they aren't being generous enough with their family size when they don't have to pay that couple's mortgage, grocery bills, utilities, car payment(s), student loan and/or medical debt, and other expenses.

It's easy for them to tell another couple they aren't being generous enough with their family size when they don't suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum, bipolar disorder, postpartum depression, or other illnesses.

But for those of us struggling to raise a larger-then-average family in the midst of financial hardship, mental or physical illness, and other serious concerns, we recognize the Church's wisdom in encouraging us to know and learn a method of natural family planning so we can use it if and when we discern it is prudent to do so (and remember, the Church calls us to responsible parenthood, which encompasses generosity and prudence - not just generosity).

Why does the Church "push" NFP? Because it's better to learn NFP in the months leading up to your wedding when you are (presumably) not having sex, so you can chart your cycles and learn your body without having to factor in intercourse. After the wedding, you and your spouse can discern what to do - avoid, achieve, or just ignore NFP completely if that's what you feel God is calling you to do. And if there comes a time where you discern that avoiding pregnancy is needed, you already have the knowledge at your fingertips and don't have the added stress of trying to learn a method from scratch in the midst of stressful conditions (new baby, health difficulties, financial woes, etc.).

The Church also "pushes" NFP because so few Catholics use it. That's what baffles me about Voris, Boyd, and others who discourage NFP. Talk about straining at gnats while swallowing camels! Any Catholic couple who chooses to avoid pregnancy and elects to use NFP instead of contraception should be commended, not condemned. Even if their motives aren't 100% pure (which is impossible for anyone but the couple themselves to discern), at least they are trying to act morally, which is a good first step toward a complete conversion of heart regarding their family size.

After all, NFP can be hard. It’s almost like it was designed to persuade couples who do have allegedly selfish motives that the reasons they have to avoid pregnancy aren’t really that serious. Who voluntarily abstains from sex with their spouse if they don't have a really good reason for doing so?

If Catholics are inclined to be selfish, they aren’t going to use a method like NFP, which requires one to be selfless. As blogger John Gerardi says, “When Catholics want to be selfish, they don’t use a method of fertility planning that involves enormous amounts of self control and long periods of continence.  They just use contraception, something naturally tailored for people who are trying to be selfish.”

How does it make sense to attack Catholics who are trying to do the right thing? How does it make sense to take a situation than you have never been in, yourself, and presume to make judgement about it? I don't mind when my priest gives me advice about discerning family size - in fact I welcome his advice, because he knows, thanks to the confessional, the intimate details of my life, my marriage, and my struggles. He's heard the confessions of other couples in my position. He's studied for years, as part of his vocation, to counsel couples in these situations. He is the one of the shepherds the Church has appointed to help me make spiritual decisions.

Neither Voris nor Boyd have been appointed by the Church as the shepherds of other Catholics' fertility - they have taken that responsibility unto themselves and it is most emphatically not needed.

But I will extend an offer to them. They can come and live in my home, among my family, and help my husband and I raise our children and pay our bills. Then, perhaps, we will consult them when discerning our family size.

Otherwise, they should butt out.

There's No Reason to Feel Offended by Pope Francis

I think I've finally been able to pin down why I'm so bothered about the reaction to the Pope's infamous "rabbits" comment.

Hypothetically*, let's say a generic Christian minister made the following comment during a news interview:

"Some women think that, in order to keep a boyfriend, they have to have sex. No. Responsible sexual behavior."  

The next day, the media reports, "[Pastor] states women shouldn't have sex! War on Women!"

It'd be ridiculous, right? Anyone could look at the actual comments in context and see that's clearly not what the pastor said, or meant. He clarified his words with "In order to keep a boyfriend"; clearly, his statement was not directed to all women - only those who believed that they had to have sex in order to keep their boyfriends.

As a woman, I wouldn't be offended by his words, since I agree with him that women shouldn't feel like they have to have sex in order to keep their boyfriends (since any boyfriend who won't respect your choice to abstain from sex prior to marriage isn't worth keeping).

Compare that to what Pope Francis said:

Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood. 

Clearly, Pope Francis' comment was not meant to include all people with children across the board; rather, he was only talking about the specific people who believe that in order to be a good Catholic, you have to reproduce without recourse to human reason, just like rabbits do.

That's why I'm so puzzled by all of the parents of many who were so offended by his remarks. I don't know any mom or dad of many who thinks that they HAVE to have a certain number of children in order to fulfill some kind of "good Catholic" quota. They have the number of children that they do because they discerned that they should, and that's precisely as it should be. Unless you're a person who honestly believes that in order to be a good Catholic, you have to reproduce without recourse to human reason, Pope Francis wasn't talking about you or your family. There's no reason to feel offended.

And if you DO believe you have to reproduce without recourse to human reason in order to be a good Catholic (I personally don't know of any Catholic who thinks this, but there are many non-Catholics who are under that impression), Pope Francis was explaining that such a belief is in direct opposition to actual Catholic teaching.

Not to mention that if Pope Francis really thought large families were a bad thing, he wouldn't say this only a day or two later:

"It gives consolation and hope to see so many large families that welcome children as a true gift of God. They know that every child is a blessing."

*Not a perfect analogy, obviously, but it's the best I could come up with after a long day at work and a long evening dealing with a three-year-old's histrionics. If you can think of a better one, or if you'd like to buy a three-year-old, please leave a comment!

What the Catholic Church Means by Responsible Parenthood

Forgive me, this is going to be a long one.

Yet again, Pope Francis is being attacked for reiterating the teaching of the Catholic Church. This time, he made the not-so-revolutionary statement that parents are called to both generosity and prudence in discerning their family size.

However, like always, the media interpretation is quite different. According to them, Pope Francis says "Catholics shouldn't breed like rabbits." Which is, of course, not at all what Pope Francis said.

C'mon, media, even we can figure that out*

But I'm not really interested in rehashing what the Pope actually said as opposed to what the media claims he said, as several other bloggers (such as Leila and Simcha) have already done an excellent job doing so. Rather, I'd like to expound upon what the Church means by responsible parenthood, because this seems to be a concept that Catholics on both end of the spectrum don't fully understand.

What is Responsible Parenthood?

Pope Paul VI gave a very clear, concise explanation about what constitutes responsible parenthood in Humanae Vitae (HV), paragraph 10 (all bolding mine):

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

If you have a large family, you can practice responsible parenthood. If you have a small family, you can practice responsible parenthood. All families regardless of their size are called to practice responsible parenthood with both prudence and generosity. Like so many other aspects of Catholicism, it is not either/or, it is both/and.

Not prudence (small family) OR generosity (large family). Prudence AND generosity.

What is prudence?

We can turn to paragraphs 1806 and 1835 of the Catechism for that answer:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.  

1835 Prudence disposes the practical reason to discern, in every circumstance, our true good and to choose the right means for achieving it.

Simply put, prudence is applying moral precepts to every day situations. A prudent couple may discern that they are not called to have another baby, and use right means (NFP) to avoid conception. A prudent couple may also discern that they are being called to have another baby, and use right means (the marital act) to achieve conception. Neither couple is "wrong" in what they choose to do, as long as their consciences are properly formed according to the Church, and they have done their utmost to discern God's will for their lives. Some may not know if they have discerned correctly until Judgement Day.

HV 10 continues,

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

The Church tells us we need to keep a right order of priorities, and then gives us those priorities AND their proper order!  God, ourselves, our families, and human society. Notice that "having another baby" does not top that list. Nor is it #2. If a woman has a grave health risk in which pregnancy could cause grave harm or even death, she is not required to try to conceive again in the hopes that everything will turn out all right.

For example, look at the story of Andrea Yates. She had severe PPD/PPP after her first several pregnancies, and her doctor had warned her that she needed to get serious treatment before having another baby, but she conceived anyway. The result was tragedy.

We are reminded that we have to conform all of our actions to God's will:

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.

Paul VI had already promulgated this teaching in Gaudiem et Spes, several years earlier:

Let [parents] thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. 

This is what Pope Francis was referring to when he told reporters that the Church does NOT instruct us to "be like rabbits" (and he apologized for using that phrase -- he too understands how demeaning it is toward faithful Catholic couples).

Rabbits do not care about the objective moral order. Rabbits do not stop to question their consciences before engaging in intercourse. Rabbits do not have a right order of priorities.

Rabbits are not bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the creator.

We are not to be like rabbits, mindlessly using our bodies without also engaging our human reason. That soundbyte, however, doesn't garner the amount of clicks that "Pope says Catholics shouldn't breed like rabbits" does.

Large Families and Responsible Parenthood

Finally, I'd like to point out something else Paul VI said in Gaudiem et Spes:

Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.

Note that Paul VI did not say the people who merit special mention are "those who just have baby after baby after baby without any regard to the conditions I just discussed." Catholics are encouraged to have large families, but only if, after "wise and common deliberation," they feel they are called to do so.

Given these precepts, let's look at the example Pope Francis himself used. He spoke of a woman who'd had seven C-sections and was pregnant with her eighth child. Here is exactly what he said:

This doesn't mean that the Christian must make children "in series." I met a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant with her eighth child, who had had seven C-sections. But does she want to leave the seven as orphans? This is to tempt God. I speak of responsible paternity. This is the way, a responsible paternity.

We don't have all the details because Pope Francis did not give them, but we know he was concerned enough about her situation to use her story as a caution to others.

It seems safe to assume that she had some health problems that made deliberately achieving another pregnancy very imprudent, or lived in an area of the country that made having a C-section much more dangerous and risky than it is in the United States.

I say "deliberately" because I doubt Pope Francis would have used her story if she'd been trying to avoid pregnancy but was victim to the failure rate of NFP; he speaks of "tempting God," which seems to imply that the woman in question became pregnant deliberately, and rationalized her decision by stating she would trust God to save her from the consequences of a poor choice.

It seems also safe to assume, given that he prefaced the remark by stating that Christians do not have to have children "in series," that this woman was of the providentalist mindset (e.g., couples who make no attempt to space pregnancies because they feel it is inherently wrong to do so).

As Pope Francis expressed concern that this woman would lose her own life as well as orphan her seven older children, it seems he was reminding the Catholic faithful that our discernment must, as Gaudiem et Spes says, "...thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring."

Trusting God versus Tempting God

Remember that we have free will. We can choose to have sex, and a baby might result from that decision. That does not mean the decision corresponds to the will of God. To make the claim, "Well, if you do conceive that means God willed it to happen" can set a dangerous precedent. For example, it could lead to claiming that since babies are conceived via immoral means like IVF, or even rape, those means are therefore good. But while the end might be an objectively good thing (a new human life), the means to that end are not always moral or in accordance with God's will.

God's ways are mysterious. He can bring good out of our own bad decisions and bad situations. There are many women who discerned they should not conceive due to grave health reasons but who unintentionally conceived anyway. In cases like these, intent matters. The women were not trying to be reckless or imprudent or tempt God; they were trying to act according to the precepts of responsible parenthood. But that is simply the nature of our fallen world -- sometimes we can act as virtuously as we can and yet things still go wrong. (That's not to say the child is wrong, merely the situation.) In those cases, all we can do is trust God that there is a larger plan, and that He will bring good out of whatever bad situations we find ourselves in, whether or not those situations are the result of our own bad choices. Easier said than done, right?

However, we need to make the distinction between trusting God and tempting God. We trust God to take care of us, but in turn God trusts US to discern wisely and try our hardest to make decisions that are in conformity to His will -- and He trusts us to be both prudent and generous when it comes to our family size.

We tempt God when we make decisions that are reckless or irresponsible, especially if we make those decisions on the basis of trusting God to protect us from the consequences of our actions -- which He doesn't always do. I can't throw myself off a cliff and trust God to save me. He will allow me to suffer the consequences of my own bad choices, even if He chooses to somehow bring good out of them.

In Conclusion

Pope Francis hasn't taught anything new. Many people on Facebook, blogs, etc. are complaining that the media misrepresentation of his remarks means they will be inundated with comments from relatives and others telling them that they don't have to have a large family, the Pope said so! Yes, and those same people probably told you that Pope Benedict said you could use condoms, too. These days, this kind of thing is part and parcel of being Catholic. All we can do is look at it as an opportunity to evangelize to our family and correct misconceptions about Catholic teaching at the same time.

Okay? Okay. Now, go forth and multiply...

....prudently, generously, and in conformity with the will of God.

The Winner's Guide to NFP!

Did you see the awesome giveaway by Simcha Fisher in honor of NFP Awareness week? Check it out!

And while you're at it, check out her book The Sinner's Guide to NFP. Far and away the best NFP book I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

Natural Family Planning is "#Zeropercenteffective" - A Response

Blogger Jerrid Sebesta claims that Natural Family Planning is "zero percent effective" because he and his wife experienced an unplanned pregnancy after six months of use.

source: http://iusenfp.com/home/graphics/wm-planned-2/

How on earth does an unplanned pregnancy after only six months of use mean that the method as a whole is zero percent effective? Any birth control method will fail with user error; it does not mean that the method itself is "zero percent effective." If his wife was on the Pill and forgot to take it one day, and she became pregnant, would he claim that the Pill is "#zeropercenteffective"? I'm guessing not.

Mr. Sebesta doesn't share which NFP method he and his wife were using (the notoriously unreliable calendar method, perhaps?), or if they had any formal training or classes, or how their charting and reading of fertility signs went wrong. He simply warns his male readers, "Guys, if your wife tells you 'I know my body'... don’t believe her."

Also, that line is so infuriating on so many levels. He's the one who is fertile 100% of the time, yet he (apparently) leaves 100% of the charting and interpretation to her. This is a common burden for women even with contraceptives; the vast majority place the burden of use on the woman, not the man. Pia de Solenni has an excellent article about that state of affairs. Of course, if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, many men are quick to blame the woman, despite the fact that it takes two to tango and no method of avoiding pregnancy is 100% effective. 

I have a hashtag for him: #you'redoingitwrong. He's a literate man; he can read her chart and then they can both decide, TOGETHER, if her signs indicate fertility or not, and make decisions about abstaining from intercourse from there. NFP encourages men and women to manage their combined fertility together; it shouldn't be all on one person as he seems to believe. 

Attitudes like his frankly frighten me, and here is one reason why: http://m.newser.com/story/190595/birth-control-chip-could-last-16-years.html

Why, look, here's a handy dandy little device that men like Mr. Sebesta can pressure their wives into using. Then all he has to do his hide the remote from her, and he can turn her fertility on and off at his pleasure. After all, he can't trust her to know her body, so it's best that he controls it. For the good of their marriage, of course.

I'm amazed that feminist groups aren't screaming from the rooftops about the potential of abuse of this device.  For example, China could pass a law calling for all women to be forcibly implanted (with government officials in charge of all the remotes, of course). 

[Incidentally, why isn't NOW vociferously objecting to remote-controlled contraception that can be used and manipulated by abusive partners or governments? Oh, that's right, they are too busy calling nuns "dirty" and complaining about Hobby Lobby's refusal to pay for abortifacients to deal with an issue that is an actual threat to a woman's bodily autonomy and reproductive health.  #butIdigress]

Back to Mr. Sebesta: they either didn't follow the rules, misread or misinterpreted fertility signs, or decided to take a risk during a potentially fertile period -- or a combination thereof. (It's  possible, albeit very unlikely, that they experienced a genuine method failure, something that could happen with any method of birth control.) As I discussed above, a couple's user failure is not an accurate reflection of NFP's method's perfect use efficacy any more than someone who forgets their Pill is a reflection on the Pill's method use efficacy. 

My husband and I have been using NFP since 2003 to both achieve and avoid pregnancy (at first we used the SymptoThermal method, and since 2011 or so we've been using the Marquette Method). We've had seven pregnancies, and only one of those was "unplanned." I frankly admit it was due to user error -- I was charting very lazily (not recording all of my signs, waiting days after the fact to record my temperatures, when my memory wasn't very accurate) and so we weren't following the rules. NFP wasn't effective for us in that case because we weren't using NFP as it was meant to be used: correctly. Every time we've actually followed the rules, we've been able to successfully avoid or achieve, depending on our intention. 

I guess that makes my hashtag #100percenteffective. 

NFP Saved My Life and My Marriage

The following is a series of blog comments posted by Heidi at Little Catholic Bubble. They were so good that I asked her if I could consolidate them into a guest post on my blog, and she graciously agreed. Heidi blogs at Bringing Theo Home, which is about her family's journey to adopt a little boy with Down Syndrome from Hong Kong.

Graphic courtesy of http://www.iusenfp.com

I grew up in the deep South. Being Catholic was NOT the cool thing to do (I can go on and on about how we were treated, but let's just say you were the target of most of the Protestant religions. Masses were crashed and priests spit on, I was once the focus of an "intervention" by my friend's parents to "save" me, etc). My parents, who are very much "cafeteria Catholics", scrimped and saved to send me and my siblings to a Catholic high school. The only one in a 4 hour radius, to be exact. I am not at all exaggerating when I say that this decision on their part saved my life. I went through a DEEP depression in college, and it was the Truth that I was taught there that kept me from killing myself. The beacon of the Church was the ONLY thing I was able to cling to during that time period. (I actually haven't talked about this time period in my life with anyone other than my husband, so those of you who know me IRL....umm...surprise!).

One of the things that this school did well was teach the Faith as a tapestry - it permeated every aspect of our education, like Catholicism does in real life. This included the sciences - I was taught an incredible amount of anatomy and physiology....concurrently being taught Catholic moral theology (which includes these sexual issues) in my religion classes. We were taught a basic form of mucus-only NFP, WHILE being taught about the dignity of both male and female and life. Basically, it wasn't "Don't do this, don't do that," it was "you are made in the image and likeness of God and your worth and dignity is found in that truth...and you should NEVER be exploited." As I came through the early part of my 20s (the deep depression), I started to realize just how much that foundation was the saving grace for me. If I had NOT been taught about this innate dignity - as well as the intricacy of human reproduction - but instead, relied on what I was being told by my OB/GYNs and the culture, at large, I'm pretty sure I'd either be dead or at least divorced at this point. Even though the culture and the medical world was telling me that contraception and casual sex was the way to "empowerment".....it lead me into a deep, dark place full of bitterness and hurt (every time I think of CS's comment about the "constant sobbing", I flash back to college life and my contraceptive years).

My husband and I met early and started dating young (18 - he was the first person I met at college, after my roommate). We were married at 22, after finishing college in 3 years each. We were not at all chaste during this period. (We gave in to the culture). In some ways, I guess we were "better" than we could have been, in that we were in a committed relationship and not sleeping around, but this period of time involves some of my greatest regrets. I degraded myself, and I degraded him. We both used each other, not empowered each other. I had been put on BC as a "solution" to my PCOS, and honestly, the fact that I was already taking it for "medical reasons" led me to give into the rest of the culture. I wish I hadn't.


We were married young, on purpose. He was entering medical school, and we didn't want to delay our marriage for at least 8 more years (med school + residency, which could have extended if he'd decided to do a fellowship as well). One of my clearest memories was after he proposed, when we *finally* discussed plans for children during our marriage. Thank God I'd had that foundation in high school - I flat out told him that I was not going to be on birth control during our marriage. It wasn't really "fixing" my symptoms, even after shopping around for doctors and prescriptions, and the side effects were horrible (little did I know how much they were effecting the other things I was dealing with at the time - relationship issues due to a low libido, weight gain, hormonal swings that were CRAZY, high blood pressure, etc), and I firmly believed that marriages needed to be built on an openness to children. (It's funny to me now, how I was able to "divorce" the sexual act from marriage - I had no moral problems with birth control and sleeping with my husband BEFORE marriage....but once that wedding happened, it was "wrong" in my thoughts...).

We were married at 22, like I said, and got pregnant right away. Unfortunately, that pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. I was devastated. I started researching the birth control options that I'd been on and learned things about birth control and miscarriage rates, breast cancer, infertility. I was livid that I hadn't been told these things by ANY of the doctors I'd seen, even though they're well-documented in medical literature. Part of this blame I accept as my fault - I should have done the research BEFORE taking it. We did successfully get pregnant and maintain that pregnancy full-term, having our first little boy a year later, at 23.

Having children young was the BEST decision we EVER made. I cannot say that enough. Was it hard? You betcha. My family lived 9 hours away, his lived 4 hours away, and all of our friends from college had graduated and moved on by the time we had kids (we stayed at the same college for med school as we were at for undergrad - most of our friends graduated and left the state for jobs). Our parish "community outreach" was a joke - we had no support there. Parts of the country are like that, I've lived both in parishes like that and in Leila's diocese. Night and day difference. We had NO money. I was working, but it was an entry-level job that I'd gotten in college to pay for school and only kept because the health benefits were fantastic (it was a union job) and we needed that as a young family. He waited tables when he wasn't in class or studying. The only financial support we had from family was $100/month on my parent's credit card for groceries. We had no physical support - we had to make our own.

Having that experience (we had our second child 17 months later, on purpose - I knew enough NFP from high school that we were able to use what I knew about my body to "better" our chances of conceiving, haha) is what strengthened our marriage. It's what pulled me out of my depression. Was it easy? Not at all. I cried myself to sleep quite often, out of sheer exhaustion. But the joy that those two little boys brought to my husband and I - the PURPOSE they gave our lives - made every dinner of ramen noodles or the driving to the post office on a particular day instead of another, in hopes that we could have a bill payment cashed on one day instead of another, worth it. We were no longer two people living side-by-side, as we had been pre-kids, but a team that *had* to rely on each other. I won't idealize it - there were days when I just got in the car and had to drive away because i was so stressed and angry at my husband that I couldn't look at his face. We were very, very strapped, not at all "flourishing" by the world's standards (or even my own at that point), but our *souls* were flourishing. We were growing in virtue - especially growing in charity. We have to remember that the Church deals in matters of souls.....

After baby boy #2, I had a severe recurrence of symptoms from my PCOS. I went to my OB/GYN and she prescribed yet another form of birth control, citing it as my only option. Not knowing any better, and again, not doing my research yet, I started using it. (apparently, I'm a slow learner). At this point, my husband had started his training in OB/GYN. Let me tell you, there is pretty much NO discussion of anything other than birth control during this kind of residency. He only received ONE lecture on NFP....and it was one that he gave after receiving training at the Pope Paul VI Institute. Birth control is presented as the only option/treatment for quite a few reproductive issues, and definitely as the only "reliable" option when it comes to avoiding pregnancy (which makes me giggle, honestly, considering the high user-failure rate of birth control).

The year that followed was the worst of our marriage. My libido was gone. We were not attracted to each other AT ALL and my emotions were all over the place. I know now that there is science behind a lot of what we experienced, but at the time, I didn't. We went back to living like roommates, and our parenting suffered. There was one instance that chills me to the bone now....that almost resulted in me packing my bags and taking the two boys and leaving him. I was determined to do so. To this day, I thank God that my husband is as strong as he is. He was the first one to - on his own - start researching alternatives to birth control and mainstream OB/GYN care. He was the first one to find NaProTechnology and research it - he knew, after those years without birth control (even though we were both working full time and he was attending med school full time AND we had two kids under age 3...so stress level was pretty much the same, if not less in residency since I was no longer working as many hours), that the Heidi he was seeing at home was not the real Heidi. (Mind you, this was birth control option #4....it was not a simple "wrong dose" experience - I'd had this same experience on ALL of the forms). He found NaPro, explained it to me, and we found a way to get the help that I actually needed to get control of my PCOS symptoms...without the birth control.

When I stopped taking it, my life turned around completely. I finally felt "normal" again. My libido was back. I still had symptoms that I was dealing with, but I *finally* had someone who told me that they weren't actually normal and that they were tied to something else going on in my body that we COULD fix. Before this point, I was told by multiple doctors that these were just "common complaints" and that birth control would fix things. Looking back, I see now the beauty and truth found in Humanae Vitae. NFP literally saved my life and my marriage.

We did go on to have a third little boy, during residency. A lot of people told us that we were being irresponsible. After all, my husband was working 80-100 hours a week, we were going into our third year of residency (the worst one, schedule wise), and he was only making $3/hour. However, I firmly believe with every ounce of my body that the irresponsible move on our part would have been to avoid conceiving our third son. Everyone around us (remember, we were submerged in a dead parish and the mainstream OB/GYN world) told us we needed to be "done" at two. Most of their reasons had to do with finances and lifestyle choices - we'd need a bigger car, we needed to pay off med school debt, we wouldn't be able to take vacations, we didn't have family nearby, my husband wasn't home very much, etc. Responsible parenting, in their eyes, would be securing these things FIRST.

They were wrong. Responsible parenting meant being the best parents we could be to our children. Being open to life was responsible parenting for us. Our third child is integral to our family. I cannot imagine the void that would be there if we had done what was "responsible" in the culture's eyes and stopped after our second son. In fact, before Leila even posted this thread, I posted a status on FB that said just that - I am grateful to God every.single.day that He changed our hearts, that He allowed for my high school foundation and knowledge, and that we have our children that came after #2 (#3 who is here already, #4 who we are in-process of adopting, and #5 that I'm currently pregnant with).

I recognize that not every story will sound like mine. But the statistics support the fact that the vast majority of those who do use NFP find joy through the suffering that they may experience. I think NFP changes your HEART more than it changes anything else. Contraception doesn't force you to examine your priorities every month, or examine your world views, or grow your communication skills and get creative in how you show your love quite like NFP does. The biggest thing that I noticed between my NFP life and my contraceptive life (other than the side effects) was a very noticeable change in my worldview and my heart. I was *forced* to grow in virtue. I was forced to acknowledge the truth about sex and marriage (biological truths), and order my life accordingly. Living in denial of truth does not lead to empowerment....it leads to bitterness and pain. Living in accordance with the truth is what leads to joy. And no matter how much we want to deny it, the biological truth written on our bodies is that sex leads to babies.

I've already written a huge novel, but I wanted to speak to a few other comments. I know that we would have had a different set of struggles and different aspects to discern through if *I* had been the med student/resident, as opposed to my husband. [This is] why I think the Church is so wise in not giving us a "list" of what is and is not a grave reason to avoid pregnancy, or even a bulleted list as to what defines responsible parenting. I think our culture, specifically, has forgotten what discernment is, and how to do it. (I'd never even HEARD the word discern until after college!). We're so used to our little boxes of bulleted information, that it throws us for a huge loop when there ISN'T a direct answer. The best advice I can give anyone is that when you are following God's will for you....there will be peace. There will be joy. The existence of peace and joy does NOT mean that there will not be suffering. That's not what being at peace and being joyful means. But...when you discover God's plan for you, peace and joy will be there. The reality is that even with contraception, sex still leads toward babies. Every act of sex - even when we fight it with contraception - is ordered toward procreation. If God's plan for you involves only 2 children and working full-time....who am I to say you are wrong? You will know by His gift of peace.

NFP Awareness Week!

See my post at Catholic Stand: 

NFP; Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Trust My Body

Check out iusenfp.com for NFP information, graphics, etc.

You can also find a link-up of NFP posts for this week at Katie's blog, NFP and Me.

Correcting Misinformation

In the course of doing some research on the various methods of NFP, I came across this site from Cornell University's health department. It begins with this little gem:

The first ten words were enough to make my blood boil. Although I figured it was a futile gesture on my part, I hunted up a contact e-mail address and sent a message:

You have some misinformation on this site: http://www.gannett.cornell.edu/topics/sexual/birthcontrol/contraception/natural.cfm

It says, "Natural family planning, (sometimes known as "the rhythm method").... which is false.

The rhythm method (or, more accurately, the Calendar Method) is a form of NFP but by no means the only one, so to imply that "NFP" and "rhythm method" are interchangeable terms is false and misleading, especially given that the Calendar Method is the least effective form (as few women have perfectly consistent 28-day cycles).

Other, more reliable methods of NFP include:

Billings Ovulation Method
Creighton Method
Marquette Method
SymptoThermal Method
Fertility Awareness Method

Please research these accordingly and update your site to correct the misinformation.

Like spitting in the ocean, right? Still, it made me feel a teeny bit better.

Imagine my surprise when I received a reply (emphasis mine):

Hi JoAnna,

Thank you for your message. I have shared it with one of our sexual health clinicians and she agreed that there are, yes, a variety of methods, of which “rhythm” is the most well-known among laypersons. And yes, many of the other methods are more effective. We appreciate your close reading of our website and will be updating it shortly.

In health,

Heather [redacted], MPH

Public Health Communications Specialist

Gannett Health Services

If you heard screams of frustration coming from the general direction of the Phoenix metro area earlier this morning, that was probably me.

My response:

Um, no, rhythm is NOT the most well-known among laypersons, unless you're in a time machine and have traveled back to 1969. What is the sociological basis for that assertion?

No reply as of yet. I'll update this post if there is one. In the meantime, anyone want to drop them a line informing Heather that her "sexual health clinician" needs a little re-education? Let's show them just how well-known NFP is among laypersons!

(And don't get me started on the assumption that all NFP users "are are opposed to, or don't want to use, other contraceptive options" - gah!)

Responding to Joe Mizzi - "An Evaluation of Natural Family Planning"

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I subscribe to the "Just for Catholics" newsletter in which Joe Mizzi, a former Catholic, tries to persuade Catholics how wrong they are. Dr. Mizzi and I have had a couple of brief e-mail exchanges and I found him to be a sincere, if misguided, individual (unlike professional anti-Catholic Mike Gendron, who became progressively more rude and irrational in his responses to me).

He recently sent out an article titled, "An Evaluation of Natural Family Planning" (note: opens as a PDF) in which he attempts to prove that NFP and certain forms of contraception are no different from one another (and thus the Catholic Church is wrong to teach that all contraception is immoral). To his credit, he condemns contraception that is potentially abortive, and for that I commend him. However, his points are illogical and unpersuasive, and I sent him the below e-mail in an attempt to point out some of the flaws in his argument.

Dear Dr. Mizzi:

I read this document and found several aspects of it puzzling.

For example, this excerpt:

The basic moral difference between periodic abstinence and artificial methods of birth control is given in Humanae Vitae, 16: „In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.‟ The basic difference is not in the motive – parents can use either method to avoid pregnancy for some just reason – but in the means to reach that same goal. Since nature already provides a faculty to prevent pregnancy, and since it in certain circumstances it is desirable and good to avoid pregnancy, the Catholic objection to contraception is unsustainable.

I don't understand how anything you say in this paragraph leads to the conclusion that "the Catholic objection to contraception is unsustainable." Pope Pius XI said in Casti Connubii (all emphasis mine):

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

and

56. ... Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Note the words "deliberately frustrate" and "deliberately deprived." Couples who use NFP are doing nothing to deliberately frustrate the marital act. In fact, it is impossible to do so, for no act is being performed -- an act is being abstained from, but that is not the same as engaging in the marital act and taking steps, either in anticipation of the act or after it has taken place, to deliberately frustrate the natural power and purpose. Condoms, for example, deliberately frustrate the natural power of the marital act by preventing the sperm from entering the woman's vaginal canal. With NFP, however, nothing artificial (like a barrier of latex) is preventing conception from occurring naturally.  The only thing that MAY prevent conception is the fact that ovulation either has not yet occurred or has already taken place, and that naturally-occurring cycle was put in place by God and not altered by either the husband or the wife. Given this distinction, I really don't see how you can logically say that condoms are no different from NFP, and your article doesn't really specify either.  (Also, your article fails to mention that NFP can also be used to ACHIEVE pregnancy -- my husband and I have used it several times for that purpose. What other method of birth control is also used to ACHIEVE pregnancy?)

I do, however, commend you for condemning those means of contraception which are potentially abortive -- many of your Protestant brethren do not do so.

In brief, there is no essential difference between periodic abstinence and artificial methods of birth control. Both can be used for exactly the same purpose. Moreover there is no moral difference between the means employed, whether „natural‟ or „artificial‟, since it is right to suppress normal body functions for the right reason, and in any case, nature itself imposes limits on human fertility.

You're partially right with this statement in that spacing births is not an objectively evil end. However, I do disagree with you that the means are exactly the same. With condoms and other forms of contraception, couples seek to deliberately frustrate, through artificial means, the two dual purposes of the marital act (unity of the spouses, and procreative capability). With NFP, no such deliberate frustration is happening. The couple is merely taking advantage of the woman's natural periods of fertility or infertility in the cycle created by God (who could have chosen to make women fertile 24/7, but did not). There is no deliberate frustration going on as there is with contraception, because each and every act is open and unhindered to the possibility of conception, however remote that possibility may be.

I also find your comparison to appetite suppressants to be weak. If a person is using an appetite suppressant, it is because s/he is attempting to suppress an unnaturally or abnormally large appetite. (Also, one should not be using appetite suppressants if their appetite is healthy; rather, they should simply abstain from unhealthy or high-calorie foods as befits the virtue of temperance.) As you note in your piece, the Catholic Church has no problem with using drugs or medicines in order to restore heath or cure an illness. Contraception, when used for the purpose of spacing pregnancy, is not being used to cure a disease or health problem; rather, it is being used to subvert normal, healthy, functioning fertility. NFP, on the other hand, allows couples to space births by practicing periodic abstinence, which is praised by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:5).

You also state in your article that "the second purpose [procreation] is not always present in nature and it should not be forced on the intent of the conjugal act."

It's interesting to note that this is the exact same argument many "pro-choice Christians" use to justify abortion. They argue that since embryonic or fetal death occurs in nature via spontaneous abortion (i.e., miscarriage), we are fully justified in aborting children via induced abortion. It seems, in order to be logically consistent, if you use this "not always present in nature" argument for contraception, you must also use it in favor of abortion - yet your article seems to indicate you consider abortion immoral. How do you reconcile this logical contradiction?

Also, you state, "The facts of history prove that the position of the Catholic Church has also changed dramatically" but none of the facts you present prove this statement. The Catholic Church has never taught as official doctrine that it is objectively evil or immoral to space pregnancy, only that it was wrong to deliberately frustrate procreation (e.g., by obtaining "potions of sterility" or by spilling one's seed on the ground, like Onan). The Church has consistently taught, as St. Paul did, that mutual abstinence has been acceptable as long as both spouses consent and there is no danger of either falling into lust and being tempted as a result of said abstinence.

Given that the Church has never taught that spacing pregnancy in and of itself was objectively evil or immoral, Her teachings did not "change dramatically" at all. Once scientists learned that it was possible to discern a woman's potential fertility via outward signs, the Church continued to teach that periodic abstinence was acceptable for spacing births, and that it was not a sin to practice periodic abstinence in conjunction with discerning a woman's natural fertility or infertility based on outward signs. See Fr. Brian Harrison's excellent article, "Is NFP A Heresy?" for a more thorough explanation.

Moreover, given that every Christian denomination taught that all contraception - abortifacent or otherwise - was objectively immoral until 1930, it seems that Christian denominations who currently teach that contraception is acceptable in any form either believe that God changed His mind or that God allowed Christians to believe and teach false doctrine for over 1,900 years. Which of these is your position? Your article doesn't say.

My friend Leila wrote an excellent blog post on this topic which you may find informative. Another excellent, thorough article is Dr. Janet Smith's Contraception: Why Not? I hope you take the time to read and consider the points made in both.

Sincerely yours,

JoAnna Wahlund