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.

Screw You, ACLU

Dear ACLU,

I read your blog post titled History Is On Our Side: Why the Federal Contraception Rule is Constitutional.

As a Catholic, a woman, and an American citizen, I was grossly offended by your assertions about my faith, my life, and my ability to participate in American society.

You assert the following: Access to contraception is crucial for women’s equal participation in society. 

False. I have not used contraception since 2003 and I participate fully and equally in society. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in English with a minor in technical communication, and I work full-time in my field (and have done so since 2003). I also have four children, ranging in age from seven years to eight months. I vote in every election, primaries included, and stay informed regarding political events. 

Yet you claim that it is impossible for me to participate equally in society unless I use contraception -- moreover, that it is impossible for me to participate equally in society unless my Church pays for contraception! I can assure you that I have survived and flourished in society without anyone purchasing contraception on my behalf. When I was a poor college student and a non-Catholic, I managed to obtain my own contraception, quite easily, and without forcing someone else to violate their conscience to provide it for me.

You assert the following: Controlling whether and when to have children has had a direct effect on women’s ability to make their own paths in terms of their schooling, careers, their families.  

Absolutely, and there just happens to be an excellent way for a woman to control her childbearing -- it's called controlling when and with whom she chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, since sexual intercourse is the biological act intended to create children. 

If she chooses to engage in that act, she should accept the responsibilities inherent in that choice.
My husband and I have chosen to use Natural Family Planning to both achieve and avoid pregnancy during our marriage. We don't ask anyone to pay for our lifestyle, just like we don't ask anyone to pay for our daycare or the other expenses that come with having children. We've accepted responsibility for our choices, and we especially don't ask anyone to violate their consciences so that we can shirk our responsibility for the choices we make.

You assert the following: The contraception rule is also essential to eliminate the gender disparities in health costs: child-bearing women pay 68 percent more for out-of-pocket costs than men, in large part because of reproductive health needs. The contraception rule is therefore essential to gender equality on many levels.

In other words, the Catholic Church, affiliated organizations, and Catholic business owners must be forced to violate their beliefs and their consciences so that men don't have to take equal responsibility for the choice to engage in sexual intercourse, and you call that "gender equality." How is that remotely logical?

Finally, you give a laundry list of cases where the court ruled against religious freedom, and all of your examples cited discrimination based on gender or race. You end your list by saying the following: Fortunately, in all of these cases, the court rejected the claim that religious beliefs can trump anti-discrimination laws.

You have failed to clue into the fact that discrimination based on race or sex is unjust because it is based upon one's inherent state of being. Discrimination in the context of recreational birth control is entirely just, because it's discriminating based on a desire to engage in a voluntary behavior, not on a state of being. The Catholic Church refuses to pay for contraception for everyone -- man, woman, child, gay, straight, black, white, etc., and She has every right to do so. Free exercise of religion -- which includes not subsidizing sinful behavior -- is a guaranteed right in our Constitution. Free birth control is not.

Moreover, there is a large, gaping hole in your argument -- the refusal of the Church to subsidize contraception does not inhibit access to contraception. Condoms are available at the dollar store. Inexpensive contraception can be purchased at Target or WalMart for $4/pack. Drugstores all across the country carry contraception available for purchase. Abstinence and NFP are free or very low cost. The county health department and other organizations -- one of which the government keeps throwing money at for this express purpose -- reportedly provide free or inexpensive birth control.

No one is forced to work for a Catholic employer in the event that s/he is unwilling to take responsibility for his/her own sex life and wants their employer to subsidize it for them. And yet you claim I can't equally participate in society unless I not only use contraception, but force religious institutions to pay for it as well?

I am a Catholic woman who assents 100% to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am an American woman and a working professional with a college degree. I am a married woman who has been pregnant six times and has four beautiful children here on earth. I am a woman who has taken control of her own fertility, and who takes responsibility for her own sexual choices.

Finally, I am a woman who will fight the HHS mandate with every breath of my body and every fiber of my being because I loathe and resent your pandering condescension. You claim to stand for civil liberties, but you degrade and insult every single woman in this country -- especially those who take responsibility for their own sexual choices -- when you insist that we can't possibly participate equally in this society unless we become exactly like men. That was not the goal of feminism, and never has been.

I can participate equally in society while retaining both my femininity and my fertility, and I can do it without forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs. You would do women a much greater service if you helped them realize their potential to do likewise instead of telling them that they can't possibly participate equally in society unless they pretend to be men.

Sincerely yours,

JoAnna Wahlund

P.S. I had a different word in mind for the title of this blog post, but restrained myself. You're welcome.

Control

The big news last month was that Patheos atheist blogger Leah Libresco had moved her blog to the Catholic portal and was beginning RCIA. I've read Leah's blog on and off for the last few years, and of course I couldn't tear myself away from the comboxes. One commenter, Donalbain, said the following (emphasis mine):

While I wish you well in your religious choice, I cannot support the Catholic Portal on Patheos while it is headed by the vile, hateful Anchoress writer. I think you will be a horrible fit for that group of people, who seem to blog about nothing else other than how gay people and women who control their own bodies are evil. Good luck and I hope being a Catholic makes you happy, and I hope that you can prod a change in the Catholic Portal, but for me, this is the end of reading your blog.

I offered him $100 if he could provide a direct quote where a Patheos Catholic blogger said that "gay people and women who control their own bodies are evil," but he never responded so I guess he couldn't find one.

I've written before about how the Catholic Church does not teach that gay people are evil -- quite the contrary, in fact. But my mind boggles at the notion that he believes the Church teaches that "women who control their own bodies are evil" -- not just because he's wrong, but because he believes women can control their own bodies at all. Heck, if I could control my own body, I'd eat at In 'N' Out Burger three times a day (with Ben & Jerry's at snack time) and still look like this:

Sadly, my body refuses to conform to my desire to be a size 6 while eating junk food. I think Donalbain has confused a woman's ability to control her choices with a woman's (alleged) ability to control her body.

I can choose to take action or I can choose inaction, but I have no control over how those actions affect my body. I have the information gleaned from my use of NFP, and a very educated guess about if I'm in the fertile or infertile phase of my cycle, but once I've made the choice to have sex, what happens next is out of my hands. The sperm will seek an egg without my input.

I could try to ingest carcinogens to try and prevent an egg from being released, but it could happen anyway. I could tell my husband to put a barrier between us to prevent his sperm from entering my body, but I can't control if that barrier tears or breaks or just doesn't work.

That's why all birth control has a failure rate.  The "control" it provides is an illusion. My only real control is involved in the choices I make. If I choose to have sex, then I might get pregnant, no matter how many measures I take to try and prevent pregnancy. If I choose not to have sex, then I won't get pregnant no matter how many measures I take to try and become pregnant. If I choose to have sex with the intention of becoming pregnant, there's no guarantee that will happen, either, no matter how many measures I take to that end.

I can make healthy, sensible choices regarding my diet, medication, herbal supplements, etc., but ultimately I can't will myself to ovulate, nor can I will conception (or non-conception).

Abortion is indeed control, but in that it is an attack by the powerful on the weaker. A woman "controls" her body by killing the child she created as a result of her own choice (or, in the case of rape/incest, the child that was created when a rapist decided to unjustly exert control over his victim).

It's inherently unjust and evil to "control" another human being by ending their life just because you are the stronger one, which is why the Church teaches that it is a sin to exert that control over the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

In short, the Catholic Church teaches that women can only control their choices, not their bodies, and that women should make those choices in accordance with the moral law. Ultimately, however, even the Catholic Church cannot control the choices that women make, nor does She try. She only asks that those of us who profess her faith adhere to Her teachings. (I'm looking at you, Melinda Gates.) Frankly, I don't think that's too much to ask.

How Does the Church Control Me?

Jill Stanek featured the following at her blog today:

Mr. Luckovich, how, exactly, does the Church control me? If I want contraception, there are three stores within a mile of my house that sell condoms and have pharmacies that dispense the Pill. That doesn't include the Wal-Mart less than three miles away, where I can purchase hormonal contraceptives at $10 for a 90-day supply.

The Church does not physically prohibit me from going to these stores and availing myself of said contraception, nor does she prohibit me from visiting an OB-GYN and obtaining a prescription for same. I don't have Swiss Guards standing at my door and following me around whenever I leave the house, making sure I don't buy contraceptives.

If I did, that'd be pretty sweet -- think I could rope them into free babysitting?

Does the Church teach that contraceptives are intrinsically immoral? Yes. But the Church does not force me to be a Catholic, and the Church does not force me to adhere to Her teachings.

I wasn't always a Catholic, and I knew full well what I was getting into when I became one. I chose, of my own free will, to be a Catholic. I chose, of my own free will, to adhere to those teachings.  If a person was born and raised Catholic, there is nothing stopping him/her from denying the Church and going to another denomination, or leaving Christianity altogether. Again, everyone has free will.

If the Church is trying to "control" women with Her teachings on contraception, She's failing pretty miserably. Granted, the statistic that "98% of Catholic women use contraception" has been proven false, but there's still an abysmally high number of women who self-identify as Catholic that also use contraception.

I think Mr. Luckovich needs to consult with his colleague, Dana Summers. She has a more accurate viewpoint:

Catholics for Choice Killed a Strawman

Remember my post about Catholic Butts? One of the smelliest derrieres out there is the oxymoronic Catholics for Choice. 

A brief summary the essay linked above: contraception isn't abortifacient, because pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. Therefore, contraception is OK. The end.

She provides no evidence, other than "because the ACOG says so," to support her assertions. What's interesting is this article from the American Journal of OB/GYNs stating that over half of OB-GYNS who responded (57%) believe that life begins at conception. Only 28% believe pregnancy begins at implantation (16% weren't sure, apparently). It seems that ACOG's official stance doesn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of most OB/GYNs! Imagine that.

She makes no mention of when human life begins. If she believes that life begins at implantation, and not conception, there's a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary.

She also makes the ludicrous claim that she and her husband, both intelligent scientists, had an inordinate amount of difficulty grasping the difference between "user failure rates" and "method failure rates" when comparing NFP to contraception. I'm a woman of average intelligence with an English degree, and I didn't find the concept that difficult to comprehend. Moreover, she provides no evidence to support her claim that the 99% correct use efficacy of NFP is "a lie." (It's not.)

There is also no discussion whatsoever about the moral aspect of contraception, abortifacient or otherwise. I doubt she's ever heard of Theology of the Body. She seems profoundly ignorant of the fact that Catholic Church teaching on contraception does not rest on the premise that hormonal contraception is abortifacient, but rather that contraception of any type violates the integrity and sanctity of the marital act.

In my opinion, this was the most tragic part of the entire essay:

I plan on going to confession and hearing the priest out. And unless he flatly forbids it, I also plan on taking Communion. Because I am morally sure, in my heart, that for me, this is the proper decision.

Truth is not founded upon the feelings in one's heart. Otherwise all manner of evils could be justified (for example, what if a woman feels morally sure, in her heart, that her adulterous affair with her married lover is the proper decision?).

Let's pray that this woman finds a holy and orthodox priest who will guide her to the Church's teachings about a fully informed conscience and the intrinsic moral evil of contraception.

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!)

I Am the 98 Percent

Doesn't have much to do with the post, but hey, it's funny.

One of the Obama administration's justifications for the HHS' contraception mandate is that “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute [affiliated with Planned Parenthood - hardly an unbiased source!] most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.”

First off, this argument is completely irrelevant, as the U.S. Bishops point out:

If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so?

Fr. Andrew over at Shameless Popery also discusses why this justification is both specious and dangerous:

By appealing to the behavior (not belief) of a particular religious group, the Administration (and others) are trying to indict the validity of an actual well-formed Catholic conscience. The claim might as well be: No one really holds that religious view so why should we respect it? This is how a government begins to form a litmus test for who's conscientious objection is worth respecting. We must all be extra careful to not muddy the "conscience" pool further.

However, going back to Guttmacher's "research," their number is quite skewed and dishonest.

You know how I know this?

It's because I am the 98%.

Note that the claim is that "most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception" (emphasis mine).

Those two words are the key to the deception. The statistic is not "98% of Catholic women are in favor of contraception." Nor is it "98% of Catholic women are currently using contraception to prevent pregnancy." It is "98% of Catholic women have used contraception."

That is ME. I used hormonal contraception from approximately June 2001 to February 2003. At the time, I was a practicing Lutheran, not a Catholic. In May 2003, my husband and I converted to Catholicism, and I had already thrown my pills away and started using NFP by that point.

But if a researcher came up to me on the street or called me on the phone and asked, first, "Are you Catholic?" and second, "Have you ever, at any point in your life, used contraception?" my answer to both would be, "Yes."

But is that an accurate reflection of my current views regarding contraception? Does my answer mean that I demand free and available contraception for my especial use? No.

That statistic also does not reflect any of the following facts:

(a) many Catholic women who have previously used contraception at some point in their lives no longer do so (or wish to do so);
(b) many women who self-identify as "Catholic" are not practicing Catholics;
(c) many women who self-identify as "Catholic" and who may attend Mass occasionally or even regularly do not believe the tenets of their own faith (i.e., they are Catholic for reasons of family pressure or family unity instead of a conviction of faith, and thus don't adhere to the tenets of Catholicism).

The CDC, when conducting research into how many Americans smoke tobacco, did not ask "Do you now or have you ever in your life smoked" without any regard as to if that person was currently smoking or had stopped smoking a decade ago. They had very strict criteria for who was considered a current smoker: "In 2010, an estimated 19.3% (45.3 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers; of these, 78.2% (35.4 million) smoked every day, and 21.8% (9.9 million) smoked some days."

The CDC does not consider someone who smoked for a period of two years nearly a decade ago to be a "current smoker," so why does the Obama administration consider me, someone who used contraception for two years nearly a decade ago, to be part of the 98% of Catholic women who are allegedly clamoring for this mandate? Or, in other words, why does the Obama administration think that every single Catholic woman who has ever used contraception is in favor of forcing Catholic institutions to pay for free contraception for everyone else?

It'd be like expecting members of Alcoholics Anonymous to be in favor of forcing Baptist churches to provide free liquor for everyone! After all, those members have had a drink -- and even drank consistently -- at some point in their lives. In that case, they MUST be in favor of free booze for everyone, right?

A better survey for women would ask the following questions:

(a) Do you fully believe in and practice all of the tenets of the Catholic Church?
(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, do you currently use a contraceptive method of birth control?
(c) If the answer to (b) is yes, why did you lie in (a)?

In the fictional survey above, both (a) and (b) can't be "yes" answers, folks. If a practicing Catholic woman fully believes in and practices all of the tenets of the Catholic Church, then she doesn't use contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

If she does use contraception and it's not for therapeutic reasons (i.e., it's not used primarily to treat a medical condition with the unintended side effect of being contraceptive, allowed under the principle of double effect), then she's not a practicing Catholic; she's a dissenting Catholic, or a non-practicing Catholic. She is a Catholic butt.

How does it make sense for the government to make laws that bind a religion to provide something -- free of charge, no less -- that only dissenters or non-practitioners of that religion demand? Not only is it nonsensical, it's unconstitutional.

Joe Mizzi's Response

Dr. Mizzi responded, very politely, to my e-mail regarding his NFP article. His response (in green) and my subsequent reply are below (notes in italics are were not included in my reply to him).

Dear Joanna,

Thank you for your letter.

It is too long to answer you on every point.

[I doubt this, as his original article was several pages long and my response was only a few paragraphs. I think he's deflecting my points because he's stymied on how to answer them.]

If you could just answer these two questions, I'd appreciate it:

1. Given that all Christian denominations taught that contraception was immoral until 1930, did God (a) change His mind or (b) allow Christians to believe and teach false doctrine for over 1,900 years?

2. Since spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) occurs naturally (just as the infertile phase of a woman's cycle does), does that mean that induced abortion is also acceptable?

Do not couples using NFP deliberately frustrate the natural purpose of the conjugal act by time sexual intercourse to the safe period? Is not their purpose to prevent pregnancy

Well of course that is exactly their purpose!

[What's interesting here is that he's addressing a point I've already conceded to as if I am disputing it. Note that in my original e-mail to him, I explicitly said that spacing pregnancy was not, in and of itself, an objectively evil or immoral end. I'm not sure if he misunderstood my point or if he's deliberately trying to steer the conversation away from the actual point. I'm going to stay the course, however...]

It is not sinful or intrinsically immoral to desire to space pregnancies for just reasons; moreover, the marital act has DUAL purposes: procreative and unitive, not just the former.

What is sinful is the deliberate frustration of the marital act (i.e., sexual intercourse). When a couple uses NFP to aid in periodic abstinence, they are not deliberately frustrating the marital act because no marital act is taking place. Contraception, however, always frustrates a marital act, either in anticipation of the act (e.g., the Pill, IUDs, diaphragms), during the act itself (e.g., condoms or withdrawl) or after the marital act has taken place (e.g., the "morning-after" Pill).

[I hope he replies, at the very least, to the two questions I sent him... I'm interested to know his answers.]

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

Another reply to Mary

This comment, in response to Mary's comments on this post, is too long for the combox, so I'm making it into a new post.

Remember that "abortion" means the premature termination of a pregnancy [or other process] without reference to how or why this happens. Miscarriages are included.

Yes, Mary, that's exactly what I said. My argument is that given the drastic differences between spontaneous and procured abortion, this terminology is outdated.

Like it or not, the secular, legal definition of a human being in the USA begins at birth.

Again, I know that. I believe it is unjust, and that's why I, and many others, are working to change that.

That means your statement "abortion is always murder" is simply not true, since murder only applies after birth in the USA. It's an emotive slogan, but quite ridiculous.

Actually, Mary, you are mistaken. Case in point is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, in which someone who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two homicides.

Also, it's true that all abortion is not legally murder in this country. I have never disputed that. Morally, however, it is murder. Legality is not the same as morality. Black people were persons even when the law said they weren't. Jewish people were persons even when the law said they weren't. Unborn children are persons even though the law says that they aren't.

Please don't use such sloppy language, it makes the argument look either ignorant or deceitful, and I know that you would not want to give that impression.

Absolutely not, but I hope you've written to Representative Speier and said the same. It is very sloppy indeed to claim that you had a procured abortion when the baby actually died of natural causes and had to be removed from your body via a procedure that is also used for the purpose of procured abortion.

I understand that you believe that a zygote has a right to life, as does a fetus. So say that, clearly, without the "abortion is always murder" trope.

If a zygote, fetus, etc. has a right to life, then procured abortion is always murder. It's not "trope," it's truth.

My personal experience with abortion is second-hand and is limited to wanted pregnancies that were killing the mother, or where the zygote or fetus was already dead or dying (six months along, in two cases).

If the baby is already dead, then it's not a procured abortion. Spontaenous abortion is not murder. Procured abortion always is. Do you understand the difference between natural death and murder? Killing your grandmother is not the same as if she dies in her sleep, for example. Same concept.

As for a case where the pregnancy (not the fetus, the pregnancy) is causing a life-threatening medical condition, all treatments thereto would fall under the principle of double effect (for an explanation of how this applies to abortion, see here: Abortion and Double Effect). Simply put, if the fetus' death is an unintended side effect (not the result) of a treatment to save the mother (such as the removal of a diseased fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy) then it is not a procured abortion as the fetus was not directly killed.

These were terribly traumatic events, and I would hate to imagine the additional trauma these mothers (yes, these were all second and third pregnancies to married women) would have gone through in the USA.

Why, given the above? Check out www.benotafraid.net for stories of women who did not procure abortion in such cases and yet had wonderful, healing experiences.

I think abortion is to be avoided if possible,

Why?

but not by using a blunt instrument like an anti-abortion legislation. Would you support improved access to contraception to avoid abortions?

No, because it doesn't work. All contraception does is give people a false sense of security that they can have unlimited, irresponsible sex, and then when their birth control fails and conception occurs they resort to abortion. Actually read Leila's post that she linked in the comments, instead of ignoring it, for an explanation of why the stats you posted in the combox aren't an accurate representation of the problem.

Remember, this law would apply to non-Catholics, so the Catholic prohibition on contraception is not relevant to this argument.

Agreed. Again, read Leila's link. There are many non-Catholics who are beginning to realize the link between contraception and abortion.

One thing I am resolute on is that another woman's reproductive life is none of my business.

Unless she's committing murder (i.e., procured abortion), in which case it is everyone's business.

I do believe that if you want to take the proposition that "abortion is tantamount to murder" as true, then the appropriate action is to boost access to contraceptive options.

Unfortunately, reliance on contraception only leads to more abortion because it provides a false sense of security.

If you think differently, then why? Is it really the unborn that is your main concern? Or is it other women's sexual activity?

I want everyone (men and women) to be responsible adults. That includes not having sex if you're not prepared for a pregnancy. See my reply to SallyStrange in the previous post. Otherwise, the norm becomes procured abortion, which is murder, and I oppose murder.

Also, Mary, you never responded to my points about the dehumanization of unborn children.