Sobering article...Pope Paul VI was right. Nothing more tragic than children being told they were accidents ("You aren't supposed to be here. That darn IUD was too old, I guess.") The psychological and spiritual damage done is horrific.
The child processes that they weren't wanted, weren't meant to be. And so they are..."accidents" waiting to happen.

In the article, Sarah to the interviewer, "ever since her doctor put her on birth control pills to relieve menstrual cramps, the lure of seemingly consequence-free sex changed her attitude toward sleeping with the man she was dating."

She's absolutely right - it plants a little seed of temptation. I was taking bcp for the same reason in my twenties. After three years I had had enough - I'd suffer with a poor work attendance record rather than even the suggestion of a temptation. Not to mention what it does to your body after long term use.

Kamilla

I am 26 years old.

Last year I went to my doctor because I would be traveling to a 3rd world country. I wanted to know what shots to get.

At the end of the appt. my doctor asked me to consider the pill.

I said, "why?"

She said, "Well...you're 26."

Great reason.

A couple months ago I went to an allergist to see if I was allergic to anything that would be causing my acne.

At the end of that appt. the doctor said I had TWO options: 1. get pregnant (to change my hormones) or 2. Go on birth control.

I stared at her for a second in disbelief. These were my options? I jokingly asked what was behind door number 3.

She didn't get that I was serious.

Ladies- you need to stay strong and be ready to say no to any and all doctors who want to put you on b.c. for any and all reasons. When your body is telling you something isn't right- the solution is not to dump synthetic hormones into it.

Anti-abortion = anti-contraception

Fortunately, women (and men) of all religions and no religion are catching onto the intentions of the Religious Right and the "pro-life" movement which are pushing to eliminate government funding for legal contraception, along with legal abortion, for the poor who need it most, and to make all contraception illegal for anyone.

As long as women maintain their other civil rights, retain and exercise their right to vote, and receive competitive educations (financial independence), they will not relinguish their reproductive rights in this or any other country.

The old days of barefoot and pregnant are gone. Women simply will not submit to being treated like children. (Children today have more civil rights than women did too few decades ago.) And, the tired laundry list of societal, relationship and personal ills caused by contraception sound just as hysterical today as they did decades ago. Contraception works very well for many women and their families. There will always be some who regret using it for one reason or another.

That's exactly why we have choice.

"As long as women maintain their other civil rights, retain and exercise their right to vote, and receive competitive educations (financial independence), they will not relinguish their reproductive rights in this or any other country."

It must really bother you then that there so many millions of pro-life women in the United States. No one can say that it is a "male dominated" movement, that is for sure.

Poor women don't need contraception - they need devoted husbands and children. They don't need abortions - they need an economy that respects the dignity of workers and mothers. To offer women birth control pills and abortions is an insult. That is what the early, pre "sexual revolution" feminists in the US thought, anyway.

As for legality, we will always reject the "choice" to murder an innocent human being in the womb and we will continue to seek the legal protection of all innocent human lives.

Dear "choice,"

You may want to carefully re-consider your narrow line of reasoning on contraception for the sake of the biosphere. Keep in mind that birth control pills are heavy, unnatural doses of artificial female hormones that women's bodies naturally excrete into the environment, where such chemicals have devastating effects on the biosphere, especially on male animals and humans. Birth defects, hermaphroditism, infertility and sterility, and countless other abnormalities are being documented by biologists and medical doctors every day. Humans play a deadly game with creation when we give in to our every whim and utilize artificial chemicals to deal with the "unpleasant consequences" of our actions (I'm assuming the concept of sin is something you dismiss as patriarchal and anachronistic in your brave new world.)

The tragic irony is those who insist on man's absolute right to use artificial hormones to contracept (and when that fails, the absolute right to destroy the resultant baby through abortion) are also the ones who scream loudest about manmade global warming and climate change, seeking to regulate economies on a massive scale over unprovable computer models about a potential future problem. But no worries about ignoring definite, provable negative effects on male humans and animals. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance have got to be hard to ignore, no?

Kevin said, "Keep in mind that birth control pills are heavy, unnatural doses of artificial female hormones that women's bodies naturally excrete into the environment, where such chemicals have devastating effects on the biosphere, especially on male animals and humans."

And ain't that just the biggest kick in the head of all? The Green Sages and Prophets are worrying about the carbon footprints of all these children we're not having -- and it turns out the cure is worse than the disease.

Kamilla

I don't understand the idea that someone all the ills that women have suffered since 1968 are the product of the Pill. Men were horrible to women before 1968 and we had no recourse. Now we can do something about it and you want to stop us.

Why don't you tell MEN to start behaving? Advocate for laws that restrict MALE behavior? Preach sermons on the need for men to do housework and be nice to their wives and daughters? Why is it that the Catholic church only notices women to tell us to be submissive? When will I see actual support from the hierarchy encouraging women in our public lives?

Dear Karen,

Well you've put our finger on the problem, even if you don't recognize it. You mention now, in 2009, that men before 1968 treated women badly. Has men's behavior since 1968 and the widespread use of contraception, improved greatly on a societal level? I think just the opposite can be shown, and that's what Lopez and others who are against the use of contraception are trying to do. Over the past 40 years, illegitimacy has exploded, divorce has skyrocketed, and yes, abuse of women and children has increased. It's not difficult to connect the sociological and political dots and lay much of the blame on rampant contraceptive usage in our society. Indeed you are right that men and women are responsible for our own behaviors, and I'm not aware of anyone in the Church trying to negate that reality or shift blame to women. Men who treat women badly are compounding their sin, and they ought to be dealt with through the legal system.

You lay blame on the "hierarchy" of the Church as if it pulled its teachings on contraception and human sexuality out of thin air. Have you taken the time to study Humanae Vitae and JP II's Theology of the Body? (the latter is best read with secondary commentary, as it is often philosophically heavy and not light reading) It appears to me that many who rail against what the Church teaches in these areas have no real knowledge of (or sadly, no interest in) the actual teachings. Instead, it's popular for moral relativists and old-school feminists to rail against these teachings as being the products of a patriarchal structure that only seeks to dominate women and subjugate them to men in every area. Once anyone actually reads any of the Church teachings with a modicum of open-mindedness, it becomes clear that these teachings show a far deeper understanding of male and female physical and emotional needs related to sexual intimacy than does modern society.

Do we not see and personally know millions of young women who use men, and who are used by men, for simple sexual pleasure? God created women with the innate need for intimacy and the need to form stable, permanent relationships with the men with whom they engage in sexual relations. As soon as contraception becomes involved, this allows men and women to engage in sex as if it were a recreational pasttime, completely divorcing sexual acts from intimacy or commitment. This devastates women emotionally and psychologically (not to mention the awful physical effects of STDs and the use of contraceptives), and men are able to merely continue sleeping around with multiple partners, satisfying innate male desire for sexual variety.

Karen, the entire body of Church teachings on human sexuality DOES consider how God means for humans to engage in sexual relations, i.e., within the marital covenant and with openness to the possibility of new life as a result of that act. The Church DOES call for men to act responsibly, just as it calls women to do so, for the protection and health of both, and of society in general. Think of it this way: if all human beings followed Church teachings on contraception and procreation to the letter, wouldn't things be 100% better? The fact that we don't tells us more about human sin and weakness than it does about the Church's teachings being wrong.

The pill has come a long way from the mega doses of its earliest configurations and so has our understanding of sexuality. I am a child of the '60s, teen of the '70s and so on and I was taught by my mother that sex is a responsibility and its consequences have to be measured. I used and still use, as necessary, contraception in several forms. I was taught to respect my body, that I am a valuable person in my own right and that if I want good things to happen then I need to use my mind and not some chemical. Pharmaceuticals should be used for their intended purpose and should be used knowing and on a basis that support the rest of my life goals.

Contraception is a tool that we use to ensure that women enter motherhood prepared to cope. That it has become a hot button issue for political and religious zealots to abuse women with is a tragedy and has resulted in a wildly skewed understanding of its function and the education that needs to accompany it. These types of articles help keep the mind from the functionality of the pill and away from the fact that responsible use of any tool is only possible with sound education on the basics of its uses, usages and purposes. Unfortunately the backlash of turing one pill for contraception is that now all pills are misused. "The Pill" is poor usage and the twits who decided that it was acceptable to pile all that power into one pill should be condemned for the pain that that has caused.

To Karen:

I think the point being made in the article is that birth control removes (for males, anyway) the consequences of sex, which is an especially attractive option for young men who lack desire and the self-control to behave like gentlemen. The prevailing male attitude when I was in college two decades ago was “Why not let your hormones get the best of you, it’s not like you’re risking a pregnancy”.

No one is denying that some men were horrible to women prior to the introduction of the pill. However, the concept of sex with no strings attached gives men free license to use women for their own pleasure and walk away whenever they feel like it. In fact, this behavior has become socially acceptable.

As for birth control being change for the better, the statistics don’t bear that out. Rates for out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed since introduction of the pill, and I would dare say in part because of it. It has become very easy to forget about concepts like chastity, love, commitment, self-sacrifice and sacramental marriage in light of the free sex era introduced by the sexual “revolution”. And when the birth control fails, all too often it is the single woman who is left to pick up the pieces with little or no help from the child’s father. That’s progress?

And this, my friends, is what the sexual revolution was really all about: Envy and hatred of men.

Not to say what men had was to be desired. The desire for consequences-free sex was something to be eliminated, not reciprocated in women.

But yes, all men were horrible pigs until 1968 when equality was wrenched from them. It's a miracle society got along for thousands of years with those wretches in control.

<i>And this, my friends, is what the sexual revolution was really all about: Envy and hatred of men. </i>

Andy- that was what you got from the passage you highlighted? That she resents men and wants freedom from responsibility? You don't clue in on how we place responsiblity for reproduction on only half the participants and absolve the other half from error in casual ways. That societally we have absolved men from their responsibility since well before 1968. That the contraceptive pill is just an excuse for men to behave badly, just as an historical lack of knowledge about conception has traditionally been used to absolve men from responsibility. We have the knowledge to do better, we have to ensure that we make sure that adults of both sexes are held responsible for their actions. I take responsibility for what goes in and comes out of my vulva, you take responsibility for what you do with your penis. It is a very simple equation- it just takes adults to accomplsh it.

Hawise wrote: "Contraception is a tool that we use to ensure that women enter motherhood prepared to cope."

OK, ok, I think I can stop laughing now.


No woman is EVER prepared to "cope" with motherhood. This is one of the greatest lies perpetuated on humanity - that we can ever control and prepare for what lies ahead. We can't control our fertility without very dire consequences (as Lopez and other respondents above have ably shown) nor can we ever really be prepared for what life has in store.

It is not those who try to control, manage and engineer their futures who are best prepared. It is those who take the time to build humility, discipline and the virtues into their lives who have a hope of meeting the challenges of life without crashing. Life isn't safe -- and it never will be, no matter how much the social and scientific engineers try, it simply won't be.

Kamilla

P.S. Isn't it interesting that the women who try to control their fertility and engineer one or two children at the proper times, when they can best cope, seem to be the loudest at complaining how they couldn't cope with any more -- and yet the mothers who trust God to open and close the womb, who know that children are a blessing and the natural fruit of marriage, these women rarely complain about coping with 5 or 6 children? Hmmmm.

We Catholics have long defended our tolerance of alcohol use against the attacks of some fundamentalist Christians by using the maxim: "just because something can be abused doesn't mean it can't be used". We are cognizant of the risks of alcohol abuse and are very aware that many people abuse it, causing terrible damage to their own lives and the lives of others. But that doesn't make alcohol use immoral per se.

Most of the "arguments" I hear about the immorality of contraception are really accounts linking its use to societal and marital breakdown, the tendency of men to see women as objects of sexual gratification, etc. But I've not seen a lot of talk about the prayerful Christian couple who use non-abortifacient contraception precisely for the legitimate means of spacing / delaying / avoiding pregnancy. These people certainly exist, including some commenters here, and I don't see a societal reason to prevent them from using this option.

So prophetic though Humanae Vitae may have been, similar dire predictions were no doubt made by the Prohibitionists as regards the widespread availability of alcohol. Is it really an argument that holds water?

Men have had the anatomical freedom to stroll (or run) away from pregnancy since God created humans. Over the ages, many men have chosen to take responsibility for their children, and many have chosen not to, leaving the mothers, or society, to assume responsibility.

Along comes contraception and upsets the male-dominant/female-subservient apple cart. Suddenly, women have the means to postpone, plan or even not have children. This freedom enables them to seek higher education and achieve financial independence. Many traditionalists and fundamentalists are still grappling with the idea of women's reproductive rights and the consequences. Equality for women is still resisted.

There are plenty of women in this world who are anti-contraception and plenty who are pro-contraception. Women, at least in industrialized nations, have the ability to determine whether or not they want to get pregnant.

It's called choice.

It's called equality.

That should be "changed America for the worse," not "worst." The distinction matters, because there's no sign we've hit bottom yet, though we might well say with a certain poet that "things fall apart" and "the center cannot hold."

cope 1 (kp)
intr.v. coped, cop·ing, copes
1. To contend or strive, especially on even terms or with success: coping with child rearing and a full-time job.
2. To contend with difficulties and act to overcome them: "Facing unprecedented problems, the Federal Reserve of the early 1930s couldn't cope" Robert J. Samuelson.

Kamilla- learning to cope is a part of the whole humility, discipline and virtue thing that you take such pride in. You actually brought up the key point- time. You have to take time to do these things, you have to have support to do these things, you need to be prepared to do these things. Different people face different problems and your glib denial of the options that a tool like contraception brings is sad. Most of the women that I know who have stable marriages and large families spent time on contraceptives as they found that partner who was supportive of their goals, who shared their desires and who would put in the time and energy to ensure a good result.

You prefer a different path and that is not threatened by contraception. You have simply not chosen a tool available to you. Bad sexual choices are not the result of contraception. Bad sexual choices are the result of thinking which is exacerbated by the insistence by some of making the whole issue about ONE aspect of sexuality and ignoring the rest.

I take pride in "the whole humility, discipline and virtue thing"? No, I don't. That's the humility part - striving to develop character, discipline and virtue with God's help will do that to a person. And no, I don't prefer a different path to the language of engineering life you use. But my Lord and Saviour does so that is the path I must follow.

It's not a simple matter of choice - if it were, you would not have admitted above that the pill provides men with an excuse to behave badly. Isn't that precisely the point? Choices are never simply choices, all the choices we make have consequences. For those of us who are Christians, who claim the name of Christ and seek with the help of the Holy Spirit to bend our will, our ways, to His -- for us some choices simply do not exist.

JPII's TOB was mentioned above. Might I recommend, instead, a short and yet worldview shattering book? It is by my favorite living philosopher -- Dr. Alice von Hildebrand and is called, "The Privilege of Being a Woman". You will not be able to read it with any sort of willingness to listen to her wisdom without having the veil of deception ripped from your eyes.

Kamilla

I had pretty extensive training in Catholic scholastic philosophy and walked away thinking that it often nothing more than a series of clever ways to get to to pre-determined end. Nowhere is that more evident, in my opinion, than in the contorted, unrealistic "argument" against artificial birth control.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: that a married couple can determine when they will have children. Fortunately, 98% of Catholics agree.

I thought I'd share one of the most telling realizations I have ever had. My wife uses the pill to regulate her cycle and deal with cramps, an option we accepted as a necessary evil for the time being. We, however, try to keep up using NFP as though she weren't on the pill to try to keep our physical relationship as loving as possible.

And yet, feeling frustrated at times at being balked in bed, I found myself trying to cajole her, to plead with her. And then it came out: "It isn't like you're going to get pregnant, anyway, even if the timing is bad."

Bad Ryan. Bad.

If people were at all honest with themselves, they'd realize that they make this statement every time they have contracepted sex. And when they say this, what they really mean is: "I can have my pleasure, and you won't have to suffer any unpleasant consequences."

Maybe people haven't seen much of the dorms on college campuses, but they are filled with boys (maturity-wise, anyway) who just see a girl as something to "score" with. Not even a someone. So many of these boys only acknowledge a girl's personality to the extent of "she's easy." I have overheard way too many conversations in which a group of guys picked up on some girls just to see who could "score" the fastest.

Pre-1960's: Women are baby-makers.

Post-l960's: Women are sex toys.

Yeah, big improvement.

I have a small private practice in counseling and most of the presenting problems of people who come to see me these days fall into the domain of relationship issues - broken marriages, serious marital discord, infidelity, the list goes on and on. When you start inquiring about the kinds and numbers of relationships people have had, especially in terms of sexuality, it is clear how disordered the area of relationships really is.

I have taken to asking individuals a routine question: "How many men or women have you had sexual interocurse with over the span of your life?" The answer often startles me, but the answer most especially startles the counselee him or herself when they hear themselves answer, "Fifty, sixty, seventy..a hundred." A hundred is not atypical for men. I then ask the more compelling question: "Did you love each one of these persons?" Without even answerering, they experience for themselves what they know to be true and just how disordered their relaitonhsips have become, since sex and love have been disengaged. Their facial expression is almost universally one of dejection. They sense they have missed something essential. What made it all possible? Contraception.

The laws of nature, Gods iron laws that were uncovered by men and women of science from Aristotle to Darwin, will be remorselessy applied:

* We know from overwhelmingly supportive research that people from strong families do better in almost every societal measure of success than do people from troubled or broken families.

* Statistically, large families (>3 children)are LESS likely to be broken.

* Statisically, children from larger-than-average families tend to have larger-than-average families themselves.

* We know from research that children tend tend to assume the political and moral viewpoints of their parents.

What this means is that, over time, people who subscribe to the post-1960's ideology of free sex and abortion will form weaker marriages and have less children. Over time they will form a smaller, weaker and more disadvantaged section of society. Those from strong families will become larger, stronger and more advantaged.

In the same way that the flawed ideology of communism weakened and disabled the countries of Eastern Europe and Eurasia, so will the flawed ideology of Free Love.

I have 4 children and both I and my wife are committed to our marriage. I am not gloating, I am sad that there will be so many wasted and broken lives. But God's laws are the laws of nature, of maths, of physics, chemistry and biology, and they cannot be flouted without consequence.

PPR wrote, "I hold this truth to be self-evident: that a married couple can determine when they will have children. Fortunately, 98% of Catholics agree."

Methinks PPR is delusional. Say that to any woman over 35 trying to concieve a child when she has contracepted for years, that she and her husband can determine when they will have children -- if you dare. Say that to any couple whose contraception has failed and they've exercised the choice to dismember and dispose of that "failure" -- if you dare. Say that to any couple who has been blessed with child when they were told they could not conceive -- if you dare. Say that to any woman who has found herself rendered infertile due to infection when she bought the lie that she could make her own sexual choices and chose to have children when she was prepared to cope -- if you dare.

It the gods of science who have peddled the lie that we can do determine the seasons of our lives ourselves.

Kamilla

"I think that God intends us to behave in ways that are relevant to our time. We no longer need twelve babies because half of them won't survive and the other six are needed to see us through our old age. I also hope that we have progressed past the image of women as childbearing vessels and think of them as people, too. My wife would be a lot less interesting if her life revolved around pumping out kids -- if one could call that a life."

Boy, do I get tired of this condescending crap. Why does a mother of a large family merely "pump out" kids. Why is it if a woman does what nature has designated her to do she becomes less "interesting"?

I get so tired of reading that crap.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Contraception doesn't create immorality. People choose immorality.

Why is it if a woman does what nature has designated her to do she becomes less "interesting"?


Not all women are going to have large families even if they follow the Catholic instruction manual. Some women are simply not going to have multiple young even if they try. Some, if they try, will face serious health risks and others will face the heartache of infertility, either their own or their husband's. Are they broken because they can't do "what nature has designated her to do"? Will they be forced to resort to extremes of "engineering life" as the ever so charming Kamilla puts it?

Procreation is more complicated than just sticking it in and you get pregnant. If it isn't more complicated than that for you then you should count your blessings, hug your children and enjoy your family.

I appreciate the help and logic.

Kamilla, Alice von Hildebrand had this to say about women in a 2006 interview with Catholic Online: "Granted that from a naturalistic point of view, men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive -- most great works in theology, philosophy and fine arts have been made by men. They are the great engineers, the great architects."

Apparently the "privilege" of being a woman is that we get away with being stupid, cowardly, and enduring agony for no earthly reward whatsover. Thanks but no thanks.

For those who need the explanation, Ms. von H. ascribes men's achievements to something inherent in being male, not to generations in which women were deprived of education, capital, and respect for their abilities. We're just dolts.

Hawise, does the irony not escape you that one of the increasingly obvious reasons why infertility is rising in both men and women (not to mention animals) is the very contraceptive pill you defend? We cannot play God in the spheres of science and medicine without very real consequences.

Our hearts should break for those who are victims of infertility and other health problems due to these artificial chemicals--my best friend and his wife are experiencing this very difficulty right now as the direct result of their use of the Pill for the past three years since they were married. We should also be strong enough in our faith, and in our trust in God, to bear witness to His Truth and not insist on always having what WE want, when we want it. Sadly, though, modern Western culture glorifies self-absorption and total individual control, to the destruction of society as a whole, and also, to the destruction of the human being.

One final point to make about some of the dissident comments on this thread: almost all of them show some level of bitterness, anger, resentment and hurt, whether it's against the Catholic Church and its teachings on human sexuality, or against men, or against "the Religious Right." We must keep in mind that doing God's Will brings peace of mind and serenity to our souls. If it doesn't, then it is not from God. This doesn't mean that following Him completely is easy, but His Grace is sufficient for us to bear the trials that may come, if we choose to accept it.

Kevin, it is not The Pill, it is a pill. There are plenty of non-pharmaceutical reasons for infertility, people were infertile prior to modern chemicals. I will not argue that STDs are a large part of modern infertility but they were a large part of historic infertility as well. We know more and we can do better.

We cannot always have what we want, when we want it and that includes imposing our faith choices on others through intimidation, moral outrage and insidious comments about other people's personal choices. If Catholics want to live their precepts then that is their choice but the desire to impose those precepts on others is not helping to build understanding in the world. Cooperation and empathy work better at building bridges between groups and individuals than guilt and privilege.

Karen,

Here is the full quote from Von Hildebrand that makes it clear that your interpretation is incorrect:

Granted that from a naturalistic point of view, men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive -- most great works in theology, philosophy and fine arts have been made by men. They are the great engineers, the great architects.

But the Christian message is that, valuable as all these inventions are, they are dust and ashes compared to every act of virtue. Because a woman by her very nature is maternal -- for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother -- she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them -- for maternity implies suffering -- is infinitely more valuable in God's sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.

When one reads the life of St. Teresa of Avila or St. Thérèse of Lisieux, one is struck by the fact that they constantly refer to their "weakness." The lives of these heroic women -- and there are many -- teach us that an awareness and acceptance of one's weakness, coupled with a boundless confidence in God's love and power, grant these privileged souls a strength that is so great because it is supernatural.

Natural strength cannot compete with supernatural strength. This is why Mary, the blessed one, is "strong as an army ready for battle." And yet, she is called "clemens, pia, dulcis Virgo Maria."

I was going to say that I was sorry for so extensively quoting, but anything by Alice Von Hildebrand is worth quoting extensively. It might also be worthwhile to point out that Alice Von Hildebrand is a respected scholar and writer herself.

I will try to be charitable and say that Karen must not have read the entire interview. But if you read it, then it is quite clear that Karen’s interpretation is completely wrong. Here is a link:

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=530

Hawise, you may call birth control pills by whichever name you choose, but please recognize that Western society commonly refers to medical birth control as "the Pill." I'm not sure why that bothers you so much.

The name of the drug is of little import, though, but rather the effects it has had on individuals and on society as a whole. I know of very few Catholics (priests, religious, or lay faithful) or anti-contraceptive medical professionals who use intimidation, moral outrage, or insidious comments in their condemnation of the use of contraception. A moral precept clearly taught by the Church is to love the sinner but hate the sin. Very few people will have a genuine conversion on a moral issue like abortion, birth control, etc., as a result of intimidation, so it's hardly a useful tool for evangelization or for spreading the truths of our Catholic faith. We must speak the Truth in love and pray for ourselves and for others in our sinfulness, so that we may, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, come to accept the Truth in its fullness.

As for your utterly moral relativist comments at the end there, they belie a deep misunderstanding of what the nature of revealed truth is. And if you don't see empathy and compassion in the words and actions of those involved in this discussion towards our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith (and outside of it), then I would suggest you are not reading carefully or looking very hard. Few people here wish to condemn others (we are all sinners), but rather to set one another free from the chains of this particular evil of contraception by bearing witness to the Truth. We would be very selfish and poor followers of Christ if we didn't do that and if we instead followed the modern day rule of moral relativism that "what's true/right for you is not necessarily true/right for me." Just apply that ridiculous illogic to society as a whole and you have utter nihilism and anarchy (e.g., "beating your children may not be right for you, but it is right for me, and it works"--or any other immoral or criminal offense, for that matter) We have to think with our minds, not give in to our own desires at every turn. Every parent teaches such self-mastery to their own child, or at least they ought to. Wy would we expect any different from the Church, if we truly accept it for what it claims to be, the Church founded by Christ to bring all men to come to the knowledge of His Truth?

Where exactly DOES this idea of women as nothing but "baby-making machines" prior to the 1960s come from, anyway?

It comes not from history in general and certainly not the history of Christendom. We have so many female saints - think of Joan of Arc, who lead the entire French army against the English. Or Hildegard von Bingen, who had the ear of Popes and Kings. Evidently it was possible for women who displayed intelligence and ability to use it.

I've never read an account of medieval life written by any reputable scholar that describes the condition of women as horribly oppressed. Quite the contrary, they played an important role in society and especially when they were of the nobility.

Feminism is a little like communism with respect to what the Church has taught - it took some legitimate complaints and demands, and sought to exploit them for entirely different and disordered ends. No, the Church never regarded the striving of the workers as "envy" and it would not regard the suffering of women as "envy" either. When right-wingers dismiss it ALL as envy they inject their OWN false premises.

However, the solution sought by the feminists is twisted into envy, into a desire for complete equality with men no matter how irrational or damaging to society that might become. They are, like many communists, like fascists, like anarchists of the left and right varieties, like Protestant fundamentalists or Islamic jihadists, complete fanatics and slaves to their ideology. They have lost their ability to contribute positively to the problems they originally sought to address, have become blinded by hatred, and entirely consumed with irrationality to the point where some feminist "philosophers" are rejecting reason and logic as "male" ways of thinking.

What bothers me the most is that the feminist reaction to the bad behavior of men has ALWAYS been to insist that the woman should be able to be have just as badly with no consequences. Feminists are obsessed with double standards and seek almost always to lower their own, instead of elevate those of men.

Women find not only dignity and respect in the Catholic Church but a culture that supports and elevates their role as mothers, as life-givers, and does not deride it, does not consider it a hindrance, does not wish to push it aside because it doesn't make someone money.

I didn't say all women must go out and have as many children as possible. I commented why is it OK to diss women who have children? It's what women do, have children. Why does that say anything about their character?

I am not sure what you mean by the "Catholic Instruction Manual". The Church simply states you cannot use artificial contraception. You are not less Catholic if you struggle with infertility, if you breastfeed, if you use NFP etc. But again, that had nothing to do with my initial comment.

Karen,

It is Mrs. von Hildebrand or Dr. von Hildebrand, not "Ms.". That deliberate construction on your part makes me think Marc Mason is being far too charitable. I suspect you did read the entire article, looking for a "gotcha" and so you very deliberatedly cut your quote where you did.

Thank you, Marc, for the quote. It is always a pleasure to learn from Dr. Alice's wisdom.

Kamilla

Joe, it isn't about who gets to behave badly, it is about each person, regardless of gender, taking responsibility for their own actions. Once a man grows up he needs to stop looking for a mommy to keep him in line and just become an adult. I am expected to put aside childish behaviours, men should be expected to put aside childish behaviours. If society places no expectations on men to behave responsibly then society has no business expecting better of women. It is a simple equation- equality means we all have to try to behave in a reasonable, respectful manner and treat each person as an individual with rights, morals and reasoning. As a society, we have to work to bring out the best in everyone and work to establish a means by which each person can contribute to the overall welfare of everyone.

Just to be clear- Joan of Arc was not burned for her beliefs or actions, she was burned for behaving and dressing like a man. Hildegard von Bingen had to give up family to gain the ear of Kings and Popes and was deemed of second rank in the nunnery that she founded behind a man brought in to supervise her. Eleanor of Aquitaine was divorced for providing her first husband with four daughters and yet she went on to provide her second husband with four sons and five more daughters. Medieval women were respected in literature and art but they had to fight for respect in the real world just as we do now.

Nowhere in that article does the Dr. von H praise women for achievements, accomplishments, or intellect. I cut off the quote where I did because the rest of it is not relevant to her opinion. She clearly believes men are more creative and productive and that women should revel in weakness, which she would clearly regard as a failing in men. Simply because she chooses to praise women for weakness does not make weakness a positive trait. I suggest you read Orwell for a discussion of the misuse of language such as she employs. Freedom is never slavery and weakness is never strength.

Dear Karen,

You have an extremely myopic and self-serving read on Dr. von Hildebrand's statement, and it sounds to me as if your thinking is thoroughly infused with Marxist rubbish along the lines of struggle between classes, which 60s feminisim (as Joe H so clearly comments above) then twisted for its own political ends into a never-ending struggle between males and females. Your entire comment above is YOUR OWN read and infused with YOUR OWN ideological biases. Not sure why that is so hard to recognize. Do you honestly believed that God created us as men and women to be in a constant state of struggle for dominance? Or that He meant for us to be equals in every physical and spiritual way? Our natures are complementary, but that in no way implies any kind of superiority or inferiority of woman or man, and this is what the Church has always taught. You are interpreting that women are somehow weaker than (i.e., inferior to?) men because men are physically stronger in the aggregate. If I wanted to, I could just as easily interpret men as the weaker sex because, in the aggregate, we die earlier and are far more prone to violence and uncouth behavior than are women.

For what it's worth, Orwell was addressing the corruption of language for political and worldly ends, and in that arena, he was very wise. But we have no reason whatsoever to infer that Dr. Hildebrand is using that technique to somehow manipulate her audience. Such is the problem with worldly ideologies like 60s feminism or Marxism---they are false and they have a totalitarian bent that would have all followers apply them at all times and to all people in every situation. God exists outside of our pitiful little mental boxes, thankfully, and so who are we to constrain Him with our feeble natures?

We need to be extremely wary of earthly ideologies that breed resentment, anger, and struggle with one another as human beings, like I mentioned in an earlier post. These are not from God. Our sinful fallen natures are already inclined to do evil, so we don't need help from some false ideology to help us along the road to perdition.

Karen,

It is true that Dr. Von Hildebrand sees differences in strength between the sexes. That is part of the Catholic-Christian view of men and women. In fact, we celebrate the differences. I would just note that you obviously have not read Von Hildebrand outside of the interview that pops up third on a google search of her name, nor have you heard her speak. Alice Von Hilebrand is an impressive scholar and writer, and it would be more than ironic for her to advance the notion that women cannot be creative, as she clearly is, by her own philosophical output. It does not point to weakness to believe that there are different natural roles based on sex, and that motherhood is the supreme expression of femininity. Where would any of us be without our mothers, and especially where would any of us be without the Blessed Mother?

Karen's problem is not so much that she misundertands Dr. von Hildebrand, it is that she misunderstands Christianity. So, of course, she misunderstands Christian teaching about weakness and strength.

II Corinthians 12:9-11, NASB:

9And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for (A)power is perfected in weakness " Most gladly, therefore, I will rather (B)boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

10Therefore (C)I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with (D)distresses, with (E)persecutions, with (F)difficulties, (G)for Christ's sake; for (H)when I am weak, then I am strong.

11I have become (I)foolish; you yourselves compelled me Actually I should have been commended by you, for (J)in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though (K)I am a nobody.

Kamilla

Karen & Hawise, have you read about the effect of birth control pills upon the level of SHGB?

"A team of researchers are Boston University have found that the use of hormonal contraceptives increases the level of sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) a protein produced in the liver that lowers testosterone levels, thereby reducing sexual drive and that this increase was still found in women who had stopped taking the pill for a year.

The team's research leader, Dr Claudia Panzer, an endocrinologist at the Boston University Medical Center, said the study indicated that the loss of libido might not be reversible. "It is important that when doctors advise women to take oral contraception that potential side effects, including loss of sexual appetite and arousal, are pointed out. If, as our study suggests, the Pill can cause a long term or permanent loss of libido, that is something women need to be made aware of."

The researchers studied the use of the pill on 124 women at a sexual dysfunction clinic. Those who continued taking the Pill had four times the normal SHBG levels of women who had never taken it. Those women in the study who stopped taking the pill at the beginning of the study still had twice the normal level of SHBG after a year."

An acquaintance of mine recently suffered a massive stroke at te age of 36, and ended up brain dead. She had no other risk factors except for the fact that she was on the birth control pill.

It isn't natural!!!

In this wide-ranging discussion, I have noticed a few considerations missing.

1. Isn't drug abuse when you use drugs to alter, instead of restore, the normal functions of the body? Contraceptives clearly disable healthy organs.
2. The Church does not teach that one must have the maximum possible quantity of children.
3. The use of contraception is an insult to one's spouse and one's self. My intent may be to protect my wife from getting my cold, but she always rejects my offers of kisses with a sheet of plastic over my mouth.
4. Contraception is for using people. (Using someone's body is using the person.) Contraception is consistent with prostitution.
5. There is an alternative to contraception for those with serious reasons to avoid pregnancy -- natural family planning. It is effective, has only positive side-effects, and strengthens, rather than weakens, marriages. Check out omsoul.com

Kathryn Jean,

Excellent article. Reading it brought to mind a recent comment
that I read about Monsignor William Smith, Professor Moral Theology, Saint Joseph's Seminary, Yonkers, New York.
I quote "Monsignor Smith (recently deceased) was also known for his quick wit and dry, sometimes biting humor.'I see from the fact you are here that you have escaped abortion,'he would begin many a lecture. 'But don't take comfort, because we are all candidates for euthanasia.' It was his startling way to warn whoever would listen that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Call me a bit naive and inexperienced, but I often feel like I don't quite get why the Church's teaching on contraception gets people so worked up.

Is sex really that big of a deal that people have to have it before marriage or whenever they want during marriage?

Does abstinence really deprive a person of something so necessary to their happiness that their quality of life is unacceptable?

I think part of Lopez's point is that, at least in the case of pre-marital relations, the consequences of having contraceptive sex are pretty much always going to be worse, more complicated, and ultimately more dehumanizing than the consequences of not having sex.

It's unfortunate that our culture holds men and women to different standards in a way that are unfair.

The Church, however, does not. I have many problems with feminism but it is the almost bottomless hatred that they have for the Church that offends me the most.

Anyway, to me, the honorable thing to do would be for Catholic women to live up to Catholic standards, and not to insist upon a sort of equality that basically says, "I am interchangeable with any man". Our theology does prescribe different roles for men and women. Anyone who can't accept that should join a different religion, and stop trying to destroy ours. I hear the First Amendment lets people do that.

(Joe H. - Welcome back!)

Why would God create two "equal" genders, but then assign only one of them the ability to bear children?

Men and women are equal in dignity, but different in our natures - we have complementary natures, as another poster pointed out. Catholicism 101.

I know this is silly but it occurs to me that it's not fair that only women can experience the miracle of carrying a baby in our wombs. Let's develop implanted wombs so it will be fair to men :) .

Hi Peter. I don't think everyone who questions or resists the prohibition against artificial birth control has an overinflated view of sex. Sex IS a big deal. And many people do not see anything inherently immoral about separating the two "goods" of marriage. If they have a legitimate reason not to get pregnant, why should a married couple deny themselves the marital embrace and HAVE to abstain? Unity/intimacy between spouses is critical to a relationship - why can't a married couple pursue this good?

Wouldn't you "get worked up" about being told you can't do something that is so important and such an integral part of your identity as a married person, if you didn't understand why? Especially when the people telling you that themselves acknowledge that the unitive aspect of sex is itself a good - just not one that you're allowed to experience if you don't also pursue procreation.

Please don't trivialize this frustration with hyperbolic statements about "quality of life being unacceptable". Nobody is suggesting they'd be better off dead if they couldn't bear abstinence. What they ARE saying (at least some of them) is that they don't see the reason WHY they have to abstain, and yet they are told they must. Surely you can see why they are frustrated and angry.

Yes, in todays tremendously sexualized popular culture especially, the idea of abstinance sounds ridiculous, untenable and like an unnecessary suffering. It's very hard to get distance from modern times on this issue.

Like a lot of things that sound reasonable in limited cases one has to look at the fruits to fully understand the principle. Contraception (and abortion - another form of contraception) has led without a doubt to the degradation of marriage's beautiful inherent dignity as one of the social vocations of the Church and has (almost completely) destroyed the special intimacy of sexual relations in general. Something that has accomplished this has no place in Catholic marriage, hard as that is to accept.

My grandparents had 2 children - waited 6 years - had 4 more, the last of which my grandmother gave birth to in her mid-forties. Why the gap? The Great Depression. They simply couldn't afford another child (probably couldn't afford the ones they had!) so my grandmother told my mother that they simply slept in separate bedrooms. That they weren't bombarded with sexual images from all sides constantly probably made this easier; people have a much harder time today in this regard. But they had a beautiful marriage and they were both daily communicants. Catholicism gives us a beautiful way to unite our sufferings with Christ's.

Hi Jason,

I think your view is the majority view among most Catholics nowadays. However, following it leads to "cafeteria Catholicism" in moral terms. Either we believe the Church is correct in her moral teachings (i.e., guided by the Holy Spirit) or we don't believe it, and she is not. It's not intellectually honest to say we believe the Church in everything except in the arena of sexual morality within valid marriage.

An imperfect analogy that helped me to understand the Church's teachings of NFP and against contraception:
Eating is a good activity for humans-it provides pleasure (via savory tastes) and it provides sustenance (via nutrients our bodies need). However, it does not follow from this that eating anything and in any quantity we desire is also a good thing. If one wanted to, one could separate the pleasure and sustenance portions of the act of eating (e.g., bulimics do this by regurgitating after eating a lot of food, usually done to stimulate pleasure from the taste of the food). This is not healthy for the body, nor is the pleasure aspect of eating superior in goodness to the nutrient aspect of the food. Just ask anyone living in extreme poverty who will eat almost anything to simply survive.

The Church teaching on the marital embrace and abstention during fertile periods when couples practice NFP is much like a parent teaching a child or a doctor teaching a bulimic patient, about why we shoudln't gorge ourselves and then vomit up the food to avoid the calories and nutrients. We are fallen in nature as humans, and we have appetites that are essentially insatiable when it comes to desires of the flesh (and others). It is good for us to refrain from giving in to those desires as often as we want, for that habit will lead to a loss of appreciation of the act and what it means.

As males, this is especially true for us. Our bodies are designed to react to the consumation of the sexual act very differently than women's bodies respond. Ask most married women if they feel the need for sexual intercourse as often as their husbands do, or if instead they would feel fulfilled being intimate without necessarily making love, and they will tell you the latter. As men, we can tend to see sex as our "outlet" for our own pleasure, and we can fail to give our wives what they need to feel fulfilled. The practice of NFP allows for this and encourages it, while contraceptive usage does not. We men can come to appreciate and love our wives more wholely and completely if we abstain from fulfilling our sexual desires as oftyen as we wish to (i.e., more than they do!) We can give our wives what they need and crave as part of their female natures.

Does this imperfect analogy help? I hope it does.

Hi Kevin. Thank you for your reply. I certainly agree with your observations about the male/female dichotomy as regards sex and fulfillment. But what you described, while illustrating a good benefit of NFP, doesn't answer WHY marital contraception - by mutual consent - is immoral. Yes, the tendency might be there to use my wife for my own pleasure if we are only pursuing the unitive good of sex, but just because something might lead to something bad (the "slippery slope" argument) is not evidence of its inherent badness. See my analogy to alcohol in comment 15 above.

Does the immorality of articifical contraception lie in its artificiality? (doubtful, since NFP apologists are always quick to point out that NFP can be used "with a contraceptive mentality" and is also wrong). In its deliberate separation of the two goods? (see my query above - why is this wrong?) In its tendency toward the objectification of the woman? (Why would it be any different for a couple that is naturally infertile? They do not face pregnancy, yet nobody dares tell them that they should be abstaining. And yet the same tendency is always there.)

So you see, there are at least some of us who obediently abide by the Church's teaching, but are not persuaded by the moral argument (the social arguments make more sense, IMHO). I don't think the Church has done a good job explaining this teaching, which I believe contributes to the frustration & anger some feel.

Hi Jason,

I think I see your question, although it's not something that I personally question, so perhaps it's as simple as a matter of faith in the Church teaching it.

I hate to use another analogical example, but I tend to think this way, so here goes:
Jack and Jill are completely in love and want to spend their entire lives together and start a family together. Tomorrow they are going to get married by a priest, in a Church, following the "letter of the law" to be properly married. They mutually consent to making love tonight as an engaged couple. They do so. Assuming their complete commitment and devotion to each other, what changes about their feelings for one another and their seriousness of intent to be a family just by the ceremony of the wedding itself? Nothing, really, in human terms. Yes, they've expressed their commitment to one another before God and others in that ceremony, but does the ceremony itself make a quantitative difference in their commitment? No. Does this mean that their act of total and self-giving pre-marital sex was less meaningful to them on a personal, emotional level? No. Was it a sin? Yes.

It's all about the supernatural nature of the marital act versus the human nature of the pre-marital act. Perhaps this is the same principle when applied to marital contraception? Sorry I can't be of more help, but this truly is not an issue with which I struggle to submit my will to that of the Church. That analogy could be useless, too...

Here's another try: every marital act must involve God, as we share in His creative power within marital intercourse. We leave God out of the act, by definition, when we contracept. We susbstitute our will for His. This is why any sexual acts between two loving spouses (acts whose end is not procreation, e.g., non-vaginal intercourse) are also objectively sinful. We seek our own pleasure without allowing God to be part of the equation. Spilling of the seed, etc., as the Old Testament forbade.

"Along comes contraception and upsets the male-dominant/female-subservient apple cart. Suddenly, women have the means to postpone, plan or even not have children."

The thing is -- this is a myth! Contraception does not allow women to completely prevent conception.

1.Because of the high risk to women's health of higher dosages of hormones in early b.c. pill formulations, the modern formulas are not nearly so effective in preventing fertilization of eggs. So... another drug was added to prevent fertilized eggs from implanting (just a lesser known version of abortion -- quietly killing untold numbers of babies before they have a chance at life). There is no telling how many babies die from "the Pill" -- probably far more than from abortion. The beauty of it is that we don't actually know about it, so we don't have to feel any guilt. Right? This is a dirty little secret that is seldom ever explained to young women - at least they should be informed before making this choice, don't you think? In some ways it is a bit ironic to think that there may be women who consider themselves staunchly pro-life who have aborted (unknowingly) many of their own children through the use of contraceptives.

2. None of the contraceptive formulas claim a 100% effective rate. So, even with the best efforts, a certain percentage of fertilized eggs will implant even with diligent use of the chosen contraception. This idea of being 'safe' from pregnancy because of chemical contraception use is completely false. The only known 100% effective way of preventing conception is abstinence. This fact is known -- and is a big reason why a pro-contraception attitude begets a pro-abortion attitude. (See a recent InsideCatholic article by Jennifer Fulwiler where she states a statistic that only 8% of abortions are performed on women who were not using contraceptives -- so just think: 92% of all abortions are performed on women who thought they were engaging in sex with no risk of pregnancy!)

Our society has been led (albeit willingly) to believe that we can have all the sex we want with no consequences (I can remember the surprised look on the face of a modern-thinking Catholic friend when she found out I agree with the Church's stand on contraception -- she seemed actually shocked that I would believe that married couples shouldn't be able to have unrestrained sex anytime without the 'worry' of begetting another child). It is a tragedy for all involved that we have bought into this.

Melissa's (in the article) age must be misstated. If she is only 43, but graduated from high school in 1976, she would have had to be only about 11 years old at the time...

When we got married, the priest said the same thing you did - that when we marry God allows us to be co-creators with Him, and that this is the great gift of marriage and a tremendous privilege. But we must never impose our own wills on this gift or exploit this privilege by using contraception. The priest said it much more eloquently and thoroughly than I!

meg, pregnancy is not a privilege. It is a biological function indistinguishable from sneezing or peeing. A women can be pregnant in a coma. And for what it's worth, I would absolutely love for men to experience nine months of the physical misery of pregnancy. You have a very foolish idea of biology if you thing childbearing -- as opposed to childrearing, which requires strength and intelligence -- is anything special.

Janet, breastfeeding and vigorous exercise can thin the uterine lining to prevent implantation of fertilized ova. Are you in favor of banning breastfeeding and exercise for women?

Dear Karen,
I really am sorry that you have so much sadness and self-loathing, as evidenced in every one of your posts above. Please reach out for spiritual and emotional help from someone professional, whether a priest or a psychologist, so that you may begin healing!

Your comments on childbearing vs. childrearing and the "misery of pregnancy" can only come from a mind that has completely accepted the anti-life culture so rampant in the West today, e.g., it's not a child, just a blob of goo, so abortion is a woman's right; this growth inside of me is making me miserable, so I can't wait till it's out of me, etc. These are deeply bitter and uncaring thoughts that people have, and they can only contribute to further depression and anger. Assuming that you have children (it sounds as if you may), would you ever tell them as they get older that carrying them during your pregnancy made you miserable? That pregnancy is nothing special, and thus it can be snuffed out whenever a woman gets tired enough of her physical suffering during pregnancy that she no longer wants to have that baby within her womb? I truly doubt you would say such things to your own child, at least I hope and pray not. Why do you feel it's okay to express them to fellow women who may be pregnant and feel joyful about it, rather than miserable, despite the pains the pregnancy undoubtedly causes? Do you seek to take away the other women's joy? Why?

Kevin, pregnancy is a biological function. I resent the idea that women are supposed to be grateful for what is nothing more than an unconcious process. I'm not self-loathing because I don't think it's self-loathing because I don't think sneezing and breathing are Super Special Unique Privileges.

In your theology, men get intellect and women get mindless bodily functions and we're supposed to be happy about it. I want you to recognize that women have minds we want to use and improve as well, and that birth control allows women to use our minds.

Seriously, Karen, find the source of your sorrow - there's always sorrow behind bitterness.

Why do you think men have it so great? There are so many men out there with tremendous sufferings. The traditional role many men fill as providers for their families is not necessarily intellectually fulfilling at all. My husbands job certainly isn't. He does a beautiful thing - a heroic thing - for his family by getting up every morning and earning a living for us at a job that is not meaningful in the least to him. Think that's fun? Although I'm not sure you're a Catholic, I will say anyway that there are profound graces available to us only through self-sacrifice and enduring our sufferings by united them with Christs. There are beautiful and intangible benefits.

Sex bonds us to one another. The denial of this has been catastrophic for our young people, for all of us. This idea that sex is something that we can tame through contraception and taylor to suit our own individual lifestyles has led to *incredible* suffering. Hearts broken time after time until they are crusted over and can't trust or feel real love anymore. Regrets. Disease. Loneliness. Depression. And bitterness.

Karen,

You called pregnancy "nothing more than an unconcious process." Oh, my. I am afraid I have nothing but pity and sorrow for a woman who would say that, let alone believe it. Mortherhood, from the moment of conception is far, far more than an unconcious process!

Through motherhood, women are given a chance to participate in the only thing that matters for eternity. *Every accomplishment of men will fall to dust and be forgotten, but every child to whom a woman gives birth is given an immortal soul that will live forever.*

Bringing a child into the world and raising him requires intelligence, whit, humour, wisdom and love. It takes a woman's entire heart, mind and soul to mother well. It requires far more than the mere intellect you despise men for exercising.

Again, you have revealed your lack of understanding of Christianity -- and human nature as well.

Kamilla

P.S. The part between the asterisks is a paraphrase of Alice von Hildebrand.

"...breastfeeding and vigorous exercise can thin the uterine lining to prevent implantation of fertilized ova. Are you in favor of banning breastfeeding and exercise for women?"

You don't see the difference between taking a chemical that causes a woman's body to reject implantation vs. breastfeeding or vigorous exercise?

I would say that, if in your mind they both have the same effect, throw the pill away and begin vigorously exercising as a contraception measure... good point! Gosh, I wonder what the effectiveness of that method would be???

Does anyone else think this conversation has deteriorated to illogical rantings?

Janet,

It's really the same argument - abuse your body in unnatural ways to avoid what it was made to do. It isn't merely vigorously exercising that forces a woman into an unnatural cycle (amenorrhea - or absence of monthly menses). It is the type and extent of exercise and relative intake of calories. Currently, the best evidence is linking it to body fat percentage. Isn't it interesting that they are now recommending women who are having problems with fertility NOT consume fat-free dairy products?

Turns out women are supposed to be a bit softer and rounder. Rubens was right after all, yeah!

Kamilla

Reading through the posts here that show so much pain, hurt, resentment and confusion, I thought one particularly beloved passage of St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians was extremely appropriate to address our incomplete understanding of God's ways, as well as those teachings of the Church we do not understand and believe, with faith like that of a little child:

{13:9} For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part.
{13:10} But when the perfect arrives, the imperfect passes away.
{13:11} When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I understood like a child, I thought like a child. But when I became a man, I put aside the things of a child.
{13:12} Now we see through a glass darkly. But then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know, even as I am known.

I Corinthians 13: 9-12

How often do we think like children, demand like children, understand like children, even now when we are all adults? God calls us only to have faith like a child and to trust in Him completely.

I was born early 60's. Even though my mother was against birth control, I was influenced by society around me. I look back and see how I thought I had to get on the pill. I knew I had to be hip like the other girls and be available for my boyfriend. I didn't want to be thought of as prudish. So, with the pill I was able to have sex with several guys during highschool that I did not care about other than wanting to be liked by them.
Then once I was married it was very popular to get your tubes tied. After my third child I signed that paper stating I would not want another child if something happened to one of mine. I did not really believe that but felt the pressure that I had to do what everyone was doing. Well, I lost a daughter due to a brain tumor. She was ten. I now want to tell every women out there to not get your tubes tied. You may think you're done having children but there could be a time that you wish you could have more and then you can't.
I feel being a mother and raising my kids has been the most important and rewarding experience in my life. There have been difficult times with a troublesome teenage daughter but that doesn't make me regret being a mother. I don't want to be equal to men. I would just like society as a whole to value mothers and the life she gives more. I think men would treat women who nurture their children better if society as a whole did.
After watching the decline of families and the responsiblity of fathers decline I can really see the correlation between the contraception era and the change in society. I know there were disrespectful men out there before but I believe it's much much worse. I don't think men are totally to blame though. I think the feminism movement misplaced the man. Men as a whole were alot more respectful before the feminist movement. If we women of today could go back in time, I think we'd be shocked at the high esteem men held for their women as their wife and mother of their children. I'm not against much of what feminism brought for women, I just think it brought on an imbalance that needs to be corrected.
I was not raised Catholic but I really admire the values they really strive for. I understand after my experiences in my life why the Catholic Church has the stance it does on birth control and of course abortion. It just makes sense in my heart as apposed to the society brainwashing that I eventually woke up from.

April,

Thank you for sharing your story. If more women speak up about matters like this, we have a hope of turning the tide of society.

Kamilla

Karen,
I don't understand why you think that women need the Pill to be able to use their minds. Any mother uses her mind daily to make decisions about teaching, disciplining, and relating with her children. It takes a creative mind to run a household full of children smoothly so that the home is a safe, loving, and fun place where everyone's needs are met. Many women are able to do that plus work outside the home in a demanding job, or go to school, or run a business, or write, or whatever. I've read articles written by a homeschooling mother of nine. My kids' pediatrician is a mother of six. They definitely use their brains without the Pill.

While I agree that pregnancy is an "unconscious process" in the sense that we do not control it with our minds, it is not at all the same as peeing or breathing or sneezing. When was the last time that you were ecstatic with joy over the act of sneezing? Yet many women are ecstatic about their pregnancies. When was the last time you talked with your pee or ran your hand over your abdomen to feel movement in your bladder? Yet many women talk to the baby in their womb, and all touch their belly to feel the baby move. When was the last time that you developed a deep, emotional attachment to the air moving in and out of your lungs? Yet most women develop a deep, emotional attachment to the little human being growing inside them.

You seem to have bought into the attitude becoming prevalent today -- that pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing are painful, mindless, miserable drudgery. How far from the truth that is! I know that for many women, pregnancy is miserable, between morning (or all day) sickness, aches and pains, or complications, and giving birth can be excruciating. But under all the misery is the joy of bearing a new little life to nurture and to love. I hope you are able to recognize this.

What a stunningly misogynistic thing to say. To belittle all of the mothers in the history of mankind, to equate there motherhood with urination.

And, I'm sorry, I apparently missed something: oral contraception somehow activates the previously dormant mind within women? Wow, it really must be a wonder drug-- good thing it's leaching into our groundwater (and we have no technologies to remove it)-- Soon we can all enjoy it...

Oh, and don't feel too bad if you can't use your mind-- thinking is just a biological process, like urinating, or bearing a child! I love deconstructionists...

"Melissa, now age 43 but an adolescent during the social sea change that Fukuyama describes, says birth control "had a huge impact" on her life. "I graduated from high school in 1976. "

How can a 43-year-old have graduated in 1976? I graduated in '77 and I'm turning 50 this year. What's up with this?

Hi, K -- Just a reminder that this article was originally published in Crisis Magazine in 2001, so Melissa was 43 when this article was written, about 8 years ago now.

Those of us who are not Christians don't have to live by the dogma of those who are Christians. My body, my choice. I use contraception and I don't want children. I don't have children, my choice, and it's not open to discussion. I like sex, I have sex. Again, not anybody else's business. I won't be browbeaten by the right wing of the Catholic church into following the hipocrisy of the swaddled pederasts. Contraception is my choice for me. If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't expect me to change my behavior to suit the agenda of the churched.

a point to be made, if the prospect of being free of the risk of child destroys so called 'morals' and 'values', than i propose the following: they never were morals or values. fear should never designate what one does or does not do, no matter how good the out come may be of fear enduced obedience. to say that the pill improves/worsens a person's behavior is both ignorant, not only of the concept of the pill but of people as well. to those who pose that birth control prevents the coming of God's gifts- children, i say this: the nature of these gifts are that they be cared for and are kept well this is not possible without the full intent of the parents or some caregiver. to allow a person to come into this world without every possible advantage is the true desecration of such a 'gift'. if the person does not have this, then this is a great contradiction. finally, women were not made to have children- it is a wonderful oppurtunity that they have been blesssed with, and should have free reign to choose when this blessing is to reach fruition. our world suffers not from those who do not bear life, but from the lack of responsible persons to take care of that of that life. do not blame the pill for society's ills, blame the people whochosse to act in the way that created those ills.

Let's be careful not to idealise too much.

"Good Catholic" families who don't use contraception can still be toxic, unloving environments, where marriages are disfunctional, fathers distant, mothers miserable and children damaged. I should know - that was my family. Following the church's teaching on contraception doesn't necessarily make for a good parent or a loving family - it may just mean that you're following the rules.

Without having to go beyond just the title, I see one major error in Ms. Lopez's article: and that is her use of the word birth control. This is a common mistake many who rightly defend the Church's teaching on this issue make.

The Church really has no problem with birth control per se. After so-called Natural Family Planning (another bad term in my view), which has the Church's approval and encouragement as circumstances require it, is a form of birth control. What the Church has a problem with is contraception. Contraception and birth control are not synonomous. But yet, countless Catholic writers portray them, albeit unwittingly, as such, thus exacerbating the problem in many respects.

Using the term "birth control" the way Ms. Lopez and many other well-meaning Catholics do only blurs the distinction between natural (and morally licit) means of child spacing and contraceptive (morally illcit) means. The difference between contraception and so-called NFP has to be clearly understood. And that is in the former, the avoidance of births is conducted in manner that is consistent with the natural function of the reproductive system (i.e. in accordance with the natural law) and the latter acts against it.

I have seen many occassions people almost immediately change their view on the subject once these distinctions are made clear.

This is the distinction the Church herself makes and therefore must be the distinction we make.

first,contraception is immoral, pure and simple, its usefullness is irrelevant, it is evil, because it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act, and because it is evil, it therefore does not matter how useful it is to people.

second, men and women are not equal, never have been, never will be because that is not how God made us. weakness is not strength?, well maybe not natural strength, but it can be supernatural strength which is even better than natural strength. who needs to be strong when God is with you? exactly, you don't.

third, equality-obsessed people who always want equality simply have no basis for their desire for equality, this obsession with equality is shared by communists, feminists and homophiles/homocrats. and this obsession with equality is simply an extension of the sin of envy. it is silly and irrational, it is baseless.

Catholics/Christians believe in righteousness and morality, not some silly marxist concocted idea of "equality"

fourth,the production distribution and use of contraception is wrong, and because it is wrong it should not be allowed, it should be criminalized with jail time as punishment, if you don't like that idea, then don't support it, but as for me, i will always push for the criminalization, not just of abortion , but also of contraception. and i will not be intimidated into changing my mind about it.

five, contraceptives, unlike guns and other weapons, are products of immoral thinking and immoral desires and have immoral objectives and uses, guns and other weapons on the other hand were made with self-defense in mind, which is not immoral. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition allows the use of guns and weapons, but neither allows contgraception, big difference.

lastly,i support and promote the total and absolute criminalization of all sexual acts outside of marriage, for that is the only way to turn the tide in the culture war. homophilia, fornication, adultery, prostitution, all these must be criminalized, with jail time. anything less will not stop or reduce these evils. sexually immoral behavior must be criminalized. this is the way to win the culture war.

This article is very intersting and informative. I fear that Pandora's box is open and will not be closed again. The consequences of any individual action as it pertains to society in general hardly moves many hearts to changing a cherished belief. The root of the problem is that a Christian worldview - a way of living that is based on the Faith - has been lost. Most people: men, women, catholic or not, take birth control as a given and let's face it - a good.

Material gain and pleasure, based on the false belief that these bring happiness, is the worldly goal. Men are perfectly satisfied that their wives share the duty of providing the financial needs of the family and are content with fewer rather than more children. Manly pride and honor has given way to never ending adolesence. The joy of motherhood as the greatest of vocations has been demoted to an unfortunate failure of technology.

The middle has indeed given way; partly because very few understand much less value of the Way, the Truth and the Life that is offered. Until there is a re-evanglization, until people can see that living according to God's Way is better than a materilist way, we will continue our culture's painful slouch to Gomorrah. The fertile will inherit the Earth. There is no way around this.

I know a woman in her 30's that, according to the doctors who treated her after a near-death medical incident specifically warned her that she must NEVER become pregnant due to the near certain chance of fatal complications during a pregnancy.
So is she 'immoral' for using contraception? Should she be denied access to professional medical services to prevent pregnacy?
I just don't get why is not-having-babies' is immoral?
Fortunately we don't live in a theocracy.

So, I noticed that there has been a lot of bashing on this thread, primarily by women. Predictably, they have been bashing men and motherhood. How sad.

I've heard all this before, but it is increasingly hard for me to stomache. The male bashers out there all act as if every man everywhere everytime fits into a certain mold. This is so not the case.

It is true, I grant you, that contraception has gone a long way towards allowing women to act like men. The point you all seem to miss is that the men you are now allowed to imitate are bad men. If you wanted to choose a male role model from, say, Pride and Predjudice (please note the popular female author), why on earth would you choose Wickham? Contraception does not give you the ability to act like noble, virtuous men. You already had that. It gives you the ability to act like philanders and cads. What an improvement.

Not all men have always abused and objectified women. My father always said my mother was smarter than he. She's a stay-at-home homeschooling mom with a college education. My husband and I were held to the same standard of sexuality growing up, so we both married a virgin. He has always loved and respected me. I am neither his sex toy nor the vessel for his sperm to create babies. I am his wife and the mother of his children and he respects that. He is fully aware that I can do things he can't.

G.K Chesterton nailed it when he spoke of the suffregettes of his day demanding to be men. He couldn't understand why they wanted to be men when being women was so much better and came more naturally to them. "Why be something to everyone when you can be everything to someone?" he said of motherhood versus having a career. Why would it be better to be a bus conductor than a mother when motherhood was so much more rewarding? Incidentally, though he loved children, he and his wife were sterile. He, however, never took this to mean she was worthless and never divorced because she couldn't produce babies for him. He loved and respected her to the end of his days.

I have a college education. I've been in the working world, sometimes working as much as 60 hours a week. Motherhood is unquestionably harder. It is also infinitely more rewarding. What career on earth could possibly be more important than the teaching and raising of the next generation? Every day I save lives by keeping children from ingesting poisons or chokable objects. Everyday I nourish them physically, emotionally and spiritually. I give them not only the building blocks for practical thibgs like reading, but also the building bloocks for how they will see the world and behave in it. I am producing the next generation of voters, taxpayers, productive citizens. What could I possibly be doing more important than that?

DC,

It isn't that "not having babies" is immoral. That's ridiculous. It's that contraceptive sex is immoral, because it separates the pleasure of sex from the act of procreation which it is necessarily part of. If God had intended us to have babies, He needed to make it fun. And out-of-wedlock sex is immoral, not just for women, but also for men. It's just that women tend to the ones bearing the consequences.

Incidentally, my mother-in-law was told the same thing after having six kids. She then had two more and still survived. I don't know what the official Church position is for your friend, but she could always use NFP to avoid pregnancy, as it is at least as reliable as commercial birth control, without the medical side effects.

I looked up the actual pregnacy rates for various methods from a scientific source - The FDA.

These are the "Typical", "Best" performance numbers according the the FDA.gov online reference. "Best" means the couple has used the method correctly 100% of the time, "Typical" is the actual experience for the total population using the methods

NFP - Typical 25%, Best 4%
Pill - Typical 5%, Best 0.1%
Norplant - Typical 0.09%, Best 0.9%
No Method - Typical 85%, Best 85%

NFP is NOT as effective has modern medical science, dispite the church claims (how do they even know?). And you wonder why the vast majority of woman ignore the church on this one. My mother the devount Catholic told us to ignore the church on family planning.