What is interesting to me is how "NFP" has been seen as always a good thing, and treated as if it has had universal approval -- when it is not the case. Indeed, NFP has all kinds of expectations and qualifications (at least, when it was first introduced), and made it as an exceptional practice out of need, not to be used as a normative form of birth control. Indeed, we should not really mince words: people use NFP (and defend it) as birth control. And, despite the name given to it, it is not natural -- at all. I've always thought it sounded undignified, and I think it still is. But then again, I consider it a dispensation, which explains why it is allowed, even if it goes against every other principle of sexuality that I know of from a Catholic perspective. For, despite the equivocation, it isn't the same as "just sometimes not having sex" -- it's the intention of having sex without baby. While sex is more than just procreative, and intended disassociation of the two imo, leads to other kinds of problems, including, as I think Marjorie shows here, what is going on with the treatment of women -- they become objects to be tested, experimented on, not subjects in their own right.

hile sex is more than just procreative, but also unitive, and intended disassociation of the two imo, leads to other kinds of problems, including, as I think Marjorie shows here, what is going on with the treatment of women -- they become objects to be tested, experimented on, not subjects in their own right.

Marjorie, every form of contraception is misogynous. NFP does not even approach this realm of "woman hating." The idea that sacrifice and self-mastery are required of a woman is not an act of hatred, but empowerment. As a man, I am glad to restrain myself for the sake of my wife and to show her my love ... and to work with her as we chart and interpert her fertility.

I know it's cliche at this point to quote Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility," but we hear that quote ad nauseam because it is true. Would motherhood itself be misogynous by such a definition? To suggest that asking something more of someone is oppression smacks of the entitlement mentality that has deviated feminism from a virtuous course for the past generation-plus.

Kudos to Kate for your defense.

Henry,
Could you elaborate on what it is about NFP that is not natural. Are you saying that it is not natural for a woman to have to take her temperature/check her other symptoms continually? If so, I don't believe that is why it is called "natural". It is called natural since it is a way of useing one's own body to determine whether or not she is fertile.
It is like someone wanting to get in shape and deciding to run on a tread milll. I don't think that is natural at all. What kind of sense does it make to pay a gym membership so that you can go indoors and run without going anywhere? However when compared to pumping your body full of drugs that promise to slim you down or curb your appitite, running on a tread mill looks like the most natural thing in the world to me. (may not be the best analogy, but it was the best I could come up with this early).

Henry, I attempted to explain the difference between contraception and NFP in a former Inside Catholic column: http://tinyurl.com/m7qfqe

Blessings,
Kate

Erik,

You think being prodded about, having your body investigated, as if you are a scientific experiment, is natural? When I think of nature, for example, I think of what St Maximus the Confessor suggests in his discussion of the wills of Christ: the human will is a natural will, but not a gnomic will, that is, Christ's actions were the natural actions of an unfallen humanity, without need for deliberation (deliberation, after all, though a helpful tool, is imperfect and leads to error). That NFP requires deliberation shows it is a thing of the intellect and imperfection, not of nature and its perfection. One could take the logic to defend NFP to other methods of birth control. Again, NFP wasn't meant to be used as a birth control, and it was meant to be used as a kind of dispensation for extreme need (and that opens up the possibility of other forms of dispensation, though what those could be could also be debated).

Kate -- the definition of contraception will be helpful, it is "The intentional prevention of conception through the use of various devices, sexual practices, chemicals, drugs, or surgical procedures." Now, notice one of the definitions is "sexual practices." To be sure NFP can be used for the sake of creating babies; the debate right now is in its use as the deliberate intent to avoid conception. That is, of course, how it is normally portrayed -- and when people give statistics about its success rate -- that shows what is involved is still the same problematic which founds all forms of birth control. Again, if people will note, it is really with the rise of the social encyclicals, and the urban lifestyle, where children can become burdens (economic) that there has been seen the possibility for a dispensation -- but dispensations come with the realization that this is an "imperfect situation." It is something I see few people who promote NFP realize -- and indeed, the gloss over how family planning like this once had to be approved by local ordinaries for couples in order to get the dispensation (because it was quickly given to please everyone). But the fact is there is a great divide in the the discussion of why things like condoms are invalid when one promotes NFP -- the two are of the same mentality -- using one's intellect to create a tool which limits the possibility of procreation (since condoms fail, one can say it is still 'open to the intervention of God'). But really, the problem is as I said above -- sex is becoming an issue of selfishness, even in NFP, because one just wants to find a way to disassociate the pleasure with the whole act.

Henry,
I am adressing your point to Kate and not me, as i do not understand how you can say "That NFP requires deliberation shows it is a thing of the intellect and imperfection, not of nature and its perfection" painting intellect as something impure and nature as pure. Is not intellect something given us by God. Both itellect AND nature can be perverted.

In your response to Kate. I do note your point here. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the Eastern Orthodox church actually holds NFP to be on the same level as other contraceptives. Although I am a firm believer in NFP and don't find any fault in it, I can understand their reasoning for this. However this then would suggest that my wife and I would be sinning in our attempt to not have 20 children. You see, we got married at age 23 (after dateing for 7 years, WE COULD NOT WAIT ANYMORE). We have 2 children already and have quite a few years of fertility yet ahead of us. If we did have sex every time we wanted to I have no doubt that we would end up with at least 12 or more kids. The question then becomes, "Is it sinful for us to want to curb that number a bit"? The answer I believe lies in how we go about doing that. To use drugs or any of the other devises (internal or external) to purposefully alter either of our natural bodily functions I think we can all agreee would be sinful. But if there is a way of simply reading the signs of my wifes fertility without having to alter her body's natural functions well then it would seem God has built in a way for us to avoid pregnancy if we feel that it would really not be a wise desision at a particular time. Is then avoiding pregnancy a sin? If sex NEEDS to be both unitive and procreative for it not to be sinful then we would be sinning every time we had sex during a time when we know she is NOT fertile. Therefore we ought to be obstaining during those times and only haveing sex when we know she is fertile (which by the way would probably mean using NFP or something like it to determine those times).
Avoiding pregnancy is not the sin here. It is the way in which we go about doing that.

One other note concerning the following:
"You think being prodded about, having your body investigated, as if you are a scientific experiment, is natural?"

If sex is not a womans body being prodded about and investigated then I don't know what is.

Let's be real, less than 10% of American Catholics think birth control of any form is wrong. Less than 10%. Single digits people. And that's the ones who are just saying birth control is wrong to a pollster, never mind what they are doing behind closed doors.

We can argue over the details of NFP (is it misogynous, is it really birth control in disguise, is is unnatural) but the fact is this conversation has become irrelevant.

Enjoyed the point/counterpoint, Marjorie and Kate!

Henry pointed out that people use NFP and defend it as contraception. This is because they don't have a right perspective on the use of NFP. NFP isn't just a scientific calculation or anatomical observation. It's technically a method of natural fertility awareness and thus also a mindset-- a philosophy about fertility that, when properly developed, makes it impossible to remove God's will from the picture. If you think of NFP as contraception, you miss the spiritual aspect that should involve (for both partners) giving every part of your life over to God-- even when it's difficult. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but there is a world of difference between saying, "I don't want a baby, but I want sex" and "I don't think I can handle a baby right now, but I recognize that our God-given fertility and sex are intimately connected." The first ignores reality, attempting to justify the pursuit of our wants. NFP makes it impossible to ignore that we show love in more ways than just a physical one.

There are times when we feel, for very real and serious reasons, that we aren't ready for another baby. We may be using NFP to avoid pregnancy, but NFP is always inherently open to God's plan for our lives. To use NFP properly-- and discern its right use-- we have to work to understand and trust in that spiritual element.

Choosing to abstain when pregnancy isn't an option certainly isn't easy, and I don't mean to imply that any of this process is. I'm living it too, so I don't mean to oversimplify it. Yet it's incorrect to assume that, just because something is difficult, it's not good. Just like anything else, NFP can be used for the wrong reasons. That's why the spiritual/psychological element is so important. NFP can't be separated from learning to discern and trust in God's will. That's never easy, but it's the purpose of our human lives.

I believe that a simpler easier method of determining peaks of fertility is right around the corner.... the problem is the individuals who designed the pill, the IUD etc have been more persistent in their pursuit of their objective.....

Catholics used to lead the innovation curve in science and technology. It is completely possible that we will discover just like the rest of creation how to tune into the cycle effortlessly.....

Until then I guess we are stuck with going to the well, no matter what time of year it is, with a bucket, and draw the water and carry it home.... over and over and over again until a breakthrough is persued successfully...and any art I look at it was the women who carried the bucket:).

Being the only daughter of 8 children I accepted the differences a long time ago.

Anne et. al.

Isn't that the point, though? Only the woman is asked to abstain, when she is most desirous not to abstain? It is the typical problem women had to face -- they were told to be the one who sacrificed, because it was what was expected of their gender, while men -- get to have all they want, when they want? That is where the gender issue in NFP comes into play. Yes, while women can go ahead and find value in giving up their most intense desires, it is in the same direction of telling women to just "obey" and "sacrifice" in the way which caused injustices to women. It is the same mentality going on.

To say NFP is not being used as a contraceptive mentality because "it is open to more" can be used, as I said, to justify condoms - "it's open to more, God can make it break." But the reality is, it is not just some "natural" act; it is the break-up of the natural act because of some intervention with a goal in mind. And this again goes with the issue of natural will vs. deliberation -- the whole process is a mental intrusion into a natural process -- how is it natural, especially when there is all kinds of extrinsic equipment which have nothing to do with the sexual act itself is being used to determine when to act? Again, it not only says a woman is to give up themselves, but to do so based upon unnatural investigation and guesswork. It turns procreation into a science experiment, not love.

Marjorie raises some interesting issues, and I do think that NFP needs to be discussed frankly. The heightened intimacy that is often touted is not always the reality. After being denied by following the rules, there can be a near-desperation to make good use of the times available. That creates quite a burden, with little sympathy for lack of libido due to fatigue or whatever. If the calendar says "yes," then that's the expectation.
Having serious reasons for postponing pregnancy, it can be extremely stressful to always be put in the position of gatekeeper, where every marital act becomes a potential assault on one's health. Twenty years of saying "No," is not especially healthy for a marriage.
I believe in NFP, but I find it is very idealized in most of the literature that I have seen.
Thank you for having this discussion.

I wish Catholics would stop using the abbreviation "NFP." It reduces (and let's call it for what it does) birth control to a term instead of a practice.

If the term "family planning" makes one uncomfortable, perhaps this issue is a bit larger than simply feminist freedom versus misogyny. The end result of so-called natural family planning is a Catholic form of birth control.

One can agree or disagree with the parameters of so-called natural family planning, but it is important to focus on the end result of using calendars and thermometers, which is often the same end result of using condoms and pills, achieved through different means.

So something that is "bad" for women is good for men, huh?

The zero-sum game of feminism continues...

'Makes a substantive relationship with a woman sound like too much work as many, many secular men are concluding.

Sad.

Martin

Several people have said that NFP puts the burden of abstaining when they are most desirous on women, but not on men. The woman has to abstain at her own fertile times, which is also when she has the most physical desire (generally). Men have a more constant level of desire. Men have to abstain when they desire sex as strongly as usual at times that aren't even determined by their own body, but by their wives' body. If anything, I'd say that puts more power to the woman, not the man.

Chrissy,

I hate to say it, but that reminds me of the kind of response given to women when they were asking for respect and their proper social rights: "really, you have it better, the man has it worse." Since the man's desire is more constant, the act will be the same; for the woman, they are told to go against their natural desire, and in return, told it's better for them?

Thank you, Ann! You nailed it.

Very few people in the industrialized world are having marital sex anymore as if it's the 1940s.

Besides, NFP has a "cult" ring to it.

Referring to NFP as a misogynistic practice is erroneous. It implies that it was created as a method of subjugating women out of man's hatred of women. It is actually laughable to think that. NFP is a practice created for the purpose of controlling the conception of children through science; it was not created out of hatred.

No doubt, as the science shows and Campbell points out, NFP is a lop-sided practice in theory. I believe what Campbell desires is a theoretically and practically equal method of controlling conception while still being able to enjoy the gift of sex with a spouse in her case. However, the nature of men and women-being so different sexually-makes it difficult to create an equal method of controlling a family's size within said family's means; not to mention the differences between each person as an individual

Campbell's flippant "church approved" method of not copulating until a couple wants to have a child is actually not equal according to the logic she attributes to NFP. Men are 24-hour ready, while women's desires "ebb and flow." From that logic her "church approved" system places the burden upon the husband to suppress his desires more than his wife.

Every person is unique, therefore every marriage is equally as unique. NFP is technique and not a doctrine, just as abstaining from sex until the a couple wishes to bear a child is a technique. Each couple is free to choose an appropriate method to balance family size with their sexual desires. If a couple finds NFP to be an appropriate fit for them, why not use it? Campbell obviously does not find NFP a fit for her, but to refer to it as misogynous is irrational and unfounded.

Marjorie, I'd like to address two of your points:

- That NFP is a tedious, difficult thing to do and all the work lies on the woman

Well, it is and it isn't. It depends on how complicated your cycles are an the method of NFP you choose. Some methods only require you to be aware during the day of what you feel, and write it down. Some require temperatures. Some require wiping before using the bathroom. some use a hormone analyzer and require you to pee on a stick a certain number of days.

Then again, if I were using the pill, I have to take a pill at the exact same time every day, and suffer a huge body load that hormones put on the body -- and beware of medication like antibiotics. If I were using a diaphragm, I'd have to plan ahead hours ahead of time of when I have sex, fill myself with goo, and risk a UTI by keeping the messy thing in me all day. For me personally, based on family history, having an IUD is likely to cause chronic migraines and bleeding. Condoms, yes, the burden falls on him -- but they disrupt sex for both people, and can be chafing and uncomfortable.

Unless we are talking sterilization, it doesn't seem like the burden magically disappears from the woman. Personally, since I observe for curiosity and health reasons, I don't find it a burden to pee on a stick in the morning (I'm peeing anyway, unwrapping a stick takes all of 1 second) and writing things down.

The truly hard parts of NFP: interpretation of signs and saying "no" to sex-- fall on *both* partners. As opposed to the hard parts of using the pill: the physical side-effects, mental side-effects, and sexual side-effects -- which all lie solely on the woman.

- NFP denies sex when a woman wants it the most

On the flip side, 1/4 to 1/2 of women on the pill stop desiring sex at all. This is considered an acceptable side-effect for contraception. And not all women desire sex only during fertile times. And it is not only women, either -- some men desire sex more when the woman is fertile, too -- pheromones or what have you. Maybe in the future we'll have androgen supplements (or some other science solution) that make women want sex more and all this will be solved?

Some things suck, people have different sexual appetites, etc. Some men might not have ups and downs in their desire, but some want it more than women, and *any* abstinence is harder for them. Who knows? I don't think the problem of sexual desire during fertile times is misogynist, because different couples will experience it differently, and both partners will experience it differently during different times in their life. Times like postpartum and menopause might require more and more difficult abstinence from men, for example.

I would suggest that bringing up the pill, for example, does not deal with whether or not Marjorie's points are true. As I like to say (paraphrasing Dionysius), Just because you can show the color before you is not black, that doesn't prove it is white. Showing that the pill is wrong does not guarantee NFP is the response.

I am afraid some people are misunderstanding Marjorie's point. She is not arguing in favor of using the pill instead of NFP. She's arguing that NFP places an unfair burden on the woman (It does!) and thus is not the "magic formula" some people claim it is for Catholic marital bliss.

We used NFP for the first 12 years of our marriage -- we now have 7 kids and I have a husband who insists upon using condoms (with our pastor's blessing btw). Now, this too, is my burden. Do I go along or do I fight him, at what might just be the cost of our marriage? And if I must fight him, how forcefully and how frequently must we argue about it in order for me to "qualify" to receive Communion at Mass the following weekend?

I tell you, I cannot WAIT till my fertility ends. At least then this major headache and cause of much sadness in my marriage will be over with. Maybe then I can help my husband re-discover his faith and work past my bitterness to reclaim what's left of my own.

Kate is arguing against the typical anti-NFP argument - namely, "natural" family planning or "artificial" family planning and loving babies vs. not loving babies. Marjorie is coming at the discussion from a different place - she is not advocating other birth control methods, and she is definitely not saying that unplanned pregnancies result in unloved children.

Indeed, she says "...perhaps we all need to suck it up and admit what the theology asks of us: Have sex whenever you both want to... and expect a baby every time. Otherwise, don't copulate." I'd love to see a discussion of this point. When we use "natural family planning" aren't our goals the same as when we use artifial family planning? Aren't we seeking to not have a baby, while still uniting with our husbands?

The "putting a pill in our bodies is bad" argument is a bit of a straw man. And it's not the discussion Marjorie is trying to have. A real discussion is needed.

What I learned from taking a class many years past was an eye opener for me. I began to realize that temperamental changes were tied to cyclic patterns. this was/is helpful to me as it provided me with a deeper understanding of my gender make up. I would hope women/females would use this as a great way to better understand themselves and call for respect from their spouse which in turn, invites the couple to better appreciate each other for the gift of their shared fertility. Has anyone mentioned the insights which NFP can provide to couples experiencing marginal infertility? From a case study, NFP insights provided a couple with awareness of a conception which occured around cycle day 24. Their first physican doubted their chart; however, their second physician was enlightened by their understanding and knowledge and became their choice for pre natal services.

I loved the comments. I recently began using NFP for the opposite reason all of you have mentioned, which is to enhance my fertility, because I am 40 years old and have never been pregnant. Obviously, my perspective is very different from yours and my reason for choosing NFP are for the opposite reasons you all chose/not chose this method. I feel very happy on the program because I finally have an idea of what is going on with my body and I can finally address the physical issues that have plagued me all of my life that the pill did not cure and that my doctors did not want to tackle. I don't want to have a baby becaus some doctor took my eggs and does God knows what to them. As a woman in my situation, I am happy to finally have some control over my body by using NFP. I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't understand the argument. Don't feminists want us women to have more control over our bodies? If this is the case, then why is NFP for birth control such a bad thing (mysoginistic) if it finally puts this type of control in the hands of women?

Jane,
Your quotation of Marjorie's statement is definitely where the real discussion is. The way that I've taken this idea, and from reading all the encyclicals as well as the Catechism, is that you cannot separate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital love. Hence, only NFP is acceptable. But in real life application, more women (myself included) find that in order to follow NFP appropriately, there are many times where a sacrifice of the unitive aspect of that act is required. If we are to either plan to get pregnant every time we make love, or not make love at all, how is that not separating the equal ends of marital love? Or are they really not equal?

Unitive love isn't only found in sex. It can be found in a shared struggle between husband and wife. Many people are arguing that NFP is both a struggle for women and men (rather than only hateful to women). Does this divide the couple or perhaps unite them?

Maybe the fact that unless we're okay with having 15 kids we do have to abstain and perhaps both endure our share of burdens is where the real unity is found.

The reality of NFP is that it does place burdens on a woman -- but this does not necessarily make it misogynistic. The confusion, I think, arises from the assumption that unequal demands placed on the sexes are necessarily sexist, which, if it is true, means that God is sexist -- in which case, we would logically either have to do away with the idea that sexism is bad, or with the idea that God is good.
In any case, sexuality and chastity are demanding. Whether you choose to abstain, to use Natural Family Planning, or to have 20 children, it's hard. NFP is hard for us, there's no doubt about that. In the event that you have one of these sappy sweet husbands that always appear in NFP literature (I've only ever met one man like that -- a real rarity, so far as I can make out), then I'm sure that it's a wonderful celebration of intimacy all round. From where I'm sitting, with a more ordinary specimen of the male sex for a spouse, I'm going to have to say that it's not a great festival of mutual respect and affirmation. I check my symptoms, I have to decide whether it's okay to make love or not, if I make a mistake and we end up abstaining longer than usual then I feel like garbage for having disrupted our intimate life unnecessarily, and, probably the worst thing, I'm the one who has to say "no, not tonight honey" when my husband wants to make love to me at the wrong time. It's tough.
On the other hand, it's tough for him. I find it easier, from a purely hormonal/biological perspective, to say no to my own body. He's the one who has to approach his wife, filled with desire, and get turned away. He's the one who has to sit by on the sidelines, his intimate life subject to the whims of a body that is not his and which he does not understand.
Does all of this even out in the end? Who knows. It doesn't especially matter -- the gospel never was about getting a fair deal. It was always about getting crucified. Or, on the other hand, it was always about getting a heavenly reward beyond anything that we could possibly have merited.

In Christ,

Melinda

As I was reading Marjorie's post, I thought, "Yes, NFP is more my responsibility than my husband's." But I don't know that that makes it misogynistic inherently, because it seems to me that is the case with nearly every contraceptive device or family planning method. Women bear the brunt of having to deal with the messiness of periods, pregnancy, childbirth, how to juggle family and work, etc. It does make me mad sometimes that all of those questions come to me - but that isn't about NFP. It's about my body and how my body limits me.

I think that some forms of feminism (especially early on) tried to push a vision for women that we could be on an equal playing field with men, particularly if we didn't have to worry about all of these family issues. I don't think that argument really works at all, no matter what the contraception is that is being used. Everything has a failure rate, even the highest effective contraceptives like Depo (and I do know some Depo babies). Everything's got some drawbacks.

I know that the sexual revolution of the 60s was seen as a freeing thing for women, but for my part, I don't appreciate the fall out that resulted. For example, I think there is an underlying assumption among my peers that we can have sex anytime, anywhere, because there are all these contraceptives available - but that makes me feel like an object. Guys I've dated have presumed that I will (naturally) want to have sex, and they equally presume that I have "taken care of" any contraceptive issues beforehand, because obviously, any pregnancy would be "my fault." I resent that because those assumptions mean that those guys don't have to ask about actual feelings about sex or think about consequences of having sex.

I don't want to sugar coat NFP, but I do think that it is at the least no worse than artificial contraception. It might even be better, at least on the point I mention above, because there is more conversation required in a couple and less likelihood of men getting to avoid at least discussing the messy complications that result for women from having sex.

I personally find these "is NFP bad or good?" debates to have a tendency to become very self-righteous. Everyboy feels a need to defend themselves. The woman (or couple) who does not use NFP (or any other forms of birth control, of course) and has eight children in 10 to 12 years feels the need to prove that NFP is bad as a justification for why they have so many closely-spaced children when a majority of people they encounter think they're crazy for doing so.

The couple who uses NFP to plan and space the number of children they have, despite the fact that it would be much easier to listen to other family members and friends and doctors who think this is the dumbest thing they have ever heard of and pop a pill or get an IUD inserted instead, feel the need to justify their actions to their "providentialist" friends who happily accept a new baby every year.

The fact is, our society is not structured to make life feasible for women who have many successive pregnancies spaced very close together. I'm going to use myself as an example, and I'm sure some of you (the anti-NFP people) will think I am the most selfish woman on the planet. My husband and I will have been married 8 years this October. I wil be 35 in September. We currently have three children, ages 6, 4, and 11 months. One baby was sadly lost to miscarriage early on between the 4 year old and the 11 month old. Our first baby was born 15 months after our wedding. We have used NFP to postpone pregnancy since the day we got married except during very short windows when we have succeded in conceiving a baby and during my pregnancies. We have yet to take longer than two cycles for me to conceive, and the first two were conceived during the first cycle we were "open" to it.

Among out family and friends, we are extremely open to life. My husband is the oldest of 2 and I am the oldest of 3. We were not brought up in "open to life" families. I was seven years old when my mother learned she was pregnant with my little brother, and I have vivid memories of my mother reacting almost exactly the way Marjorie's mother did to her 6th pregnancy. Only my other solved the problem by getting her tubes tied the day after my brother was born.

My experience is that non-open-to-live mothers turn into non-open-to-life grandmothers, meaning that our parents are very "hands-off" grandparents. This is due in large part to the fact that they don't live close to us, but also because they are just not inclined towards offering much in the way of babysitting or similar services. Their attitude is "I had no help and I served my time, now if you choose to have children you're on your own".

We live in a fairly high-cost of living area, and my husband works very hard and long hours to enable me to be a stay-at-home Mom. I feel very forunate that we are able to make it work with me staying home and still send our kids to Catholic school and provide other opportunities for them. But, I am the sole caretaker for them the vast, vast majority of the time with no break. And, I'm always completely exhausted until my babies get to be about 18 to 20 months old, around which time my husband and I start to be open to conceiving again.

I suppose if we didn't use NFP to space babies, with my rate of fertility and the fact that breastfeeding doesn't give me a very large window of infertility post-partum (I don't really want to get into that discussion right now) I'd probably have at least four, maybe five children by now. Yes, I'd love all of them deeply. And I'd be so out of my mind with exhaustion and stress that I would be unable to be a very good mother to them. Yes, I know with God everything is possible. I suppose you'll say my problem is that I must not spend enough time on my knees consecrating my children to God and begging for his assistance and for strength when I have all these kids clamoring for my attention and I've had no sleep whatsoever to speak of because I've been up all night, for the fifth night in a row, with a cranky nursing/teething/sick baby.

My point is that in our society many pregnant women and women with small children do not have enough support. Heck, after my last baby was born last summer I was alone all day with three children under six, one of them a band new newborn, when I was five days post-partum. My mother had to go home and get back to her job and hy husband had to get back to work, because we live in a society where if you don't work all the time, you have no shelter and no food. It's a good thing I haven't had to have C-sections or be on bed rest due to pregnancy complications; I have no idea what we would do then. Maybe God would intervene in some way if we did have a baby every year (although my husband would probably drop dead of a heart attack if that happened to us - he's more adament about spacing the babies than I am), but the fact is I only have the resources that I have to work with. I don't see people popping out of the woodowork with offers of babysitting and other forms of assistance so I can get some much-needed rest, never mind so that my husband and I can have some time alone to connect and communicate with one another. Dates are a thing of the distant past because we don't have anyone in our lives willing to babysit, and teenagers around where we live aren't too willing to babysit (even for money), even less willing to babysit three small children, one of them in diapers.

So, all you people who think we should "have sex whenever we want and expect a baby every time," I sincerely hope that you offer to help every single pregnant woman and woman with young children in tow that you see. That's the only way we will ever have a society that is truly, completely "open to life".

One other thing I just thought of, and this ties in with my last post:

Yes, the burden of practicing NFP falls mostly on women, but then again, so does child care. Does that mean bearing children is misogynistic?

Thank you for terrific, thoughtful comments.

“Aren't most people, Catholic or not, already using some form of birth control and aren't most methods misogynous?” Exactly –this is the critical point. I think Jane and Melissa picked up my concern here. The burden of child-bearing, child-rearing and child-avoiding has increasingly shifted to women - just as men have increasingly escaped social, financial and emotional responsibility for their own fertility. Female fertility has been successfully isolated as the radical feminists championed: an accidental, unfair burden on being female. When human fertility is no longer shared, male-female, and isolated as a female management issue, you get the crazy result of women doing mind-boggling things to themselves so that their fertility will not be a burden to their "sexual" partner, including ingesting chemicals and aborting disabled fetuses.

Here’s the misogyny: distrust, dislike and even hatred of female fertility to the point it is isolated, captured, shamed and thought gravely burdensome to the sexual appetites of men (and often women themselves.) Debbie’s comment above is a heart-breaking example. But she is certainly not alone – just very honest.

I think Christine raises an important point. Increasing numbers of people are using NFP (and "Fertilty Awareness" methods) to improve their reproductive health and to achieve pregnancy.

It seems to me that NFP should be an important tool for all women -- single, married -- to understand their fertility better. With that information, they are empowered (along with their husbands as the case may be) to not only make decisions about whether they have a need to avoid or achieve a pregnancy, but also to improve the quality of their lives. The endocrine and reproductive systems are complicated and they impact a woman's overall health and life in many ways - pregnancy is only one of them.

The basic teaching of the church about sex is clear - you mustn't separate the unitive and procreative aspects. It's up to each couple as to how to how to work this out in their life together.

Someone posted a definition, so starting with definitions, so we are all on the same page:

Contraception is a process which is "against" (contra) "conception" (life)

NFP is a process where the woman (and her spouse, if applicable)learns the signs of her body, and how to interpret them- whether she/they need to avoid a pregnancy, or desire to achieve a pregnancy, or to figure out what types of problems she may be experiencing from a health perspective.

The beauty of NFP is that you get information from it- then the choice of what to do with that information is up to the couple. No method- either NFP or contraceptive is 100% effective in helping couples avoid a pregnancy. Even Tubals and vasectomies are not. (I have personally delivered babies where EVERY method was used).

NFP, by its nature, forces dialogue within the relationship. Does the desire for the unitive at that moment outstretch the need to space or avoid a pregnancy? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it does not.

One poster mentioned the spiritual aspect of us, as Catholics, utilizing the knowledge and information we gain with NFP. Therein lies the crux of it. As Catholics we are taught, hopefully, of the value of suffering- the value of giving up something that we might enjoy as a penance- in reparation for sin, or simply for God / Christ to take and use as He sees fit. We unite everything we do during our day with His Sacred Heart, with His suffering and dieing for us- whether it is dealing with small children at home, doing laundry, working at a high powered job, dealing with difficult people and difficult situations. We are asked to offer it up for the greater good.

Marriage is both the sacrifice of self and the giving of self to our spouse, to our children. We unite ourselves to each other as Christ unites Himself- even unto death- to the Church as His bride. We are the church. The unitive portion of our marriage- the moment of togetherness where there is true bliss, true "togetherness". THAT is but just a taste, we are told, of what we can expect in heaven.

In a practical sense of course- it is sometimes very hard to achieve those moments. The grind of life, crying children, work issues, bills to pay. It is really hard. But we who are *trying* to live according to the wishes of Christ and the church, know that He sees our tears, our trials, our deepest concerns and desires. We have faith.

NFP in general is just a tool - even the rhythm method- though it doesn't work for some- is just a tool (and it happens to work very well for some couples BTW). God has given us a way to naturally try and preserve some of our day to day sanity, for those times when we need a break. It does require some work and some diligence, but on the other hand, it is something else that we can offer up. It frees us from the guilt as in the culpability of potentially aborting a newly conceived baby, and frees us from the guilt and culpability of putting something between the totality of ourselves and our our spouse, whether a condom or anything else. Our Marriage with each other is symbolic of our relationship with God- Dare we put something between us?

Anything we do can be done with a contraceptive mentality. God knows where our heart is. From my persepctive, both as a wife, a mom, and as a women's health care provider- most of the time- the vast majority of the time in fact, decisions are made based on fear. Folks are afraid. Whether using pills, patches, shots, IUD's, condoms, and sometimes NFP. Wouldn't it be great if we would, if we could- Trust that God, who is the Author of All Life, knows what is best for us, in ALL of our lives?

Does anyone know what the Church's answer is for married couples, where NFP is not an option as the woman absolutely cannot get pregnant again, or she would be gravely endangering her health?

Please don't say remaining chaste, as aforementioned woman would also like to stay married.

For those interested in hearing more from Harry Crocker, whose article Marjorie quotes in her response, be sure to check back here in a week, when we'll be posting his classic Crisis article, "Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning."

It's one of the magazine's more controversial articles; definitely worth a read.

Jane makes a good point - Kate's piece is not addressing Marjorie's point at all. Can any of the NFP advocates here actually do that, please? Nobody has given a good argument or explanation why the practice is not contraceptive in spirit - at least as practiced in the vast majority of cases.

And how about a second, opposite anti-woman possibility arising from that? I've known a number of women who agreed to start using NFP, then felt wrong or wanted to stop, but suddenly the burden of proof was on the wife to convince her husband they could manage or afford having a child. Once you make having a child a deliberate act, this becomes inevitable, doesn't it?

There was a recent letter to the editor in the Couple-to-Couple league's magazine where a grumpy wife was complaining that NFP didn't allow her to have sex when she most felt like it.

This seems to be a common misconception (pun?) regarding what NFP is and does.

NFP can't tell a couple when they can or can't have sex. The couple decides that.

NFP doesn't say you aren't allowed to have sex when you are fertile; it just says that if you have sex when you are most fertile you have the highest chance of pregnancy.

It's not even like you are guaranteed to get pregnant on the most fertile day.

NFP is merely a method of gathering and presenting data -- it isn't supposed to be an inviolable rule book (although it's often treated like one). To let yourself feel oppressed by NFP is like letting yourself feel oppressed by the FDA for printing nutrition labels on the back of candy bars.

You can go ahead and eat that candy bar if you really, really want to...but you should know that eating the candy bar might make your belly grow.

Hi Ann. I don't expect anyone is going to confront your question. Not sure the Church has an answer for this rare situation. If husband cannot be prevailed upon to abstain ad infinitum, then I would expect the pastoral response would be the same as I've heard from an orthodox priest/theologian - you have to contracept (in a non-abortifative way), to save the good of your marriage.

Let the firestorm begin...

"Have sex whenever you both want to... and expect a baby every time. Otherwise, don't copulate."

Exactly. That's what I do. And I call it...NFP. The week that I don't copulate is the week that I know I can get pregnant and know that it would be wise not to. Been doing that for the last 12 years now and, after 4 kids during the first 10 years, it worked for me.

I was not called to have more than 4. My mindset, my eagerness, my joy at the idea of having my four clued me in to knowing: that's what God wanted for me. After the 4th, everything changed. I felt different, thought different, and knew different. I work with God and his Good design of my body to do what I believe I am called to do. And so "whenever you both want to.." After my 4th, I didn't "want" to.

Don't copulate (during the fertile week) = no pregnancy; the basics of NFP.

I think NFP can be and is often used with a contraceptive mentality.

The level of communication and "being on the same page" as a couple that is necessary to make NFP work well is staggering for many people. The high divorce (and annulment) rate points to the lack of preparation for all that marriage entails in our society.

Kathy is right. Many, if not most women of childbearing age have nowhere near the level of support necessary to have a large family. So many struggle with family of origin issues with both spouses, that to be able to get support for having more than one or two children is totally unrealistic.

To make NFP work, in a spiritual sense, takes a very mature spirituality. Most people do not have it. This culture does not foster it. It is difficult, even in the Church, to maintain it.

I don't know what the answer is. We try. We fail. We try again.

Just IMHO, the word "misogynist" is meaningless. I think some women (and men) might find NFP to be unnecessarily burdensome, and that's fine. Others might have no problem with it at all.

Bottom line, while no one is allowed to contracept under Church teaching (not considering very rare examples that I'm not sure about, like Ann's), NFP is not illicit. That doesn't mean it has to be used; it means that it's allowed.

Can NFP be used with a contraceptive mentality? Yes, and it's absolutely sinful in that case. Unlike actual contraceptives, however, NFP isn't inherently sinful, whether it's "misogynistic" or not.

Jason Negri -- I'm not sure who your "orthodox priest/theologian" is, but I'm guessing our definition of orthodox is quite different. There is no exception to the Church's teaching on contraception -- not even for AIDS, as was heavily debated three years ago.

Using the logic you have put forth, the husband could also be granted permission to visit a prostitute. Neither this option, nor the free pass on contraception, is acceptable "to save the good of your marriage."

Not everything is always easy, people. One of the reasons traditionalists despise so-called natural family planning is because it buys into the contraceptive mentality that man must always be in control, and not God.

I think the point is not that there is necessarily a conscious understanding that the action leads to an undue burden upon the woman, but rather, that it does, and men do not recognize this, ends up making it a practical (not ideological) form of misogyny. Just because the men do not intend to contribute to the structures of sexism does not mean they will not -- the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Carelessness or lack of concern is just turning a blind eye to the problem.

Yes, I would guess our respecitve definitions of "orthodox" are quite different. Ditto our comfort level on the amount of control appropriate to the individual.

I'm so glad we're talking about NFP.

This dialogue is the very reason I agreed to answering the question: "Is NFP Misogyny?" And that is the question I tried to answer by showing that it respects women's fertility and empowers them to know their bodies; it forces husbands to at least think about the responsibility of parenthood and fertility more; it helps women feel less like objects; it elevates sex to more than something that's just pleasurable (for both men and women); and it promotes chastity for young women who are not yet married since it may require even married couples to be chaste during their marriage.

In my follow-up article, I tried to lightheartedly look at the male's role in this all as well as look at the heart of the Church's teachings. Melanie Selmys says it more succinctly than I did in her comment when she writes: "Whether you choose to abstain, to use Natural Family Planning, or to have 20 children, it's hard. NFP is hard for us, there's no doubt about that...the gospel never was about getting a fair deal. It was always about getting crucified. Or, on the other hand, it was always about getting a heavenly reward beyond anything that we could possibly have merited."

Either people agree with the Church's teachings that sex must be both procreative and unitive or not. If we agree, then we can either use NFP responsibly to abstain for "just reasons," or we can toss our charts and copulate whenever.

Which leads me to MRA's question about anyone explaining "why the practice is not contraceptive in spirit - at least as practiced in the vast majority of cases."

In a previous column, I did attempt to explain the difference between NFP and contraception (as well as how it can be practiced in with a contraceptive mentality). As someone who once contracepted, I struggled with the difference between the two. The link to that article is here: http://tinyurl.com/m7qfqe

In the comments following that article, Joe Maria shared an excellent explanation of NFP from Catholic Exchange. It's worth repeating:

"Couples who use natural family planning (NFP) when they have a just reason to avoid pregnancy never render their sexual acts sterile; they never contracept. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. Readers unfamiliar with modern NFP methods should note that they are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. Furthermore, any woman, regardless of the regularity of her cycles, can use NFP successfully. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”

To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God."

I hope this helps.

Blessings,
Kate

Interesting comments, but it seems like most of us are missing the point.

First off, the photo gives away a bias: OF COURSE natural family planning is a conspiracy against women -- just look at that unhappy woman in the picture!

Nearly all the comments (including Mr. Crocker's deliberately unfunny satire) put the cart before the horse. We jump right into the debate about whether or not women are getting the short end of the stick by using NFP. That's not the problem, it’s a fake.

But if we don't identify the problem we want to address, no matter how our actions and no matter what we do right, we're unlikely to solve it, since we are trying to solve the wrong problem. Same here -- wrong problem, so even a correct argument in response does not address the real problem.

The primary problem is we want to have marriage as a fair deal contract. It's not. It's a sacrament, a mystery relating to Christ and His Church, and a foreshadow of heaven.

We're wrongly looking at whether NFP is a fair deal because we see the marital act as this carnal urge to which we must submit. But the Church teaches instead that it is a holy desire which we must master in cooperation with the natural law, not chemically or surgically, in order to orient us to God.

Any man who sees marriage as having a loving woman available for sex is going the wrong way and certainly can be misogynistic with NFP. But any woman who buys into this erroneous view and wants the same "freedom" has made the same U-turn.

Anyway, it's like watching kids fight about who gets the room with the best view when the foundation of the house is faulty.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jason. I guess at the end of the day, we all have to decide for ourselves, in light of the Church's teachings. I can't see that wrecking a marriage would ever be God's answer in a case like this.

Excellent point, Bruce! We need to get back to the idea of marriage as sacrificial love.

Oh dear.

I should have stuck with my original comment regarding how irrelevant this conversation is to 99% of Catholics. I was curious what the Church teachings would offer to a woman who absolutely could not get pregnant again because it would be a grave endangerment of her health. I see that question was a mistake.

Anyone out there who is wrecking their marriage over this issue, going through intense grief and sadness and wishing their days away until they go through menopause, take a step back and reflect and pray. Really.

Appreciate the very real, very personal discussion.

This all seems so grim. There doesn't seem to be much joy in one's sex life with NFP. If having another baby really is so terible then perhaps it would be better to wait to marry until the woman is in her 40s. Of course, then she risks having a baby with Downs Syndrome.

Just how much fear and need to control is involved in any kind of planning process that involves limiting children? I think answering this question is critical.

Are NFP users essentially afraid with the same fear that drives a woman to pop the pill, and do they have the same need to control with the same fervor that motivates a man to make sure his wife takes that pill at 7am each morning? It seems that unless we are willing to put our fertility with Complete Confidence in God's care, then we are falling prey to some level of fear/needing to control and this could only be the work of the Devil.

I love this quote from Father Jean C.J. d'Elbee in "I believe in Love": "Do I know what is best for me? My views are so shortsighted, my horizon so limited! I let the Divine King decide. He sees better and further than I, and He does not have to ask my opinion."

You do not have to fight or argue with your husband to be worthy of approaching communion. You must simply seek to disuade him in charity.

Your issue was addressed by Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930 he said in section 59:

"Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin."

Yes, pregnancy. Now there's a burden on both spouses! ?

Is fear the problem? Is fear the reason why my husband and I believe we are only capable of welcoming a new child into our family every two to three years? Yes, it probably is. It's fear of my limited physical and mental ability to endure pregnancy after pregnancy and caring for baby after baby all while maintaining a household, preparing meals, making sure all the bills get paid, housework, laundry, and meeting the ever increasing needs of older children as they enter the school years.

It's fear of the fact that I doubt that my mother will be willing to come take care of my other children when I go to deliver another baby, and so then who is going to stay with my children? Will I have to impose on my neighbors, who all have children of their own, to watch them, when in their minds, if we don't have parents willing to watch our kids we should quit having babies? I guess I'll have to go deliver the baby on my own while my husband stays here with the others. I guess I should just view that as a sacrifice I need to make. Maybe it's selfish of me to expect my husband to be in the delivery room to offer me comfort and support when I'm in labor. After all, it won't be my first baby - I should be tough enough by now to go it alone.

I'm sorry if I'm seeming glib or even disrespectful. I can see the argument that in an ideal world, we would all welcome all babies with open arms whenever God sends them, even if you are sent a new baby every year. In such a world, nobody would worry about things like NFP or contraception. The problem is, the world is far from ideal.

My husband and I use NFP and not ABC (the common acronymn for artificial birth control) because, as someone else mentioned, the Catholic Church allows for its use, and I do understand how it differs from ABC. NFP forces the husband and wife to say "what are our reasons for avoiding pregnancy?" Because NFP involves a greater or lesser degree of abstinence, and because abstinence is not fun, if there is not a very good reaosn for a married couple to be avoiding pregnancy, they're not going to be motivated to continute abstaining during the fertile times, thereby becoming open to the possibility of more children. This is why couples who use NFP to space babies tend to have more children than couples who use ABC. ABC does not require the same degree of sacrifice.

I really do appreciate what everyone has contributed and it has been very eye opening. I do want to stress, however, that God gave us these bodies - in my case a female body - and it is my temple that God gave me to care for as it is one of his many gifts to me. How can it be a man's fault that I have responsibility over my body and its many functions? I guess I don't like the argument (that NFP is mysogynous) because of the very fact that this is my body and it is my responsibility to ensure its health. Dismissing NFP as mysogynisitc simply because a man does not have as much responsibility over the process as a woman does is denying the greatest gift our God gives us, which is our very lives (our bodies). Our society likes to blame men for all of our hardships, especially if it enables someone to transfer blame and/or responsibility. On behalf of all women who actually like men, I apologize to all of you men for the very nature of the argument of this article. I do appreciate how this article, however flawed the mysoginistic claims are, has engendered such powerful and faithful conversation. In the end, all I have to say is that I thank God for my life and although there are things I would like to change (my fertility, my propensity to gain weight, and my looks - the list goes on), it is his gift to me.

A world that exclusively values male values sees in sexual difference one thing only: misogyny. In such a world women are little more than defecient men who are constantly blocked from living male lives. In such a world we frequently read between the lines, "Wouldn't it be great if women's bodies worked like men's bodies(in other words, like bodies are supposed to work)?!"

I just want to say that I am married and my wife and I use NFP, and while I do understand that the woman has to sacrifice and not be intimate when she is most naturally aroused (i.e. her fertile period) may I say that I am fertile all the time--and every abstained moment is a moment indeed!

Melinda makes a very interesting point about equality. We've got to stop working so hard to make men and women's experiences the same. Instead, we have to respect and appreciate the unique qualities of manhood and womanhood. Just because my experience isn't the same as my husband's doesn't make it less important, beautiful, or deserving of respect. I have learned a lot from the preceding comments and enjoyed the dialogue! I'm still wondering, though, if the problem isn't NFP but the way we think about NFP. If it's not "common" for men to view NFP spiritually, as an opportunity to grow the relationship (and the self) in another way, why is that a problem with NFP? It sounds more like a problem with the way many men THINK about NFP. Dymphna is right to point out that so frequently people think NFP removes the joy from married sex. Putting NFP back in spiritual balance restores the joy of sharing that bond with another person.

Birth control is not the issue. The Church, with some reluctance no doubt, has approved birth control when practiced with due regard to the dialogue of prayer and a rigorous examination of conscience (including consultations with spiritual adiviser, confessor, etc.). The issue concerning artificial versus natural means (and here we must say yet again that the means does not justify the end) is about the Church's belief that God made the world and he made it good. The Church believes that there is logos (rationality) in the world, in creation. She also believes that grace builds on nature; it doesn't evacuate it, or destroy it. God didn't become flesh to destroy flesh, but to perfect the flesh. The pill, condoms, coitus interruptus, etc all do violence to God's created order, and impose a new order. A woman's cycle, on ther other hand, is part of God's created order. NFP therefore deals with undertsanding God's created order, the logos of the world, as fully as possible and making a judgment with that understanding. (The Church recognizes that moral misjudgments can be made here, even grave ones, but these would be of a very different kind from those that represent direct violence to God's created order).

I think what sets NFP apart from regular contraception is that it is partnered with a sacrifice, the sacrifice of abstinence. The Pill allows relations at any time, there is no sacrifice involved at all. This is an important distinction.

Of course NFP can be abused and probably often is. But that's not a reason to dismiss it. As Catholics we all know lots of acceptable things can be misused and lead to problems. Kate Wicker said she hadn't used NFP in four years - hardly an abuse.

I don't agree with the misogyny angle. Men and women are physically different, different in their natures, different in their roles in the family. There are tremendous joys and sufferings inherent in both genders. If a pregnancy is difficult it is ours alone to endure (and I've had some). On the other hand our husbands will never know the lovely wonders of babies from the vantage point of motherhood. I guess they could feel bitter about that if they tried.

Frankly I loved my babies and nursing and even pregnancy so much I felt sorry for my husband that he couldn't experience it too. He loved the babies but couldn't wait for them to grow up so they could have some real fun. Viva la difference!

Zoe and Christine raise a point space did not allow me to pursue in the article and response. The use of NFP for the sole purpose of "getting pregnant" concerns me. "Sorry, I have to dash home. She's ready," elevates the procreative aspect of marital "love" to the point it's not really about love or unity at all. It's about a concerted effort to conceive a baby now. It treats female fertility as "equipment" for reproducing that can be measured, timed and primed to accomplish the objective. Isn't this just as questionable as contracepting sex to guarantee pleasure alone?" We've lost something vital, I think, when NFP becomes a "method" around which we condition, time and express our marital sexual relations. Afterall, it's suppose to be about marital love in Christ and openess to life ... not our personal demands upon our joint fertility system.

Kate (or whomever can answer this question):

You say,


Is that "NFP couples," generally, including the ones using NFP to have children? Or does that only include couples practicing NFP for the purpose of avoiding conception?

(More broadly, I'd like to know "what polls" and whether it constitutes statistically significant scientifically sampled information.)

Thanks.

Ann commented:


The conversation is not irrelevant, to those who care about the truth.

It is (and always has been) true that a minority of persons care about the truth enough to submit themselves to the cold harsh realities presented them by following the light they've been given to its logical conclusion.

That takes courage, and not everyone has it.

But is that any reason to be dismissive of the minority who do?

Some folks really are seeking to be obedient to the truth. Sure, they're a tiny minority amid a teeming crowd of apostates, but doesn't Mother Church, in all her endless charity, have any charity left over for the obedient few?

Isn't it okay to take up a few electrons' worth of blog-space (it's not like any trees are getting killed for this paperless debate) for a discussion, even if only 9% of Catholics, and a tiny sliver of Protestants and Orthodox, even care about it?

Now, perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your remark that the conversation is "irrelevant."

Perhaps you didn't mean that you begrudge spending blog-space on the tiny proportion of the population who practice spiritual valor, because the valiant aren't numerous enough to matter.

Perhaps instead you meant to suggest that, rather than quibbling about the details of practicing obedience, our primary focus should be on exhorting the remainder to greater obedience? Perhaps you meant to imply, not that a discussion only significant to the already-orthodox isn't important, but that it is more important to increase the ranks of the orthodox?

If so, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, and ask you to offer any insights you might have about how to encourage "hearers of the word" to become "doers of the word."

But if your intent was what I first assumed, then all I ask is that you give those who care about living in obedience to Christ a little leeway, a little time to talk amongst ourselves. It's a big Internet, so these few Kilobytes aren't too much to ask.

I'm too lazy to read all the comments.
1. Hurrah for Majorie! Good stuff.
2. Jason N, I don't know if anyone responded to your "use birth control to save your marriage" bit, [see above, too lazy] but what does that say to every priest that has a vow of chastity? Like, if you don't think you can be a happy priest without sex go have some? I like sex as much as the next guy and I suspect more than the next lady, but sheesh! This body is going to rot, dude! Heaven is better than anything here. If you have to give it up forever, do it with a smile, baby!

Bruce, I am going to assume you are a guy, although being from SF I know this is risky. Forgive me if I am wrong. But that photo, friend, is as easily the photo of a young woman with an unwanted pregnancy as it is a photo of a woman longing for a child as it a photo of a young bride who is sideways with her husband about sex and pregnancy. Get a grip, Bruce, and recognize no one is after you. Indeed, some of the most misogynous people I know are actually women who are in such fretful combat with their own fertility, it's simply painful to watch. Further, friend, no one is asking for a "fair deal contract" - we're all Catholics I assume in this dialogue and, as my beloved father repeatedly said, "Sorry, honey, life's not fair." What I am arguing for is shared responsibility, shared fertility, shared responsibility for fertility. Loading this reproductive function on the female strikes me as wrong, wrong and wrong again ... just like John Paul II said in Mulieres Dignitatem.

Ann...

I'm working my way through the posts in this thread, and I only just arrived at the one you left involving the "grave health issues" scenario.

My previous post (which was in reply to your first one) disagreed with you (assuming I understood the intent of your first post). But please realize I intended a respectful tone.

In keeping with that, let me assert that someone's comparison between using condoms and "permission to visit a prostitute" was unfair: Not only was it not particularly analogous, and therefore lacking in the logic department, but it was a rhetorical overreach, inasmuch as it juxtaposed (without benefit of good logical relevance) Artificial Birth Control in a monogamous relationship with adultery. The comparison was not fair play.

I confess that in some cases, I am at a loss for logic to defend the Church's position. I don't think the "natural" versus "unnatural" distinction is particularly convincing: (Could one avoid it by using lambskin condoms rather than latex?) It seems at first glance as silly as the assertion that "all natural" medications are inherently superior to those formulated in a lab: (Aren't they all made of matter? Is the alternative "supernatural" medications?)

Or: Is it not man's nature to be a tool-user? Why then is it less than natural to use the tools he invents?

Then there is the "dishonesty with your body" argument: How can it be, when both spouses are entirely up-front with the intention of using contraceptives? Neither is deceived, and surely God is not! Provided the intent is to prudently space out pregnancies but not to avoid them entirely, and that no abortifacient methods are used, what is so intrinsically evil about condoms apart from the fact that they're usually mildly unpleasant for the man?

The answer is: I don't know. In normal conversation, I don't think any of these arguments hold much water. And when you bring in a woman who might die if she becomes pregnant, well! Then they seem trite, stupid, sophomoric.

And yet...yet...Peter's successor says it is so.

Therefore, I grit my teeth, and obey. And grumble and whine at God the whole way? Surely. Knowing the reason why is always important to me, and here, I don't know why.

But the teaching is clear, and apparently it is infallible. So there it is: This soldier is given orders; he asks why, and is told that it's "on a need-to-know basis and you don't need to know."

After that, it's do, or go AWOL.

May God have mercy on our souls, any road. And I thought your question/scenario was a perfectly honest one. I'm sorry my honest answer isn't any more informative than it is.

Sincerely, R.C.

Eric, I wanted to respond to this all day, but hoped someone else would. Very dangerous.... very wrong to compare NFP practices to the act of sexual intercourse. You are missing a component, my friend. Consider a comparison between a prostate exam and sex with your wife. Do I need to give you more detail? Please.

I have been very blessed in my marriage. I have a spouse who is willing to sacrifice to bring me closer to God, just as I am ready to help him live his faith. I have seen NFP be a breaking or building point of many marriages. I personally have practiced NFP throughout my marriage of five years. My husband and I have two children, we did not ‘have oops;’ we prayed and welcomed life. We have an amazing relationship and are best friends. NFP protects this relationship, and communicate with each other rather than allowing us to live silently together. But I have met many people who have had their marriage destroyed by NFP. A marriage test at www.exceptionalmarriage.com is helpful to see if you as a couple have problems and how to address them. NFP is for the couple seeking to return to the pre-fall relationship. NFP takes human sexuality and returns the preternatural gift of control over passions that Adam and Eve lost after sinning in the Garden of Eden. Husbands and wives must love one another; they must look at the spiritual, physical and physiological needs of their spouse and their family praying that God will enlighten them with the wisdom of how to care for and expand their family. If one spouse is against NFP, both need to work to resolve their problems. The sacrament of marriage is conveyed by the consent of the couple and echoed in the marital act, but if one person not whole heartedly giving then the act is less than a memorial of their sacramental union and more of a utilitarian usury. NFP can be the greatest blessing for a married couple. NFP must be shared between spouses or the couple risks losing the heart of marriage.

Marjorie says, "What I am arguing for is shared responsibility, shared fertility, shared responsibility for fertility."

That is a major component of the theology of NFP. Again, though, "shared" does not mean "each person must do exactly the same thing." "Shared" means two people come together and move forward down the same path.

I know it was just a typo, but "what I am arguing for is... shared fertility" sounds like an accurate description of the opening argument. Most of that argument seems to be: it's unfair that a woman is more affected (physically, emotionally, socially) by an unexpected pregnancy than a man, unfair that a woman's body is the one that determines the fertility cycle and not the man's, unfair that a woman's level of sexual desire may wax and wan while a man's may be more constant, etc. None of those are facets of NFP- they are all facets of human nature. It basically seems like "fertility and pregnancy are mysogynistic" would be a more apt thesis than that NFP is.

Oh No! NFP only focuses on WOMENS fertility. What a burden!

Take that up with GOD lady....

The only difference here is that Ms. Campbell likes talking out of both sides of her mouth.

On the one hand, she tenderly holds as deeply meaningful the fleeting display of feeling her parents had toward and "unplanned" pregnancy - as if her parents could be judged by the feelings expressed at but one juncture of their lives.

Then on the other hand, her now "mature" response is that her parents should have ditched any "method", and had relations whenever they wanted fully expecting to get pregnant.

The fact remains - WE DON'T GIVE LIFE!!!
We only provide the MEANS that MAY bring life.

Whenever ANYBODY starts yammering on about NFP like it is something larger or smaller than it really is - it is just biological bookkeeping - I get suspicious over the agenda being played out.

People use NFP for many reasons, people shun NFP for many more.

How or Why a couple becomes pregnant is largely unimportant if they don't consider a CHILD as nothing less than an absolutely wondrous Gift from God, and the appearance of such a gift in the womb to be seen as Always a Happy Cross.
PERIOD,
If you don't like that, don't even bother getting married.

I don't think even we Catholics understand how deeply we have absorbed this culture's inherent anti-child mentality.....

If a woman absolutely cannot get pregnant because she would be gravely endangering her health, then she would need to find a birth control method which is 100% effective. The only 100% effective birth control methods are complete and total abstinence, male castration, and female castration. Tubal ligation, vasectomy, hormonal contraceptives and barrier methods are not 100% effective so as a practical matter using them would be no better than using NFP.

Beth

R.C.,

The Church's teaching on this is not infallible. Encyclicals are not infallible. They are to be taken very, very, very seriously. They are inspired by a deep and unwavering love of God and His commands. But they are not infallible.

This is why this discussion is such a hard one.

To R.C.

Re, my first comment

Of course, use up all the bandwidth on the topic as you would like. I didn't mean to disparage anyone wanting to have a serious debate regarding this particular point/counterpoint.

My point was really one of frustration. 96% of married American Catholics use some form of artificial birth control (pill, barriers, sterilization etc) I bet the number is even higher. Hence, my frustration at the way this debate was set up. While it may be an important conversation for the few, the painful fact remains this conversation is entirely irrelevant to American Catholics. I don't use the term "irrelevant" as a negative term, just a factual one.

My conscious is nagging at me. I need to clarify that I haven't used NFP and/or charts in 4 years to postpone pregnancy. However, I did chart for a few months between baby 1 and 2 and I admit to falling into the trap of believing having a baby on my time was my right (hence, shoving God to a certain point out of the picture). This is another reason practicing NFP with the right mindset (one that opens up a prayerful discussion between husband and wife and doesn’t get so caught up in the effectiveness of charting and timing intercourse) has been so beneficial for me personally: It’s forced a control freak like myself to let God in and to relinquish some of that control I so desperately cling to.

I believe, what the Church asks of us, is to be prayerful, good stewards of our fertility. NFP, when approached the right way, can help couples do just that.

I try to speak in broad terms about NFP because it’s so personal. It’s difficult for me to throw my marriage out on the dissection table to be picked apart, but several of the people who have commented about the idea of selfless and sacrificial love within marriage have hit the nail on the head. That’s what I was getting at when I referred to NFP as “free love” and love that gives no matter what the cost. Marriage is a sacred institution where spouses can sanctify one another. This can, of course, happen in many ways – even in the nitty gritty minutiae of daily family life (i.e., taking out the trash for a spouse, allowing a spouse to sleep in - what I'm supposed to be doing right now, letting little things slide, etc.). However, a couple’s intimate life and the fruit of that life (children!) is where I've personally discovered that I really have to “lay down my life” and my often my own desires. I hesitate to share any of this because as someone who did contracept, I used to hate it when the NFP fan club got all holy or your-marriage-will-never-be-better on me. Embracing the Church’s teachings on family and marriage is very, very hard (whether you use NFP or not). I struggle with it All. Of. The. Time. But maybe that’s the point.

R.C. , I believe the polls do not distinguish between how someone is using NFP, but I unfortunately cannot answer your question with certainty as I have only seen to polls alluded to in NFP literature. The study I’ve most frequently seen referenced is one conducted by the Family of Americas Foundation, but I was not actually able to pull up the study/poll. (Note to journalistic self: Do not reference a poll unless you know all the facts). J Perhaps someone who teaches NFP or writes the literature can. I think what the literature is getting at when they say things like “studies indicate NFP couples have more sex than average” is that many couples who practice NFP and have prayerfully decided to abstain for a certain period are perhaps more likely “optimize” the time they can have sex. So whereas NFP might influence the timing of sex it often doesn’t affect the frequency of it.

At any rate, I could talk about NFP for a lot longer (clearly) and had so many points I’d wanted to address in my original column and closing “statement” (blasted editorial word counts!), but as a friend gently reminded me, this is no longer about me or how NFP impacts my life or how happy I am with my babies or marriage or how I am sometimes afraid despite all of my convictions. Yada, yada, yada. (Obviously, I could use a little help growing in the virtue of humility). I threw some words together, put myself out there, and now it’s time for me to take a step back and let others do the talking. And honestly, it’s time for me to focus more on being with my family than writing about how we've chosen to plan it – naturally or otherwise.

Henry--
Just trying to make sure I understand your point correctly before I respond to it. Are you suggesting that most Catholics who practice NFP are not genuinely following Church teaching? For instance, when Blessed Teresa of Calcutta was teaching women in about NFP she was--at the every least--presuming too much and overstepping her authority? Was she promoting misogyny?

Marjorie--
Again, trying to ascertain your position before I attempt to respond--are you suggesting that the church is teaching falsehood when it permits NFP? After all, if a practice is misogynistic it necessarily despises and disrespects femininity--and I don't see how something that is inherently misogynistic is not also inherently sinful.

The core question I'm trying to get at is not "do many Catholics misuse NFP?" I'm trying to understand if you're suggesting that the church should merely permit NFP but not promote it (a pastoral concern) or if it's intrinsically disordered--being misogynistic and all, and there for an outright moral question.

I recognize moral and pastoral questions have to overlap. What I don't see is how anything that is genuinely misogynistic is not also sinful.

Some of us who don't use NFP regularly tell Doctors and others that we DO. Why?

Well, because it's socially unacceptable to say "Well, I breastfeed, we co-sleep, and that seems to space the kids about 2 years apart, which is about right for us. Oh, and I really don't care how many kids we have at this point, so Providentialism seems the best way to go...."

If you give the above answer, you have to listen to long lectures from doctors on irresponsibility, and long lectures from NFP-adoring Catholics about how measuring and charting will IMPROVE your marriage.

Personally, I prefer the mystery-- except when I'm pregnant, we never know when a baby will appear! It's fun and eciting! =) (OK, there is the occasional..."I'm HOW many weeks pregnant??? I thought I was like, 6, maybe 7!".... but that's fun too!)

Anyway, for those of us who don't use ANY method of family planning, the NFP culture CAN seem kind of oppressive... even many faithful Catholics seem to have this idea that it's more responsible to put your trust in YOUR timing rather than God's.

Which is silly to me... I mean, you never really know where you'll be 9 months from now... but God does. And since each soul is created ex nihilo, you can't conceive a baby unless God WILLED the baby into being..... There are no accidents, NFP or not.....

Marjorie,

I about lost my morning coffeee reading your assurance that not everyone was out to get me! What a relief. (smile)

Yes, I am a man, the father of ten wonderful children, and I have a grip. Probably due to my shortcomings as a writer, I think you read more into my comments than I put there.

My point was that the discussion here (and, yes, even the picture) about whether NFP is unfair to women seems largely based on an erroneous assumption about the fairness of marriage.

So:

Is NFP inherently unfair to women? No, but if it is approached wrongly, it certainly could be.

Likewise (and more fundamentally):

Is marriage inherently unfair to women? No, but if it is apporached wrongly it certainly could be as well.

Maybe that is the intent of this piece?

There does not seem to be a lot of "good" options for disconnecting the sexual act from the procreative result. In nearly all cases there is either a higher likelihood of pregnancy or an unusual burden placed upon women to suppress the fertility that God has given them (unbiddend). So it leaves us grasping for what Janet Smith defines as the Natural Law: "in order for a thing to prosper, it must be used according to its nature." It occurs to me that whatever the motivation for postponing pregancy, there will always be uncertainty and some amount of "unfairness." Fertility, like gravity, is like that. It seems natural to me that artificial hormones and dangerous IUD's are not healthy options that "respect" women. Barriers have high failure rates as well. Even the ones that require some amount of male prerogative ultimately place the burden of failure on women. This onus--that the "burden" of failed contraception falls on women seems to me to require the kind of purposeful self-sacrifice that only NFP demands of men. Ultimately, we must remember that God made us fertile, and his will on this planet seems to lead, in an unbelievable way, toward life. This does not "settle" the argument, but it should remind us that sex IS fertile. That's gravity. We can only attempt to postpone gravity for so long. If we must do so, we should try to do so in a way that is safe, honest, fair, and holy.

I sometimes wonder if the ACTUAL purpose of NFP isn't actually spacing children, but to bring about conversions--

I've known a lot of couples who started NFP because it was 'Catholic Birth Control' but ended up deepening their faith, becoming more open to life, and eventually breaking free of the hold that the culture of death and contraception had upon them.

Sometimes, I think Catholic publications treat NFP as an end in itself... but really, isn't a means for greater holiness? A way of teaching yourself to surrender to God's will in the area of your fertility?

If NFP is the means, and not the end, that explains why some of us find it helpful, and some don't.... just like some find the Liturgy of the Hours helpful while others don't.....

And maybe, the fact that for many people NFP is HARD is part of the point. Because everyone has some part of their life that it's harder to give over to God. For people who find the Fertility part the hardest, NFP might be a great gift. For those of us whose biggest problems are in OTHER areas, it might be a waste of time....

But in the end, it may be more about each of us as individuals than about NFP specifically...

Dear Melissa,
This is a hot topic in regards to sex and marriage precisely because it is infallible. Yes, generally speaking encyclicals do not have ex-cathedra statements, but when they teach something that has always been taught (such as in the case that artificial contraception is always wrong) then they are infallible.
The real rub becomes that science has given us knew knowledge to space children out with methods not previously condemned. The encyclicals have used words like grave and serious to describe when NFP can be used. The Catechism (which is of lesser weight) still has the word for just reasons and says that the couple must be sure they are not being selfish. The Church in her official teaching has only given some direction in what is truly a grave or serious reason. Part of our problem is living in what has rightly been called a culture of death. Unfortunately many who promote and practice NFP forget that adjectives are attached to its use. Couple clearly can use NFP by dispensation, they just must be sure they have at least just reasons and are not being selfish. Life in Christ is a cross. For some 1900 years couples had to put their lives entirely in God's hands with no method of spacing children other than abstinence. This is what a couple needs to do when serious health problems may result from a pregnancy. I think it also gives to couples an idea of what that serious or grave reason is. If in past years the faithful couple had to be willing to abstain all together to avoid children then so should they. The benefit from God in placing them in the modern era is that it can be partial. Let us all pray for the Pope and bishops to continue to give us more guidance on when NFP can be used morally and when it can not. And yes, it most certainly can be used immorally.

If you're struggling with God's plan for your fertility, I'd suggest returning to the ancient practice of praying the Magnificat three times a day.

You may find great strength and consolation in the prayer, especially in the words "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, Be it done unto me according to Thy Word." After all, Mary's position was much worse than any married mother's... She was facing the threat of homelessness, disgrace, possibly even death. But she trusted God to provide for the Child he was sending her......

Johnnyjoe hit the nail on the head!

The fact remains - WE DON'T GIVE LIFE!!!
We only provide the MEANS that MAY bring life.


NFP does not stop that, or alter it.

First we read the title of the piece. We read "misogynous" and "NFP". Then we look at the picture.

This young woman looks so unhappy. Is she praying? Crying? What does this have to do with NFP? Has she found herself unexpectedly pregnant? Is she trying to get pregnant and can't? Why is she pictured all alone in a long row of empty chairs? Where is her husband? What kind of a husband would not be there with his sad wife? Is he some kind of misogynist? Is the practice of NFP associated with the situation pictured here?

We will now have unbiased point/counterpoint discussion. Okay, but really? I think this particular visual tends to bias our initial thoughts on the topic.

That's all I'm saying.

Fr. B,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that NFP can and is abused by many, and hope that everyone is inspired by the spirit of it's actual intent. The mindset really is everything.
I must disagree with you though on a few points. Contraceptive means have been in use for all of time, and the temptation has always been there to use them for selfish purposes (the Romans are a prime example). Also, I do not know where it is clearly stated that Tradition in the Church is deemed infallible. This seems to me to be a falsehood; there are many instances where Tradition has been altered to a larger or lesser degree to adapt to greater understanding of God's creation. I do not in any way say that ideas on contraception will be changed, of course; I merely want to address that general statement.
I also disagree with you that the Catechism has less influence on teaching than the encyclicals. It has always been my understanding that encyclicals, and theological writings of influence, are inspired by a desire to clarify and enrich our understanding of the concepts of the Catechism.
Despite these points, I do sincerely wish that all of us that struggle with a desire to be faithful to our Christ but don't necessarily know the best answer are given the Love and Wisdom of the Holy Spirit to help each other grow.

So, NFP is mysoginistic and men are a bunch of neanderthals who don't wan't to communicate and are unable to show respect to their wives "kooky" practices/beliefs?

Perhaps expectations and how a woman feels about her husband play a role in this. If you expect your husband to act like a self-centered jerk and whine about periodic abstinence, then there's a good chance he'll fulfill that expectation. If you expect your husband to respect you and work together with you in the area of fertility, then he probably will. Of course, if you change your expectations mid-marriage, then there can be a time of transition. It's easier on both couples if the expectations are set at the beginning.

What scares some women, I suspect, is the loss of control. When a woman is on the pill, she is in control of her fertility. She pops the pill. She moves the puppet strings telling her body to mimic the state of pregnancy at will. The husband is cut out of the picture. When a couple practices NFP, the control over fertility is a shared endeavor involving both spouses, and requires cooperation. The power over fertility has been shared, with neither spouse wielding complete control.

What I find most puzzling is the idea that a woman would rather never have periodic urges for sex, but would rather put her body in a permanent state of suppressed libido, by fooling it into thinking she is pregnant. Women who are on the pill, have even been shown to change their preferences in who they are attracted to, preferring the smells of men with similar genetic makeup (e.g., family) to those with dissimilar genetic makeup (e.g., who non-pregnant or pill-popping women are attracted to). http://www.physorg.com/news137824489.html Trying to fool mother nature has consequences. At least with NFP, one is cooperating with nature and seeking further understanding of how our bodies work, instead of suppressing healthy bodily function and hoping the side effects are minimized.

The teaching on contraception would surely be part of the universal, ordinary magisterium and therefore "infallible." If it doesn't belong to that category, I am not sure what would.

I think this is the crux of the argument. "If you don't like that, don't bother getting married." I'm beginning to think that the huge numbers of annulments granted in this country are because SO FEW marriages are entered into with the right intent, from a Catholic standpoint. It scares me a bit, though. If somehow the Church were to only marry those who fully understood and agreed with the Church's teaching on marriage and life, very, very few people would be married (in the Church) at all.

And, I agree--we don't have any real idea how much we have bought into the culture of death in this country.

But, it is what it is. There are scores of Catholics out there (apparently the vast majority) who have varying degrees of difficulty in following the Church's teaching on marriage. How should we reach out to them?

Marriage preparation also worries me. What is happening in marriage prep that so many couples are (probably validly) qualifying for annulments?

As I understand it, infallibility applies to a small but definite subset of things taught by bishops (of whom the Pope is one, and he has a special role).

Things said by bishops fall into various categories:
1. "Decrees" on topics other than faith and morals;
2. Decrees on matters of faith and morals;
3. Decrees of discipline;
4. Spiritual advice not in the form of a command;
5. Opinion offered without any pretense of authority, that is, not in the form of a decree.

Regarding category 1: What bishops say on topics other than faith and morals, even if they make it sound like a decree, is not actually a decree but an opinion, because the Holy Spirit does not give a charism of infallibility to the apostles' successors in matters of economics, or geology, or anything else other than faith and morals. Therefore when a bishop speaks outside the topics of faith and morals, we give him whatever respect he is due if he happens to be schooled or experienced in that topic, but we do not acknowledge him to be the beneficiary of supernatural authority or assistance.

Regarding category 2: Here, the Church does have assistance from the Holy Spirit to be infallible. As I understand it, infallibility applies when:

(a.) The particular bishop teaching is the Pope, and he is teaching in his capacity as pastor for the whole church (not just his bishopric in Rome), and he is intending to make a definitive pronouncement on a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra;

(b.) It is a group of bishops in the form of an Ecumenical Council, in union with the Pope, and they are teaching in their capacity as teachers for the whole church (not just their individual bishoprics), and they are intending to make a definitive pronouncement on a matter of faith and morals, with the Pope's approval;

(c.) It is a bishop teaching only what the Church has always and everywhere taught (ordinary Magisterium of the Church), even if they haven't, for reasons of organizational inertia, ever gotten around to defining it in Ecumenical Council.

Regarding category 3: Decrees of discipline are binding on the faithful, but can be later changed, and the change becomes equally binding. An example is the unmarried state of priests in the Western Church: There are exceptions allowed, and it may one day be changed, but for the time being it is the rule and a priest is bound to not go out and get married in defiance of it. Decrees of discipline from the Pope can be universally binding, but he rarely issues such, relying instead on the bishops to set discipline in their dioceses. A bishop's decree of discipline is binding on those in his diocese, but not those in another diocese.

Regarding category 4: Spiritual advice in not in the form of a command is not binding, period...but inasmuch as it is coming from a bishop, it'd be foolish to totally ignore it.

Regarding category 5: Opinion offered without any pretense of authority is just opinion, even if it's on a matter of faith and morals. Bishops often proffer opinions on debated fine points of theology on which the Church has made no infallible pronouncement. Agreeing with this or that view is optional unless and until an infallible pronouncement is made, if it ever is.

**********

Applying all this to contraception: Since the Church has always and everywhere taught against artificial contraception, the infallibility of this teaching falls under Category 2.c.

Even if it didn't, it is still being commanded by the Pope on the whole church. Therefore, not using artificial contraception, even if it weren't already required as an infallible teaching on morals, would be required as a universal binding discipline.

Or, such is my understanding of the matter.

Read this many years ago: The only way for a husband and wife to "share" the burden of pregnancy is for them to have twins. She has one, and he has the other.

I sometimes wonder if the ACTUAL purpose of NFP isn't actually spacing children, but to bring about conversions--
--Dierdre Mundy

I very much agree. One step at a time.

WHether or not a couple is being contraceptive when practicing NFP would be a great topic between a couple and a trusted priest, if only our priests knew how important this struggle is--even if it is only 10 percent of the Catholic population! But let's not just toss out this "tool" which does bring about tremendous conversions.

Kathy at post 30--you are so right--so many families who want to be faithful struggle with the lack of support. OUr culture certainly offers not much but the prospect of mini "green" cars--not much help if you have more than 2 kids!

Would it be too awkward for you to call your parish office and ask if there are any families or individuals who you could meet who could help? Large parishes especially can be so impersonal, and it might seem hard to meet people, but I think there are many who would love to support young families but might feel uncomfortable just going up to someone to offer . Our parish had an "Elizabeth ministry" group which offered help and support to young moms, but I think it was discontinued because not many asked for help. Homeschooling groups are another great resource.

God bless you! (Hey, are you in the DC area?) Also, those same people who are giving you a hard time now will probably be singing a different tune in about 10-15 years. God have mercy on them, and us.

NFP works for some people, but not for everybody. For those who can use it successfully, great. Just don't try to force it on everybody. We focus too much on sex, perhaps this is the result of a celibate clergy, who all too often have some weird ideas about sex and women. Most people are not going to use NFP, so my advice to the clergy is to focus on abortion and stay out of married couples bedrooms. End of discussion.

but GOd is, and He loves us too much to want us to use each other, NFP abd Providendialism aside.

Analyst-- Maybe things work differently in your home, but around here my husband DOES share the burden of pregnancy!

He has to pick up all the household slack when I'm so nauseous I can barely get out of bed, and when I'm so exhausted I crash at 6 or 7! He does more of the chores and takes over care of the kids until I'm well enough to function again. But even then, he works hard to provide for the extra food, the doctor's visits, the new needs of the family. He takes over nighttime parenting, so he's nearly as exhausted as I am. He takes over cooking since, until the day I deliver, the smell of raw meat sends me running to the toilet. Often, he comes home on his lunch break and takes out the garbage so I can walk through the kitchen without throwing up!

There's a lot a husband CAN do to share the burden of pregnancy (heck, delivery is the EASY part, IMO). And if you let him know what you need, instead of trying to soldier through it alone, your husband probably WILL help......

Austin, if I get your point right, you're basically suggesting the main reason Church teaching and the contraceptive culture are out of step is because a bunch of inexeperienced celibates proffer the teaching.

Leaving aside the questionable assertion that one cannot make moral determinations about acts in which one is inexperienced, (which would limit determinations about murder to the murderers), I urge you to reconsider your perspective of the church.

Either Christ established and bestowed genuine authority on the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church or he didn't. I wouldn't be a Catholic if I didn't believe he has. The church belongs to and is governed first and foremost by God.

And I'm not willing to tell Jesus, "kindly butt out of our bedroom, Lord."

I know this is late in the day to comment, but I'm rather bemused and startled that nobody seems to be able to even hear what Marjorie is saying. If you're still here, Marjorie, is this correct?

I thought you were not making a feminist argument in the modern sense, as many readers seem to think, but pointing out that seeing the procreative effects of sex as a problem to be controlled is in itself an anti-woman view of sex.

That point seems true experientially, whether the method of control is the Pill or NFP. Sure, it's theoretically possible that he wants kids and she doesn't, but of couples I've known, that happens once for every 10 cases of him saying, no we can't afford it and her being forced to negotiate or prove it's okay for her to be allowed to get pregnant. And of those women, the ones I knew well enough to discuss it with certainly felt rejected in their womanhood.

I don't see any of the NFP apologists here addressing this point. Instead they begin from the standpoint that fertility must be controllable and thus conclude that since the Pill is off-limits, NFP has to be great.

To Dierdre Mundy: My husband is a great guy. He kills spiders for me, and brings home a pay check. He would do anything I ask, though generally I don't. His idea of making dinner is picking up McDonalds. His only late night parenting has been to swear (in a loving but firm way, of course) at the children to go back to sleep. Over the nine years that we've had four children I could still probably count the number of diapers he's changed on my fingers.
But I never pay the bills, or squash the spiders, so I feel we're even.

If you've got a husband like that, you have no reason not to have twenty kids. I'm just sayin'.

Precisely, MRA. Thank you. We seem stuck under a thick veil of assumption that "female fertility" must be managed and controlled as the "burden" that is interfering with sexual intercouse. The NFP method seems to me like any contraception, designed to isolate and fence female fertility so that husband and wife can have sex unburdened by female fertility. There are old and new feminists who have found the structuring of marital relations around the male desire for sex a rejection of female fertility. If you doubt me, look back through these comments which are simply rife with worries how female fertility interferes with and burdens marital sexual relations. As I wrote in a comment above, "Here’s the misogyny: distrust, dislike and even hatred of female fertility to the point it is isolated, captured, shamed and thought gravely burdensome to the sexual appetites of men (and often women themselves.)" I really loved Dierdre Mundy's comment above about breast-feeding, co-sleeping and fibbing to health care providers to avoid their lectures! There are so few women who deeply value and honor and treasure their fertility. She's a lucky dame.

To Deirdre Mundy:

I don't doubt your sincerity or truthfulness when you tell us that when you're pregnant and feeling, umm, pregnant that your husband takes over the household chores and childcare while at the same time working more to earn more money for your growing family, which was my interpretation of what you say he does. My question is, how exactly is this possible? I'd like to know how he physically does this, so that I can tell my husband how to do it the next (God-willing) time I'm pregnant.

Also, KMK, I do live in the DC area - Western Fairfax County, VA. How did you guess?

I've heard of Elizabeth Ministry, unfortunately my parish doesn't have a chapter. The both good and bad thing about my parish is that it is a fairly small parish consiting of mostly young families like ours with young children. This is good because noone bats an eylash when one of my children fusses or shrieks during Mass. It's bad because all the Moms are struggling with the same things I am.

My goal is that when my baby/young child years are behind me (probably when I'm in my 50s or 60s) I want to start an Elizabeth Ministry Chapter in my area in an effort to give young Catholic mothers the support that I lacked as a young Mom.

Basically, he's EXHAUSTED right now, honestly. We're both exhausted. Pregnancy is tough on both of us! But my point was really that pregnancy IS a shared burden. Your husband may not be throwing up every hour, but if he's picking up the slack while you're too sick to move, he's suffering through pregnancy too.

His back might not ache from a tiny foot in the wrong place, but if he's achy and exhausted from distracting the kids while you nap, he's sharing your burden....

Pregnancy is tough on our husbands too.... and I can't even imagine how hard it is for Military Wives---who may not HAVE someone at home to help pick up the slack. But it's unfair to act like pregnancy is only about the woman--- preparing for a baby is a drain on the entire family-- a joyful drain, a hopeful sacrifice with promise of great reward, but a drain nonetheless....

I don't particularly like being pregnant--- I get sick of being sick all the time, and as soon as the baby's born I'm usually jumping up and down with joy that I can go outside on trash day again. But I tend to see pregnancy as a long, out-of-season Lent for the whole family. We're suffering together so we can enjoy the Easter promise of a new baby! =)

And yes, to the earlier commenter, at this point extra kids aren't really a problem (especially since God's put us on the two-year-plan)-- 20 is unlikely....even 8 is, given my family's history, but I really would like to get up to at least 5 or 6 living children..(The cause of my current nausea will be #5....#4 living since we lost one last year at 10 weeks...)

But I'm lucky in that I married a man who wants a big family, and loves hanging with the kids. I couldn't do this without such a great husband, honestly. I'm totally disorganized and incapable on my own--- but I also think a lot of people who don't feel like they get ANY help from their spouse probably haven't asked.

Hinting doesn't work -- it's better just to say "I can't cook dinner every night AND bathe the kids AND wash all the dishes. What can we do?" and see what the solution is (McDonalds a few times a week or help with the dishes or whatever...) I think a lot of times when we're barely keeping it together, we present a together-enough-front that our husbands might not realize we're on the verge of a breakdown....unless we TELL them and ASK for help...

Kathy, I think your plan to start an EM some day is EXCELLENT btw---our area recently started one, and it's literally a Godsend! Especially since most people don't have family nearby these days.

Anyway, sorry to ramble so much... family's napping to get ready for the fireworks, and my mind is racing! =)

I can relate so well to the women who feel that our culture doesn't support families with more than a couple of children. We live far from either side of the family, and I have had my moments of feeling completely overwhelmed by my responsibilities as a wife and mother. I'm fortunate to have made many good friends who help me out a lot with my kids (and I, in turn, help them when I can). Another huge blessing for me is a babysitting co-op that I'm in with six friends who are also moms with small children. We meet at each other's homes once a week on a rotating schedule. One week, half of the moms go out for 3 hours while the other half of the moms stay back to watch the kids. The next week, we switch. Did you hear me say 3 whole hours, every other week, all to yourself? Let me tell you, it's worth the 3 hours with a house full of kids to "earn" your time out the following week. (And you get to chat with your friends, which isn't all bad.) I think that if we are creative and determined, we can find the support system that we need to live the vocation God has called us to.

I also want to say that I really appreciate this whole discussion. My husband and I are at the age where postponing another pregnancy may mean not having any more children at all. We are blessed to have a good, holy priest who has helped us in our discernment process, and we have really grown a lot spiritually as we seek to discern God's Will for our family. I am constantly searching my heart about the reasons we are postponing pregnancy, and I realize how easy it is to buy into the "fertility, pregnancy, and babies are burdens" mindset even while trying to obey the Church and do God's Will. This discussion has provided much food for thought as we continue to seek to be submissive and obedient to God while also being prudent. It's tricky, but by the grace of God, we will do His Will in this and all areas of our lives.

If this is what Marjorie Campbell's argument is, I have to disagree with it. The fact is, whether we like it or not, women are the ones whose fertility is cyclical, and they are the ones that get pregnant. Unless we're ready to pronounce God a misogynist for creating it this way, we need to accept this and move on.

If someone marries early or struggles in any number of ways that make constant pregnancy very difficult, they are faced with what to do and NFP allows us to do what couples in the past could not because the knowledge of the bdy wasn't there. Most people today don't live with extended family next door, or nannies. And the culture it not accommodating to children -- especially large families. Having kids today is not what it used to be. Since a woman's fertilty is not 24-7, like a man's, then it's HER body and fertility that must be observed and understood if a couple seeks to avoid or achieve pregnancy. And what's wrong with that?

Mrs. Campbell thinks the burden of NPF is all on the woman, which makes it misogynist, but that really depends on the kind of husband you have, doesn't it? Some men are really active partners with their spouses, sharing decisions and information and being very involved. They see it as a shared thing - US - and not just "You vs. Me." I've got one of these men as a husband and NFP is not in any way something I feel is a burden on me, or anti-woman in the least. My fertility is a gift to us both, and I don't believe God's a misogynist for creating me this way. In fact, I think it's a blessing that we women are made not be fertile most of the time. If we were like men, how much more tough all this would be!

You may be on to something with that just ask thing...
My husband recently told me that I am totally unwilling to accept limitiations - my own or anybody else's (especially his), and that this quality will drive one or the other or both of us to an early grave. To which I replied, of course, that he is a sissy.

He also says that the people in my family are made of tough emotional stuff. I think that women certainly experience pregnancy differently, some very sick while others not at all. I personally spend the first trimester quite sick and then when that leaves it is replaced with aches and pains and sciatica (sp?). I also never tell anyone besides my husband that I'm expecting until I'm in the second trimester. I find that when you don't tell people to treat you differently, they don't, and that helps you to "suck it up" a lot more.

I can't help but think of all the women of history who had to run farms or work in factories and run home without any of the modern wonders we are blessed with. You can't imagine them insisting they can't pluck a chicken because the smell bothers them, or that they're just too tired to help harvest the carrots, can you?

I think new life is wonderful, and I want to see women honored for the sacrifices they make. But this idea that pregnant women need so much special treatment is, in my opinion, a modern idea. Of course, there were higher mortality rates, so perhaps some caution is a good idea, though I suspect that had more to do with poor nutrition and infections than taking out the garbage.

I think women in my family are tough, not because we're made differently, but because we were raised to put our feelings, emotional and physical, in their proper place. That doesn't mean you repress everything, it just means you sacrifice when you can. We'll get rest in the next life, right?

I'm sorry you lost a baby. I lost several, too. I pray that you have a safe and healthy pregnancy this time, and a wonderful, sweet, low-maintenance baby before you know it.

but this does!

"If someone marries early ..... they are faced with what to do and NFP allows us to do what couples in the past could not because the knowledge of the bdy wasn't there. "

I think that sentiment captures what the "anti-NFP" camp rails against. If you marry early, please expect to have a bumper crop of babies. Maybe you won't. But twenty five years of fertility should be seen as a blessing, not a problem to be dealt with.

Yeah, it costs a lot to raise a family in terms of money and all sorts of sacrifice. But that is what you're signing up for! It's a HUGE sacrifice to be a priest, and yet we ask this life-long commitment of men.

Perhaps raising fifteen kids is a terrifying prospect, because we don't see it done very often anymore. But my mother's generation had tons of large families who made it work in one way or another and contributed wonderful people to the world and souls to God's kingdom.

Another thing that scares me about gung-ho NFPers is the willingness to sacrifice the real joy of spontaneous "relations" for a little earthly comfort. I'll never forget a year after we were married my husband introduced me to a fellow student from one of his classes who had just returned from his honeymoon. We asked him "How was it?" and "Isn't marriage great?" He told us the trip was nice but they were practicing NFP so they fortunately were able to write all their thank-you notes.


WHAT?!?!?!?

I know, I know. There are some legitimate reasons for postponing pregnancy, and I wish all those who have to the best. But we refer to the marital act as "getting a baby" as in, "Hey, ya wanna get a baby tonight, sweetie?"
I just hope that every marriage, at least for some of the time, can have the great joy of loving each other phsically without hesitation or fear. It's worth living in a slightly shabby house and eating mac'n'cheese and only going on vacation to Grandma's house and telling the kids if they want to go to college they'd better work hard and get a scholarship.

From Marjorie's reply, quoting H. W. Crocker:

"For men, the whole point of marriage is to avoid communicating; all that dating conversation stuff can finally be foregone. Married communication, as successful husbands know, is best limited to grunts and hand signals -- one upraised finger meaning, "I need a beer"; two upraised fingers meaning, "You need to change the brat's diapers"; three upraised fingers meaning, "Honey, why don't you mow the lawn while I watch football?," and so on. No words are more doom-laden than a wife's sitting down and saying, "Let's talk.""

Sure it's "just a joke." However, I wonder if I were I to get all "satirical" and write a piece about that "let's talk" projenator being a conceited megalomaniac who was incapable of seeing anyone else's point of view - least of all her husbands - whether any laughs would be forthcoming.

Then we could expose four generations of girls to such sentiments and wonder why they weren't "meeting our expectations."

The sexes can war against each other for the rest of time if we so desire but surely that isn't the will of an all-loving God.

Perhaps the first "article of faith" that needs to be sacrificed is the truck-load of presumption coming from either side about what "men" and "women" are like.

That means an end to anti-female sexism and to feminism as well.

GB luvies,

Martin

"For men, the whole point of marriage is to avoid communicating; all that dating conversation stuff can finally be foregone. Married communication, as successful husbands know, is best limited to grunts and hand signals -- one upraised finger meaning, "I need a beer"; two upraised fingers meaning, "You need to change the brat's diapers"; three upraised fingers meaning, "Honey, why don't you mow the lawn while I watch football?," and so on. No words are more doom-laden than a wife's sitting down and saying, "Let's talk.""

I thought this was the best piece of the article! Perhaps here is the fundamentaly difference - those who appreciate a good joke, vs. those who need a high level of order to function. I value a good joke over a clean house - you can never find a clean shirt here when you need one, but we laugh 'til we cry at least six times a week.

I bet Marjorie could come up with an excellent critique of the silliness of women, if it would make you feel better. I was going to give it a shot, but I have to go mow so my husband can catch the game.

First of all, generations past didn't live in the society we now live in and to expect people to make the same choices when circumstances are completely different is ridiculous. We don't live in vaccuums.

The reason most women -- including Catholics - didn't have small families in the past is because they couldn't... there wasn't the same knowledge of fertility and how to work with it. Additionally, as I mentioned before, society used to be more pro-family, community-oriented, and less mobile -- all things that made having large families more manageable.

As for "gung-ho NFPers willingness to sacrifice the real joy of spontaneous "relations" for a little earthly comfort..." wow... that tells me you're pretty clueless about the reasons most people choose NFP as an approach to family.

If you want to have spontaneous sex with your spouse for the remainder of your fertile years, power to you. And if you have the need to space or postpone children using NFP to make your life bearable for some or all of your fertile years, that's fine too. Why all the judgments?

This is what gets irritating about conversations about NFP -- they become so judgmental. And they make assumptions about men and women and marriage. For some couples, NFP might be a real burden and for others it may be something that makes their marriage and sex life even better. Why isn't it good enough to accept that it's different for different people, and that unless you walk mile in someone else's shoes, you shouldn't pretend to know what's best for them.

"as I mentioned before, society used to be more pro-family, community-oriented, and less mobile -- all things that made having large families more manageable. "

So, the way to make society pro-family again is for good catholics to not have families that are too big? We will become more community-oriented if we blend with the not-family-oriented culture?

I do recognize there are LEGITIMATE REASONS TO POSTPONE PREGNANCY. It would be good if there were also a recognition that there are people who use NFP out of fear and that they would benefit from a healthy discussion of good and bad uses of these methods. I have personally met four couples who used NFP then regreted it and think they were just caught up in a sort of silliness that was presented as "what good catholics do."

I didn't mean to come across as judging. I'm just inviting people to consider that NFP is not the only way to be responsible, to communicate, to run a family and be in touch with your fertility. Perhaps no one on this thread was saying that, but I have met people who do, and that's what I'm reponding to. NFP sure beats contraception, and if it's someone's path to holiness, well, lovely. There, is that better?

"First of all, generations past didn't live in the society we now live in and to expect people to make the same choices when circumstances are completely different is ridiculous. We don't live in vaccuums. "

I think people used to have it harder, actually. For example, no portable baby equipment, no disposable diapers, less plumbing and electricity, higher rates of disease and mortality, more limited education options, etc. Or am I missing something?

Straight up Marjorie--

Are you of the opinion that the church should not permit NFP? Yes, yes, you seem to be fairly certain it shouldn't promote it.

I'm trying to figure out if you think it's morally wrong, since anything misogynistic would presumably have to be intrinsically disordered.

The question is simple: Are you asserting that the church in error?

I haven't read all of the comments, so forgive me if I am repeating something.

A couple of points

1) Recent science has shown that men are also much more turned on by an ovulating women. It isn't only the wife who is turned on during ovulation - her husband is too. So it would seem to me that it is an equal burden to abstain from relations to avoid a pregnancy for a discerned greater good - hardly misogynistic. This has been my personal experience as well.

2) As Catholics, isn't Jesus, through Mother Church calling us to the highest love? the highest good? the total dying of ourselves? Isn't it suppose to be challenging & difficult? Abstaining from relations when you'd rather not - for the discerned greater good - is difficult. Sainthood is hard.

3) Why all the male bashing? Husband and wives are (supposedly) on the same team. Together they discern their situation - together the abstain - together they are open to life. Men are able to abstain. They are not animals. They too are created in God's image.

4) It is very very difficult to hear God in a culture that so thoroughly tells us that we are entitled to have sex whenever we want with no thought to the baby who might be created. We're also told that to have more that 2 children in selfish (carbon foot print & the environment) and that it is foolish - too much work, too expensive, too noisy etc.).

The worse things that have ever been said to me regarding our 6 children have all been in church. One women even said "NFP works for us. And then went on to tell me how they are so good at NFP she "only has two kids". " Ironically what makes me most sad is when people say (in hushed tones) that it's okay that we have so many children because well, we have advanced degrees, are affluent, white and live in a upscale suburb. What is implied - but never said - is that people of color without degrees and six figure incomes should limit their breeding - Margaret Sangerish - don't you think? I mention this all to challenge assumptions we all make about how many children a couple should have and why. What constitutes an acceptable reason for using NFP/ How do we judge others and their family size? Do we encourage those who have/want many or are we like the world that says stop at X - it's too hard.

Austin:

A healthy discussion must often begin with wiping away misconceptions about the topic, so that the discussion will be an informed one.

That being the case, it looks like your comment is not so much the "End of discussion," but rather, the stuff that needs to be wiped away so that informed discussion can begin.

First, re: "Just don't try to force it on everybody": When was the last time a priest held a gun to your head as you and the missus were turning in for the night? When was the last time you were turned down for purchasing condoms because the parish had denied your application for a license to do so?

That's not a facetious answer. No-one is "forced" to be obedient to Christ. Christ knocks; the Holy Spirit guides us providentially to the good works we were "created in Him" to do...but one can open the door to "the works of faith" or not.

Arguing in favor of Catholic teachings is not "forcing" anyone, it is "exhorting" them...and there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Exhortation comes close to "force" if, and only if, the arguments are so compelling that one's conscience is convinced and one's spirit experiences conviction. But you can still tell the Holy Spirit to bugger off -- millions do -- and if you instead comply, it was not the exhortation that "forced" you, but your own conscience.

Re: "We focus too much on sex.": Well, we're not a particularly chaste society, are we? In a society full of drunkards, Christ's Church would always be hassling us about sobriety, but in a society full of third marriages, pre-nuptial sex, porn addicts, and the like, God puts "fire in the bones" of those who carry His prophetic office to talk about sexual misconduct. So what're the holders of that office to do, hold it in and try not to say what God tells them to say? That strategy didn't work well for Jeremiah (ch. 20, v.9)!

Re: "perhaps this is the result of a celibate clergy": Come now. Come on. Who knows more about the strength of a temptation, the person who fights it daily, or the person who gives in to it? Priests are celibate, not chemically castrated. And really, hearing confessions is a pretty good way to know most of what is in the hearts of men (and women) whether they involve the kinds of sin to which you yourself are tempted, or not. A priest, if he isn't a dissenter or a fool generally, knows what's what.

Re: "...my advice to the clergy is to focus on abortion and stay out of married couples bedrooms." Austin, do you believe in God, and that clerical ordination is meaningful, sacramental, with supernatural significance and power? Or is it all just a sham to which you're culturally loyal?

I'm certain you do believe. But in that case, it logically follows that clergy must bring up the marital bed.

We keep the marriage bed private from other people because of the fallenness of humanity: The marriage act consummates a sacrament and one doesn't "throw what is holy to the dogs."

But the marriage act is not a "private act" in the sense of only affecting the two persons making love. God is there the whole time, and presumably all the saints and angels, so far as it's of any interest. (Talk about performance anxiety!) So why be so bashful, if a clergyman says something to you about it, when you're fully clothed, days beforehand? Are you so prudish?

Now that question was facetious. For of course it's not prudery, it's annoyed rebellion against the specific command. But that comes not from the clergyman but from God (unless Catholicism is all rot, of course). So don't blame the messenger! He's just doing his job.

Let me see, NFP is misogynous, contraception is misogynous and having lots of babies is misogynous.

Seems to me women who feel this way will never be happy.

Life is hard but redemptive suffering comes in many forms and as far as I can tell, the moment I gave up living for myself and rather living for my wife and kids the weight of the world lifted off my shoulders (took me until my sixth to figure it out).

Life didn't get easier, I just stopped fighting it and that has made all the difference in the world.

We need to remember two things about large families in the past, meaning, more than 100 years ago.

1: Previous generations had far more dangerous childhood diseases. Nowadays, children don't even get chicken pox, let alone whooping caugh or polio. Parents therefore needed to have more children in order to increase the likelihood that some of them would survive. Parents didn't need to worry if they had 8 or 9 children, because the odds were very high that some of them would die before the age of six.

2: Previous generations also were not required to put their children into school systems until they were at least 18. Children could be, and were, expected to work full days in farms, and later, in factories. The children may have brought another mouth to feed, but they also brought two hands to work.

So, if we want our society to encourage larger families, we need to do two things.

1: We need to eliminate child labor laws, so that children can not be seen as a burden, but as a bread winner.

2: We need to eliminate all childhood vaccinations. If children once more start to die from diptheria and scarlet fever, parents will feel more willing to have larger families.

So I assume the elimination of vaccines is a joke to make a point. And the child labor-laws.
But interestingly, this is a reoccuring [and creepy!] argument I've heard from the NFP camp - people used to have lots of kids 'cause some of them died, and the rest of them worked.

REALLY?

I think people had lots of children because when two people love each other... well, you know.
It's likely that most people felt sad when their children died, not relieved. And there were (and still are) many families with [curses!] robust immune systems that left many, most or all of the offspring alive, at least until a respectable age where they could go out on their own. And that was/is seen as a good thing. The argument as I've heard it seems to seriously misunderstand the value of a human soul.

Why have I heard this "children died/children worked" argument from so many different people? Please tell me this is NOT an intergal part of the NFP mindset!

This whole discussion has raised, for me, many great questions about marriage, families, children etc. I hope more controversial articles on these topics are forthcoming, for those who enjoy them.

Wh

I don't know how old you are, but when I said my mother's generation I meant families from the 50's. There were still lots of big ones - 15 was not unheard of, and they grew up in the suburbs, not on farms. And they went to school, and very few of them died.

Actually, I'm going to call my dear mother right now and run some numbers by her. She grew up with a bunch of big, catholic families.

Rebecca makes good points above. It's not that people didn't love their children... they surely did. But children were valuable for many reasons and one was because they were ofte necessary for a family's very survival. In other less developed parts of the world, and still in some rural areas in western countries, families are larger for this reason.

People didn't have large families primarily because they just loved birthing new kids and loving them for their own sake, but because large families were important for the basics of living. And, there was no way around them anyway... no one knew how fertility worked so if you were having sex, you were easily having babies. Families were part of communities and extended networks of relatives. And everybody was in the same boat. (Anybody who doubts this needs to dig a little deeper into history and study these things.)

Life back then was harder when it came to conveniences, but easier when it came to assistance with childcare, family support, and general emotional and moral support. If I think of the generations from my grandmother to my mother and to me, my grandmother had it easiest, despite her lack of a dishwasher, refrigerator, etc. And that's because extended family lived with her, she never moved out of the house she was born in, she never had to worry about how to pay the bills because they had means, and she enjoyed excellent health and pregnancies.

Everyone has examples of this or that couple who uses NFP... I myself know couples who've never used it like myself, couples who use it and find it a burden, and couples who believe it's been integral to their happiness and holiness.

I can't help but wonder how many "anti-NFPers" out there spend their time helping the families who feel overwhelmed in this anti-child society - with finances, babysitting, other supports. Some of the people I know who turned to NFP to space out children did so because no one offered these things, no supports for them, so after prayerful consideration, they believed they NFP might be God's provision to them in their circumstances.

I'm sure there are couples out there who use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. But I just find some of the assumptions made here about people who use NFP to be rather narrow in scope and yes, judgmental.

Ah, so much has been said. Clearly this discussion is needed and appreciated.

Based on my own experience, I especially agree with Christine, who pointed out how empowering it is to use NFP to understand your body and how contradictory it is to view it as misogynistic when it puts control in the hands of women, who are, like it or not, more affected by the consequences. Those who raised issues related to the additional support we as a society need to provide to mothers are also absolutely right, though that could be a longer and more multifaceted discussion (oh, don't get me started!)

However, after skimming 116 posts, I was struck with the fact that NFP has rarely been defined, other than by spelling out the letters. This, I think, is what causes it to be confused with the "rhythm" method and, perhaps, equated with limited success rates in people's minds. This misperception fuels much of the debate and keeps NFP from being offered as a viable option even for those for whom it would work well (assuming that there are those for whom it would not work - a debate I'm not informed enough to comment upon).

My experience has been so different. I had an NFP coach who not only provided great information, but followed up, helping me as I began tracking my cycle and working with me as I learned to interpret my bodily signs. Most of our friends who have been married in the last ten years have worked with her and report that it is "almost too successful... if you weren't sure but sort-of hoped for an "accident," it just wasn't going to happen." With this method and with the assistance of a coach on this learning curve, you simply know when you are fertile and can deliberately take action one way or another. Even my doctor, a Jewish man with no exposure to any of the spiritual reasons for NFP, expressed his confidence in the effectiveness of the method we use, based on his scientific understanding of the process.

However, the support that enhanced/continues to enhance my/our experience seems rare. In our area, there is only one certified NFP coach and she's recently stopped working, primarily due to lack of practical support by the San Francisco archdiocese. It seems as if even the Church felt - as one commenter suggested - that this discussion is moot based on today's more mainstream understanding of sexuality and the acceptability of ABC.

If so, that's a great loss, for NFP can be wonderfully empowering for individual and marital satisfaction. However, those benefits will never be realized until NFP is more fully understood, the various types discussed openly, and the misperceptions dispelled by modern scientific understandings about how women's reproductive capability works.

It therefore might be interesting to have a separate article written to move this discussion out of the theoretical and into the practical. If NFP is to be a viable option, it needs to be understood in practical terms. Who better to do so than those women (yes, that is where the primary responsibility rests) who happily, effectively practice NFP. Learning from their experiences would be the best way to promote NFP so that its many advantages can be enjoyed more broadly.

Marcia-- A few points:

1. 12 kids was ALWAYS an anomoly, at least until the introduction of formula. If you read "Cheaper by the Dozen," you'll notice that the family stopped traffic wherever they went--because 12 kids was an amazing sight. And their mother got married VERY young (18?) and was an early adaptor of formula feeding (because it was efficient and 'scientific.' The next largest family in their town had 8, and these were upper middle class people with few deaths. (Hilarious chapter about when the planned parenthood lady came to town, btw--a classic)

2. In the FIFTIES my grandmother always regretted that she'd only been able to have 6 kids (and my uncle, the youngest, was basically a miracle baby). This was at a point when kids were definitely a BURDEN.... they were packed in like sardines, had lines for the bathroom, and had to scrounge to afford food, but they ardently wanted more..... And no, none of them died, either.

There are some super-fertile people who will have 12 kids, but most people who get married in their 20's and breastfeed
are looking at 4 or 5, maybe six if they get REALLY lucky.

The problem is that many Catholics, even NFP users, have imbibed the Planned Parenthood mentality. "Every child a wanted child" and "If we didn't control this wild, female fertility, we'd be breeding like prairie dogs!" But it's up to parents to Love and Welcome their children, however they arrive, and it's up to women to EMBRACE the fertility God gave us as a gift--not as some morbid, life-sucking curse as our culture teaches.

Of course, there are grave reasons to delay pregnancy-- but are things like "more comfortable house" or "if we have any more kids they'll have to go to STATE schools for college!" really legitmate reasons? Or are they just a sign we've lost track of what God intends for us?

Deirdre Mundy makes good points. This fear of having a family that's too big isn't a reality for every woman out there. And I've heard several Catholics make the state school argument and also the *I want my kids to have what I didn't* argument to justify going for the bigger house etc.

If NFP is as accurate as people are saying I put forth that it's a grave temptation which can lead parents to carefully plan their families. Although it may not be obvious, not surrendering to God's will in any way while building a family is very detrimental to one's faith.

Some people are planners and really feel insecure about not knowing something like when to expect another pregnancy. These personalities are most succeptible to the assurance NFP provides and should make an extra effort to proceed with caution.

Abstinance is a sacrifice so I don't equate NFP completely with other forms of contraception. If a mother even with breastfeedong has had four children in a row 18 months apart and is at the end of her rope I think that's what NFP is for - to create a little breathing room before diving back in!

So the priests "must" get invovled in the marital beds of their parishoners? So priests know so much from hearing confessions, much more than the laity? Nonsense. During the Renaissance, the Vatican was very concerned about Astronomy, now it is Gynecology. They have been wrong before and they are wrong now. You can believe what you want to belive and I [along with most Catholics} will believe what we believe. As far as "putting a gun to my head", the Bishops often try to influence laws regarding the sale of contraceptives, which actually affects non-Catholics as well as Catholics. I stand by my position. You are free to practice NFP all you want, just don't try to inflict it on others. I am not changing my mind, and I will take my chances with the Almighty.

By the way, it is amusing to hear Bishops who protect and enable pedophile priests pontificate to the laity about sex.
What about LC Founder Maciel? The man was a perv and a phony, we should take direction from him and his ilk? Duh.

Catholis who practice NFP like to think that they are better than those who don't. In fact, they are often guilty of the sin of pride and spiritual arrogance.

We need to be gentle with one another. We will all meet our Maker one day and we don't need to be judged by others.

The fact is that this issue is irrelevant to 95%+ of married American Catholics. It is up to the bishops to decide how important this issue is, and if their deafening silence is any gauge, I think we have our answer.

This train clearly has left the station folks. This doesn't mean that those who practice NFP should be ridiculed or put down either.

I think we can all see the wisdom and the beauty of the teachings. Both sets of my grandparents had 8-12 children AFTER the age of 30. If they hadn't I wouldn't be here, nor would my 50+ first cousins. I don't know how my grandmothers felt about bearing so many children. I'm sure they felt overwhelmed much of time, not unlike modern mothers today, even though most only have one, two or three.

I remember once my mother said jokingly to my grandmother, something to the fact of, "I guess it was hard to keep track of us all (12 children)" and my grandmother quickly retorted, "I kept track of every single one of you. I knew where you were and what you were doing and what you should have been doing." She lost one child at age 5 and my mother remembers her going up the mountain to wail in her intense grief. We romanticize the past. Children were always more than farm hands.

I think we underestimate the difficulty of going against the grain of our society today.

Deirdre Mundy and Meg,

Who here is arguing that people should use NFP without serious reasons? Or with a contraceptive mentality? Certainly not me. These references to limiting one's family so they don't have to go to state schools or you can have a bigger house are not reasons I've ever heard from couples using NFP or any surveys I've read about NFP using couples.



No, they weren't an anomoly. In my grandmother's day, many women who married in their 20s had more than 6 pregnancies -- it was typical in an average family to have a least one or more children die before their first year. In developing parts of the world, this is still the case.



Well, neither of us can prove whether this is or isn't true. There are many women for whom this is not true and these are the women that may especially wish to consider NFP. Your reasoning also assumes that this is about numbers, but it isn't. Some women can handle 10 kids and make it look easy. Others struggle with two or three. Each women's pregnancies, health, energy, support, psychological strength is completely different and comes into play.



Again, let's decide who we're talking about here. The average Catholic? Or faithful Catholics who are using NFP? I've been having this conversation with the latter in mind because the first group use contraception like everyone else.

Austin:

Actually I agree with some of what you said in your last reply!

I don't think it changes my argument, mind you: The Church teaches certain things, and the clergy are obligated to exercise their divinely-mandated role in that teaching. Only if the Church's teaching is wrong, or the clergy's role is not actually divinely mandated, should they not teach on every subject which is of interest to God -- and that includes the marriage bed.

But, giving credit where credit is due, let me note:
You're right, that is nonsense, but it's also not quite what I said. What I said is that celibacy doesn't prevent them from knowing "what's what"; that is, that it doesn't make them ignorant. They have their own temptations; they also have insight into the human psyche from taking confessions which at least parallels that a counselor or psychiatrist garners over a career.

You can find exceptions, of course! Even after dissenters are excluded, there are priests who're just fools, or who lack discernment. But they're the exception; most faithful priests competent to take confessions of sexual sin and teach doctrine in sexual matters.

Of course! This is what I meant by observing that you're free to do as you like. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman.

Yes, they do, I grant you that. Were they successful, that would constitute a use of force, after which the relevant question would be, "Is this use of force an appropriate role for government?" My own inclination would be to say, "no"; I lean libertarian in such questions and avoid government involvement where no rights are being violated through force or fraud. (In my view, therefore, abortion should be outlawed while condom-sales are legal.)

But that's theoretical at the moment. My point was that you don't have much justification to sound personally outraged: No one has held a gun to your head. If they ever do, let's talk again.

I never have, except by exhortation. That, of course, I'll continue, since it's mandatory on all Christians, and may help with my own sins (see James 5:20).


Exactly. But keep in mind: Life is short, and eternity, long. What does the Church teach about her ability to remit serious sin, when repentance is utterly absent?

It isn't amusing, or it's a dark and bitter humor. Mainly it's an outrage and heart-rending all at the same time. I'm with you on that. Still, if every bishop was "Maciel's ilk," or if even most were, the Church would die and the Gates of Hades would have prevailed. That hasn't happened, and I trust Christ, who promised it never would. Christ told us there'd be wheat and tares. I take Him at his word: It's not all wheat, but it's not all tares, either.

You're absolutely right about Astronomy! During that time Church sometimes made statements as if they were infallible, when the charism of infallibility does not extend to astronomical or obstetric science, but only to faith and morals.

So, do the teachings about contraception fall under "science" or "faith and morals?" The answer is: Obviously the latter, which is why your comparison isn't valid. For the advocacy of NFP, far from denying any of what secular scientists can demonstrate about human reproduction, actually acknowledges it and makes use of it, giving practicing couples scientific tests to determine fertility which would not have been available in earlier centuries.


Probably! The same is true of Catholics who're proud of opposing the Iraq invasion, Catholics who attend daily Mass, Catholics who do this, Catholics who think that....

But I think of The Truth as having a sacramental quality: The sinfulness of the minister doesn't prevent it from being valid. Granted that we're all prideful jerks, all the time, save by the grace of God, does that mean we've never (almost despite ourselves) said anything that was true?

Not at all! So the question remains: Is the Church's teaching on NFP correct? If she is what she claims, then it logically follows that it is. If she isn't, then "Catholicism" is a hallucination. "Choose you this day...."

In summary, the first words of your reply ask...
...and I conclude mine, answering, "Yes."

In so far as "getting involved" means relaying faithfully the teaching of the Church, and doing so all the more loudly when the teaching of the Church is being dissented against or ignored, they "must get involved." It's their job. And unless ordination is all a sham, it's a divinely-instituted duty.

Marcia-- a question-- Do you believe it's possible for a woman to have more children than God intends her to have?

As another poster said: "that train has left the station." We disagree on this subject and are not going to change each other's minds. Let's focus on abortion where we agree.

In response to your comment about my using NFP specifically to have a baby, you would be incorrect. Again, what people above have commented goes for me as well. I am not ready with my cell phone whenever I use the bathroom to let my husband know when my mucous indicates I am fertile so that he may rush home to impregnate me. I really think that you are missing the point. NFP is helping my doctor narrow in on real physical issues that I have dealt with all of my life to which the lack of fertility is only one by-product. I have left the baby situation firmly in the hands of God and I have no anxiety about this situation, thanks to Him. As others have pointed out, and which you have unfortunately missed, is that many of us are trying to work with God's plan for us. That, and not forcing a baby to either come into or not come into our lives, is the primary focus and NFP helps us in this goal.

A bit of a trick question, I think.

"Intends" is the tricky word, actually. God is not a giant puppeteer in the sky pulling every string, or a dictator telling us every move we must make. He gives us his commandments, the beatitudes, and the guidance of the Church in matters of faith and morals. After that, each person must prayerfully discern God's will for their lives and family. A married couple may decide for serious reasons to space or postpone their children. They may also use NFP to achieve pregnancy. God gave us an intellect which we are supposed to use in our decisions. In the bringing forth of life we get to be a kind of "co-creator" with God in the creation of life. It's an awesome gift and responsibility which is why it is not small thing to discern.

I think we basically agree - NFP should be used for serious reasons only. And you're right - we do need to decide who we're talking about. The average Catholic doesn't follow the Church's teachings about birth control, so I guess we're talking about faithful Catholics who use NFP. But we're hammering out the fine points.

I don't have time to re-read all the posts here, but as I've been following over the last few days I'm not hearing a lot of NFP users saying they only use it for *serious* reasons (and there are varying ideas as to what serious is - that's for another thread).

I stated in my post that if NFP is as effective as the claims say then it can pose a temptation to try to control the growth of one's family too much, which I think it happens fairly often.

My impression is that many use NFP a lot (and some all the time) - to avoid having babies but also to get pregnant. Now we're getting into the area Marjorie Campbell touched on a few days ago - trying to control everthing, never letting go completely to God's will.

I feel that many graces come to those who do let go to God's will (in all areas of life), graces that you don't experience if you hold on too tight. You're missing out if you don't truly put your life in God's hands - I know from experience!

So I'm not misunderstood - I fully believe in using NFP to get pregnant if you have fertility problems - that goes without saying.

But Meg, if you believe in "letting go completely to God's will," why would you support NFP to be used to achieve pregnancy? Shouldn't those couples completely "let go to God's will" for themselves, which may mean never getting pregnant?

The other thing is, although there are certainly guidelines that could be used when discussing "serious reasons," what is serious for one person/couple may not be for another, just like I said above. That is why couples need to discern this for themselves. We are all selfish in various ways, and if a couple is being selfish about this, that's between them and God, and hopefully their friends and spiritual advisors will challenge them on it.

We have to be careful when speaking about "letting go completely to God's will." We can all agree to this in theory, but in practice it is not always so easy to know. And this brings me back to my point about God wanting us to use our intellects to make decisions.

All that said, there are certainly people out there who are providentialists and believe you shouldn't do anything to "impede" or control pregnancy. These people are entitled to their opinion and choice, but it is not the church's position. And it isn't mine either.

I'm sorry if my post caused you any pain - you posted after me so I didn't see yours until mine was already up.

My husband and I didn't find each other until later in life and had to work fast to fit in the kids we have (only 3, wish there were more - 3 in heaven). I know you said you weren't using your cell phone to call your husband when you were fertile, but embarrassing as it is to say this, and I won't go into details, we did sort of plan little dates around our schedules to maximize our success rate. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

I feel fertility problems certainly qualify as *serious* and NFP use is totally justified (I believe Marjorie Campbell was addressing those with normal fertility but I can't be sure).

This is such a sensitive topic for many, myself included. I'm going to bow out now.

I was writing another post while yours came up (a post in which I said I was bowing out!).

Just quickly, surrendering to God's will is something I have struggled with - I said that not to point out my own perfection, which doesn't exist!, but to maybe help others as I've been helped. It was helpful to me to hear from those who have had tremendous suffering that this is what worked for them. I didn't mean in any way to be preachy. If you heard me say it in person you would know this, I swear! :) Posting is hard.

I agree with much of what you say. I say NFP can be used for fertility problems because, as I've always said, it should be used for serious reasons only, and I consider working towards the fruitfulness of one's marriage to be a serious reason. We won't all agree on this reason.

I don't think NFP should be used year round by a couple with normal reproductive ability - that's the only thing you haven't touched on.

Of course you're right that it's all ultimately between a couple and God.

Marcia- Actually, the church DOES view Providentialism as an acceptable form of 'Family Planning'. It also views NFP as acceptable.

One sore point for me is that I'm often told (by NFP boosters) that NFP is the ONLY authentic Catholic way to organize your family, and that providentialism is somehow irresponsible. I think there is a pressure among Orthodox Catholics to use NFP even when there aren't grave reasons. And honestly, I HAVE had people inform me that my husband and I are irresponsible not to use NFP, since we already have 3 children and only have one bathroom!

Those of us who argue for providentialism are not saying that there are no grave reasons, or that NFP is inherently wrong (heck, the catechism says otherwise...) However, keep in mind we've often been berated for our lack of NFP use--even when we're perfectly able to support as many children as God happens to give us, and even when our children are spaced a pretty convenient distance apart anyway! (Mine tend to run 20-24 months apart. Yes, we are frequently exhausted at this point, but we won't be forever, and this phase of our lives is awfully short in the grand scheme of things...)

Deirdre Mundy -- My point about the Church's position was that it doesn't teach that providentialism is the only way... I should have been more clear about the way I said that.

Our experiences are just opposite, I guess, which goes to show how much of this is based on our own limited life experiences.

I have only met one or two people that believe all couples should know NFP... Most of the NFP using couples I know often feel "pressured" from other providentialist-minded Catholics and feel guilty/less holy for turning to NFP. But these are just my circles I guess.

There are some very strong views and judgement around this topic and I don't know how people dare to be anything but supportive of each others' choices. I just admit I HAVE met families where I secretly think their providentialism borders on irresponsibility because in the name of being "holy" they end up with strained marriages (sometimes the destruction of their marriages), or kids who get no attention, or just a life that's really out of control financially and otherwise. God has given the gift of knowledge about our bodies and an intellect to make decisions and I see nothing wrong with NFP so long as a couple isn't using it for completely selfish reasons but for the good of their marriage and family.

I honest to God feel sick.

I'm a bit confused with the discussion about submitting to God's will. Do we close our eyes when we cross the street and "submit to God's will" about whether or not it is our time to die? (OK, I did that on a recent visit to Hanoi, but that's another story!)

The Church sees NFP as acceptable because it is a method of making decisions within a holistic concept of marriage, sexuality, and reproduction that emphasises love and an openness to God's will, without artificial barriers that separate our reproductive capacities from the rest of our lives. Humanae Vitae offers more insight into this point and should be re-read by those engaged in the "God's will" debate.

(For me, it was a challenging but important read and its difficulty demonstrates the degree to which secular culture can overwhelm even a strong commitment to Catholic principles.) Also, Archbishop Chaput offers a reflection in a 1998 article that nicely compliments the encyclical. To find it, Google "Chaput" and "Humanae Vitae" if the link below doesn't work...

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=365

Good way of putting it, and good reminder to re-read Humanae Vitae.

"There are some very strong views and judgement around this topic and I don't know how people dare to be anything but supportive of each others' choices. I just admit I HAVE met families where I secretly think their providentialism borders on irresponsibility because in the name of being "holy" they end up with strained marriages (sometimes the destruction of their marriages), or kids who get no attention, or just a life that's really out of control financially and otherwise. God has given the gift of knowledge about our bodies and an intellect to make decisions and I see nothing wrong with NFP so long as a couple isn't using it for completely selfish reasons but for the good of their marriage and family."

Problems in families are actually never because of the number of children, though they can certainly be exacerbated by each additional child. A strained marriage, kids not getting attention, out of control finances - these are all thing seen in families of various sizes, be it one or twenty.

If you and your husband don't get along, throwing five more kids in the mix can make it worse. If you selfishly don't manage your time to be with your kids, that will look worse when there are seven who need you than when it is one. If you don't know what to do with your money that's going to be a bigger problem when you need to use it for ten people than if it's just spread over four.

The answer isn't really less children, it's addressing the fundamental problems. When you look at large families with problems and think they were irresponsible to have all those kids and the kids are what caused the problem, you reveal a fundamental flaw in your thinking - that children are a problem.

Perhaps some people would finally work out their problems as they are brought to the forefront with each additional child, perhaps not. But they could certainly stop at six kids and continue in their errors for life, if they want to.

I don't know Deirdre, but I see she's come up against the same type of NFPers I have, who are often really great people but sure have a hang-up about being responsible, at the cost of bringing more souls into the world for God's glory. I've also met pretty crazy providentialist, but their big emphasis is on selflessness, and that just always impresses me more.

One other point---

NFP is hard. Providentialism is hard too. Welcoming a new life into your family is ALWAYS scary, no matter what your situation-- after all, you're taking responisbility for a new PERSON.... one you've never met yet! Who knows who God's going to give you this time?

And, at least for my family, Providentialism goes hand in hand with breastfeeding toddlers, co-sleeping, and infants who nurse around the clock--- which is why we're on a two-year schedule-- that's what my fertility does when I'm nursing. So while we're not giving up relations in the fertile period, we are giving up things like nights out, uninterrupted sleep, and about 3/4 of our bed! (Toddlers take up more room than both parents put together--)

And the Providentialists whose kids aren't as conveniently space are giving up a lot of energy, free time, quiet and order!

But I think one of the plusses of the various forms of providentialism is that you have a daily, concrete reminder that you're NOT really in control.

Sometimes, with NFP, it's possible to get the illusion that you can choose your kids.... you choose to get pregnant a particular month, and do. Some couples time it so they can 'choose' the sex of the baby. If a couple isn't careful, they can accidently by into our culture's "Parents as Consumers" mentaility.... and that's dangerous-- NFP couples have to be constantly on guard about slipping into the "Control" mentality.

A better way to see things might be that NFP is a FAST. You're fasting from relations on certain days to add power to your prayer of 'not right now...'---but, like all prayers, God might answer yes, or he might answer no.......

I do agree that problems are never about the children. But if a couple is failing their responsibilities to each other and to their other children, I believe they should address these things before continuing to bring more lives into their family.

Although kids are never the problem, the fundamental issues that may cause a couple to "fast" (as Deirdre put it) from intercourse to reduce the chances of pregnancy are not so easy to address. How does one couple fix this anti-child culture? Where there is little to no support for large families, high costs of living, etc. Not to mention individual challenges of health problems or difficult marriages. I know some Catholic families who can find no help even in their own parishes to help them with their big families.

So let me repeat that I don't think babies are the problem - they are always themselves a blessing. But a couple and a family must think of their entire lives - their marriage, their other children, their financial means, their health and abilities, and any number of other factors in the context of modern society.

Deirdre, it's great that your fertility permits you two years "off" while breastfeeding, but I know a handful of women who can't say the same. Some have had warnings from their doctors because their bodies are in such bad shape from baby after baby coming so closely to each other. This has endangered their health and makes it harder for them to care for the children they have.

I feel like we're beginning to talk in circles here because I've already said that I agree couples can use NFP with the wrong mentality. But re-read the statement "Confused" made above.... I think he or she did a good job re-directing this conversation by pointing out the way we should view and approach NFP. Rather than point to this or that family we all know to prove our point, let's just go back to the basics about how to understand God's will, and the responsibility each couple has to follow God and discern His will for their lives. Then we can pray and gently encourage each other rather than judge and criticize. (Not saying anyone here is doing that, just making the point.)

Hi. I'm the Kathy from earier in this conversation - the one who has three kids 6 and under and uses NFP to space babies.

I see conversation has started to wane, as these things do after a few days and everyone has said everything there really is to say on the subject.

This is kind of OT, but I just wanted to weigh in with things that have been going on in my life recently.

In the past three weeks I have:

a) Nearly blown up my minivan and half the house by attempting to jump-start it myself while my husband was out of town for two nights and I went out the first morning after he left to discover that the battery was dead. We're all alright, but I did over $4,000 worth of damage to the van.

b) We discovered that our comprehensive automobile insurance would cover a large part of the cost of repairing the minivan. Yippee! Last week, two reimbursement checks arrived in the mail - which I then proceeded to lose before I had a chance to deposit them at the bank. :-(

c) Today, I took my kids to a playground not far from our house. I loaded the kids in the van - and apparently drove away without my diaper bag, which also doubles as my purse. We then drove someplace about 20 minutes away - where I discovered in the parking lot that I didn't have my diaper bag. I drove back to the playground - by the time we got there it had been almost an hour since we left - and the diaper bag was nowhere to be found. My wallet with my driver's license, my ATM card, and all my credit cards; my cell phone (and I'm wireless and don't have a landline at home); and my camera were all in that bag. I don't even have a phone to use to call the credit card companies and banks to cancel everything (they don't let you do it online), and my husband is busy at work and can't come home to let me use his phone to cancel everything.

Obviously, I must be very disorganized. I recognize the fact that I'm disorganized. The problem is, I'm always too busy with the kids/cooking/laundry/whatever and/or too tired to find/make the time to GET organized. And I can't help but think - and I'm supposed to have more babies? Soon? I apparently can't function with the three I've got! Never mind that it might be a moot question if my husband decides to divorce me because my absent-mindedness is starting to ruin our lives.

Deirdre Mundy, Marjorie, and other "providentialists" - what do you say to yourselves on days like this? Or do you have days like this?

Kathy, everyone I KNOW has days like that, whether they're a mom of 2 or 12!

What do I do? Well, honestly, I call the insurance company and ask them to send new checks, and I call and cancel all my credit cards/ make copies of the keys, check the police station and park office to see if anyone turned in my bag, stomp around, cry a lot, and then, after all that, find out I never had my wallet in the first place and that the baby actually stuffed it inside his toybox........ (I have 3 under 6 --soon to be 4 under 6, too! )

And then I call up a good friend, rant and rave, and swear that I'm actually going to get organized one of these days, except it never quite happens.... but I wasn't organized when I was single, when I was married before the kids were born, or at any other point in my life... so I can't really blame the kids for the ensuing chaos----

Basically, though, bad days (except the teething-related and vomit-related ones) are usually about ME, not my kids. Providentialists don't have perfect Martha-Stewart-Donna-Reed lives...noone does. And if anyone tells you that they never have everything go wrong at once, they're probably lying!

I'll pray that you find your bag.... That IS crazy-making... (I've actually stopped TAKING the diaper bad to the playground. I just have a 'when the diaper's stinky we have to go' rule, because I kept losing so many!)

I've been following some of this discussion...

Deirdre, When I hear Kathy's story, I don't hear her blaming her kids or anyone else, I hear her questioning whether the demands of another child would put her and her household over the edge.

Almost all moms experience insane days, when they think they're going to lose it, but there is something to be said for noticing if you are so over your head all the time that you need to take care of what you've already got on your plate first before welcoming another life. Unless you HAVE to, why wouldn't you? A person is entitled to SOME peace about their family life.

I am as crazy and disorganized as anyone can be, but here is a thought about waiting 'til things calm down to have another baby: once you have babies, it will never really be calm again. It's like waiting for enough money - there won't be.

I cannot count the times I have gone to bed crying because I feel that I acomplished nothing during the day other than not having anyone die. I once realized that I had not slept more than two consecutive hours for four years, which helped me feel a little calmer about the fact that I was never quite sure if I still spoke to people in full sentences.

However, crazy though I am, I do WANT to do the right thing and even though I still screw up royally from time to time necessity (and a careful husband) has caused me to develop some good habits and overcome some of my shortcomings. So now I only burn a meal every three weeks instead of every other night. And I mostly lock the doors and save reciepts, and the laundry gets washed and carried back upstairs several times a week instead of piling up into daunting mountains of filth (though whether it gets folded and put in drawers I'll keep to myself).

When I look back on the years when all my kids were babies I do think they were very trying times that involved a lot of crying, expensive mistakes and tension. Some of that is still around, and the learning curve is steep, but I'm glad that I didn't miss any of the pregnancies God had in store for us through those times. It seems to me a better thing that more souls were brought into creation.

The point is unless you really feel that lives are in danger, the regular craziness of life will get better as time irons out some of the wrinkles, and sometimes a smiling, cute baby is the only thing you can really feel good about at the end of the day. A crying one, not so much.

Kathy (sort of OT)--

I think one problem for a lot of young moms, NFP OR Providentialist, is that life IS constant chaos. We spend all day trying to keep up with the little ones, bodily fluids are everywhere, and exhaustion is our constant companion.

It's easy to lose perspective, especially when all your friends are at the same place in life--the chaos seems neverending, a hopeless crushing burden. And of course, you don't want to spend the rest of your life like this!

For me, the biggest help is perspective from the older moms I know... the ones who've been through this stage but now live in houses where most of the kids are older (even if they still have a few little ones...)

Basically, they remind me that EVERYONE'S life is chaos at this stage, but the kids will grow and become more self-sufficient. And that we'll have more free time and breathing space in a few years. This stage is temporary. The Chaos, the never being able to keep up, is fleeting. Once your oldest is 8 or so, they tell me, things get a lot better.

It's easy to lose perspective, especially when you have 3 under 6 and your husband is out of town (At least around here, the kids are noticibly worse when Daddy doesn't come home at his regular time). But these tough days are also a good time to unite our suffering to Christ's. And they'll get fewer and farther between as time goes on.

But you're not alone in your current chaos, and it WILL get better. (Though, I admit, I always find it odd when the older moms get teary-eyed and tell me how much they miss these years..... maybe I should invite them to change a few diapers, so they can remember better! =) )

I agree with Fr. B. NFP is taught with secular vocabulary. Many NFP programs funded with federal dollars. That is why God is not mentioned in their materials. It is God's design for he created everything. The signs that God has given to us are for good reason. Just as we know when to plant . The couples are to be generous to God. Then with serious reasons may postpone. Keep in mind a very important scheme known as KAB. It stands for Knowledge, attitude,behavior for those who wish to destroy Gods's kingdom. It is used in all issues. THis is why , in my opinion NFP(Gods's Design)is distorted. With the wrong knowledege, comes the wrong attitude; like for example fear as was brought up in this article. If God abides in us and we with him there would be no fear. The enemy uses fear, paranoia to get their agenda across. Some NFP programs have this conveyed, thus distortion. I know of even WICCA in some administrative areas in NFP. Not to get off the subject. With wrong knowledge, creating wrong attitudes,the enemy gets their end result, Wrong Behavior. So, with God's help we can obtain the true KAB. Thank you Fr. B.

Nancy-- Good point.... in a lot of NFP discussions, the subject of fear is pretty strong...

There's this idea that NFP is the ONLY THING keeping the family away from disaster... and that another baby would lead to hige problems....

And it's a dangerous attitude, one that creeps in from a culture that sees kids as burdens rather than as chances to love and sacrifice and unite ourselves with Christ....

I think the best antidote is, again, the story of the Annunciation. Gabriel tells Mary not to be afraid. And she has every reason TO be afraid. Not only is the fate of an unwed mother in her time shunning or death, but she's being asked to be the Mother of the Messiah! What a scary, awesome responsibility. Who could possibly feel up to that??? But, in the end, she places her fear in the hands of God, and trusts Him to help her through the coming trials.

True, Mary was without original sin, so maybe it was easier for her to trust God than it is for us, with all of our faults and falls. But we can pray for the strength to trust and not be afraiid. Being a parent IS a scary responsibility-- I pray constantly that I won't screw up my kids, that they'll be brave enough to answer God's call, that I can make it through my chores cheerfully and efficiently (a HUGE struggle for me!)

Prayer is the only way to overcome the perniocious influence of a society that constantly questions your decision to welcome life---not only in direct attacks, but also in off-hand comments, odd looks, and well-placed sighs. NFP without constant prayer is in danger of becoming just a more eco-friendly form of contraception (hence the Wiccan thing).

In that sense, I think Providentialism may actually be the easier path-- less temptation to start heading down the contraceptive route, less decision making on a month-by-month basis (but more long-term planning.. as in 'We know we'll probably have at least x more children, and we need to arrange our lives accordingly, so we can have a good place for them.'

But NFP can work the same way--- the big problem I see is that it's counter-cultural but also can wander uncomfortably close to some of the culture's nastier elements... and it must be a challenge for couples to constantly navigate and keep off the rocks.....

Don't see NFP, see what God has created as Good! Our Blessed Lady was asked. Therefore, Gods'creation gives man a total free will. Like all issues, there is always a fine line, it seems. God will read our hearts to know where our attitude is. Our Blessed Lady gives us an example. She is surprised, How can this be without man? She believes the
Angel and Trusts in God. We have a different situation. Certainly we can not compare ourselves to Her on the same level. There is mystery here, that she is a virgin before, during and after Christ. As married couples, we are not in this position. There may be times when a couple will be in a position to postpone and then resume. Holy Mother Church has understood reason, in these cases. It is very true to keep a prayerful life to be able to discern God's Will. It is very sad when people give sly remarks about the number of children we may have. We had one child and a second on the way when I had my first negative remark. Then with the third my own midwife told me with a snicker I had an accident. I told her I am married and every child is planned. With our 4th a catholic lady said in front of 3 protestans women that this child is a rhythm baby. I said nothing and the 3 protestant women told this lady she was very wrong. What happened to "congratulations, Let's have a baby shower. It is attitude. Our children were born in the early 70's and now we are grand parents! It is such a joy! HOw can anyone look upon the nativity without joy! It is such a shame that we must speak up for ourselves to help change demonic attitudes. NFP's terminology gives away underling demonic attitudes and subtle ideas. For example: a newly wed couple who used NFP to not have children until the couple was ready, like 2-3years. Very wrong attitude. I was taught God's design in 1980. The teachers actually taught prostitutes. Chastity is correct. The material was not giving credit to God by His Laws. I saw some methods being taught with pride, others were so tight on the reigns that it gave wrong attitudes to have no openness to life. In other words, they were perfect to 100% effectiveness. THis is evil. I took the teachings of the anatomy/physiology and remained independent. I taught the way I thought God would desire it to be. I taught more couples to achieve pregnancy than to postpone. I have read and have seen many distortions of NFP. Gods' own creation being abused and that is putting it lightly. The NFP programs are under federal dollars. It is no longer God's. Drs. Billings were saddened when this came about. He told a large assembly in Louisiana in the late 80's "This (the method)is not yours! It is God's! It fell on deaf ears(my opinion)So, be prayful for the truth. THe Truth shall set us freee

So much mis-information in these comments. The Rhythm Method is an NFP method,now referred to as the Model T of NFP methods. A method of NFP is never practiced with a contraceptive mentality. This is a contradiction in terms. The use of an NFP method is a separate issue from how many children a couple has. The practice of NFP is a response to a process of the complementary gifts of fertility given by God to men and women. With NFP, we reverence and respect the process and live in harmony with it - engaging in the practice of an NFP method -methods vary in their approach to determining days of fertility and infertility. A contracepting couple rejects God's gift as given, and seeks to alter or obliterate it - a practice that violates the nature of the gift as given, or as we say, against the natural law. Please do not editorialize or criticize how many or how few children another couple has. That is not an NFP problem. That is their call alone. From experience, contracepting couples are not having children, NFP users are. So lets address the problem where it exists. Lastly, the teaching of the popes must be followed as binding, for as Christ said, "He who hears you, hears me." Please seek out the writings of Drs. John and Lyn Billings, and especially, Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body tome titled, "Man and Woman He Created Them" - the last 60 pages.

This new teaching is dangerous! Teach the Mystical Body of Christ! Mr. West who brings "Theology of the Body "is showing his true colors and is off track. The teachings are not Holy. I am a Billings teacher with my husband for 30 years, also, you know about the Mystical Body of Christ!

Surely you jest! ("No, and don't call me Shirley." )

My grandma one of 12 kids who survived infancy, and family stories have it that Great-Grandma would happily have stopped much, much earlier had there been other options. There weren't. When Great-Grandpa's eyes began to twinkle, I'll be Great-Grandma gritted her teeth!

Let's not romanticize the plight of the mothers of these large families when there were no options for limiting children. (FTR, my great-grandparents weren't Catholic; they weren't even very good Protestants.)

Anyway, God bless and keep all of you who are trying to live an authentically Catholic spirituality, and thanks for the spirited discussion.

NFP has brought about a conversion in my heart, and is working through me to convert my husband as well. Anyone who dismisses NFP as "Catholic Birth Control" and assumes that people are using it to avoid a sacrifice are making many assumptions about the very unique situations each couple brings to it's practice. There are people who do use it improperly with a contraceptive mentality. To use this to say that anyone using NFP must be selfish and looking to usurp God's control in their lives is sinful in itself. God has never had more control in my life than when I started to use NFP.

As for NFP being misogynistic, I'm sorry that Ms. Campbell had to witness a difficult moment in her parents marriage. It is sad that they were unable to keep that very adult moment from their daughter. Of course, they are only human. It is sad that even as an adult Ms. Campbell seems to cling to the image of her father as a misogynist and her mother as a victim. Even if she believes this, it does not mean every woman is victim and every man a misogynist. NFP forces many men to face for the first time the fact that they can't have whatever they want, whenever they want. Their abstinence, which is a true struggle for them (at least it is for my husband) is their shared sacrifice that they offer out of respect for their wives. It requires more discussion than most men care for and more thought than they care for, but many faithful men do it to share the burden with their wives. NFP often forces this discussion for the first time in a couple's relationship. Is it rosy and glowing and beautiful all the time? No. Sometimes it sucks. But love is sacrifice and while it's messy and hard, there is beauty in that.

Wow. What a discussion.

Not sure anyone is still reading this, but here's my quick take:

1. NFP is a good thing for women to use to learn their bodies. Just a practical tip, really. There's a power in knowing your own cycles that well.

2. I have ideological objections to the Pill because it obscures a woman's own response to and knowledge of her body (and if we were to ask guys to take a pill that, say, dried up their sperm, would they? OF COURSE NOT.)

3. That said, I don't see a problem with charting and using condoms. (Don't go quoting at me, folks; I've read everything you've read.) I say this because my take is that NFP elevates the procreative over the unitive. It's not really unitive to have to turn your expression of love into chart-keeping and data entry and snapping at each other and sleeping on the couch during fertile times. I also like Marjorie's point about the fact that women have to abstain at the time of the month when they are most likely to, um, have a good time with sex. Not hugely unitive.

Kind of unrelated point, but here goes:

4. There would be way more credibility on this issue if there were women involved in writing these encyclicals.

[quote=DebbieP]

"I have a husband who insists upon using condoms (with our pastor's blessing btw)."

In response to Debbie's comments:

BTW The Church clearly states that artificial contraception is wrong!

If your Pastor said you can use a condom that is his personal opinion, not the Church's!

So many people have been poorly catechized!

At my husbands & my marital retreat the priests there also said it was okay for us to use artificial contraception, if we felt necessary. We knew it was wrong & that the Church did not teach that.
Many priests dissent from church teachings & tell laity it is okay. Maybe that is why NFP is practiced by only 10% of Catholics. Most are falsely led to believe it is okay to contracept or they just don't care because they are cafeteria Catholics who pick & choose what teachings they will follow.

[In the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil” (CCC2370). “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means…for example, direct sterilization or contraception” (CCC2399).

Such unnatural forms include the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal, mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: “The Church as always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).]


NFP does not seem like a burden to me! I know when I am fertile, unlike many of my friends & family who don't even know why they get mucous each month. They have know idea how God designed there reproductive systems & how they can decipher them.
My husband & I learned the Marquette method of NFP 6 years ago which uses the Clear Plan Easy Fertility monitor along with mucous &/or basal temp. It was somewhat easy but, expensive. We now solely chart the mucous for the past 4 years(it's free & I don't have to remember to do anything but look at toilet paper). I am grateful for the new technology that Catholic Doctors have engineered & look forward to even better ones in the future!
I don't feel repressed, I feel empowered. My husband can & does look at my charts & know if we are fertile. If he doesn't want to get me pregnant he knows to leave me alone. If he wants to be intimate & I agree, he is aware that a pregnancy will probably result. 2 of our 3 kids were conceived that way.

Do all the feminists forget this?
As a result of Original sin Women received the pains of child birth and where placed under the dominion of man, "I will intensify the pang of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master (Genesis 3:16).