‘Humanae vitae’ at 40.
I am a bit surprised that John Allen’s Sunday Times op-ed has not yet occasioned comment at dotCom. I found it disappointing and, at points, quite strange–I’ll try to say more about why later. In the meantime, pop over to Pontifications for David Gibson’s astute analysis:
The principal comment on the anniversary came in an op-ed by John Allen, National Catholic Reporter’s Vatican expert, and one of the keenest and best-informed expositors of the Vatican’s positions. One disagrees with John at one’s peril, but in his column, “The Pope vs. the Pill,” I see several problems.
One is that John recounts predictions that the teaching would “collapse under its own weight,” and “might well bring the “monarchical papacy” down with it. “Those forecasts,” he says, “badly underestimated the capacity of the Catholic Church to resist change and to stand its ground.” Yet the teaching has collapsed, one could argue, given some estimates that just 4 percent of even observant Catholic couples of child-bearing age follow the teaching.
Moreover, John tends to identify the Church with the Pope and the Vatican; the Vatican has held out against changes it said were “eternal” for much longer than 40 years, only to develop those teachings as Roman views caught up with the rest of the “Church.”
Also, blaming a rejection of Humanae Vitae for the demographic crisis in Euope and parts of the West is akin to blaming the promotion of Humanae Vitae for AIDS and overpopulation elsewhere. It doesn’t wash.
Read the rest right here. For more on the issue of European birthrates and Catholicism, check out Daniel Callahan’s 2005 Commonweal article, “Depopulation Bomb” (subscribers only).
on July 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
It’s clear that a huge number of Catholics (96%?) don’t follow the injunction as Allen himself notes.
The divide on this issue, as with several others, sits upon magistrial maximality as some would say or creeping infallibility.
Folks at the centrist (acording to sociology but denied by those who think anyone to the left of their views is dissident) VOTf have begun, more and more referring to the Hurch (that is, the view that identifies the Church almost exclusively with the hierarchy. They see little continuity with Vatican II in this and will undoubtedly continue not only to express their view as the People of God but also (as their third goal states) to seek to change the Church.
on July 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Re the collapse — Allen acknowledges the percentages that don’t follow the teaching, but I took him to mean that the thinking itself hasn’t collapsed inward, in the manner of say, marxist-leninist socialism which was revealed as incoherent quite aside from the fall of the soviet empire. (Of course, many think HV was incoherent from the beginning — not quite the same thing as “collapsing.”)
And how can anyone be sure that falling population rates in Catholic Europe had nothing to do with rejecting HV?
on July 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
There is a very long article in First Things titled The Vindication of Humanae Vitae that claims Pope Paul VI has been proven correct in his predictions about the consequences of widespread use of contraception. “The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.” All this and more, it is argued, has come to pass . . . and things continue to grow worse.
Exactly how one would accurately measure the four outcomes predicted, I don’t know. And how it could be demonstrated they had occurred (if they did) as the result of widespread use of contraception, I also don’t know. But if the point of an encyclical is explain a teaching and call people to accept it, it’s hard for me to see Humanae Vitae as anything but a failure.
on July 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“Pope Paul VI has been proven correct in his predictions about a lessening of respect for women by men”
On http://catholicvu.com/newpage30.htm I read this “gem” written by a priest about the relationship between husband and wife:
“NFP ..It also gave them greater confidence in each other. She knew that if he could exercise self-control during her fertile times, he would be more likely to exercise that same self-control when he was away from her. Also, when the wife is on the Pill, she is “available” to him at any time – but he also knows in the back of his mind that she is potentially available to other men”
Is it this respect for each other????? We urgently need married priest.
on July 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
sorry ..married priests.
on July 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I was disappointed in this article because it made no effort to explain or analyze the theology underlying HV or provide a balanced discussion of the pros and cons of contraceptive use within marriage. It said that it has “held up” but only in the historical sense — it is still the doctrine of the Church. It is certainly not the doctrine by which Catholics rule their lives.
on July 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Bishops of Rome have a tendency to conflate the Church with their own persons. I only note that Louis XIV, usually taken also to be a member of the species of absolute monarchs, is supposed merely to have said “l’etat c’est moi”. I don’t think he was supposed to have said “La France c’est moi”.
As for the fact that contraception may be misused, and doubtless has been been, that carries no weight as to its legitimacy per se. Abusus usum non tollit! Misuse does not invalidate use.
on July 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Very disappointed in his op-ed piece – not his usual insightful and researched approach. Allow me to add some comments on this passionate encyclical:
This is a complex issue and blogs don’t allow for much development of thought but here goes:
a) Vatican II documents focused on the sensus fidelium, collegiality, subsidiarity – Paul’s committee in fact overwhelmingly endorsed changes in the moral code to allow some types of birth control – in the face of his earlier Vatican II directives, Paul over-ruled his committee & his bishop review committee out of fear – church law would change; conservative element would revolt; would be seen as damaging the hierarchical structure of the church; overturn the previous 3 popes e.g. 1930 encyclical (interesting that the 1930 Lambeth Conference approved birth control)
b) the latest PEW survey suggests that American Catholics have decreased by 30-40% (if you do not count in the Hispanic Catholic immigrant population) – one interpretation is that most of this departure was the result of Humanae Vitae and, in fact, even more Catholics would have “dissented” and left if it wasn’t for the positive and progressive advances of Vatican II (A. Greeley surveys);
c) some historians posit that Humanae Vitae was a positive step (altho painful) because it made American Catholics grow up and created an “adult faith” rather than a “pay, pray, and obey” church?
d) here are some other thoughts from a recent column by R. McBrien….Shortcut to: http://129.74.72.9/rm/FMPro?-db=rm%5f&-format=record%5fdetail.htm&-lay=full&-sortfield=yyyy&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=mm&-sortorder=descend&-sortfield=dd&-sortorder=descend&new%5fid=now&-max=15&-recid=34900&-find=
e) different stance articulated by Bishop Stafford who is part of the Curia: Shortcut to: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13355 Interesting comment that this “dissent” continues to haunt priests creating division and suspicion;
f) John Allen’s own mega-trends in his future book, Upside Down Church – bio-ethic changes; growing Church of the South facing HIV/AIDs, etc.; role of women is changing; natural law must change to reflect modern scientific advances – all of these impact the original principles of Humanae Vitae – time for reconsideration;
g) story about John Paul I and his experience with Humanae Vitae: John Allen interview with Fr. Diego Lorenzi, the private secretary of Pope John Paul I, on the 25th anniversary of the pope’s election. Lorenzi’s recollections summoned others from readers of “The Word from Rome.” Among other things, a few readers wrote to ask if it was true that prior to becoming pope, Cardinal Albino Luciani had expressed a positive view of birth control.
In short, the answer is yes.
In 1967, when Luciani was still the bishop of Vittorio Veneto, then-Cardinal Giovanni Urbani of Venice asked him to prepare a position paper for the bishops of the Triveneto region on artificial contraception, then under study by Pope Paul VI. The story is told in the superb recent book Papa Luciani: Il Sorriso del Santo, by Andrea Tornielli and Alessandro Zangrando.
Luciani, who attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), had already been wrestling with the problem. In his diary from his days at Vatican II, Un Vescovo al Concilio, published in 1983, he said that the formation of a study commission had produced hope that the teaching might change. Another factor fueling that hope, he wrote, was the “spiritual trauma” the issue was causing for married couples, for whom it represented a “laceration of conscience.”
In January 1965, Luciani gave a retreat for the pastors of the Veneto in which he told the following story:
“A Capuchin bishop told me at the council, ‘Sometimes I thank God that I’m a bishop for only one reason, not for anything else. The reason is that I don’t have to hear confessions at Easter, dealing with painful, difficult cases that are hard to resolve. These blessed Christian couples simply don’t want to convince themselves that the use of contraceptives is a sin. At the end I never knew what to say … What could I say to a young father who already had six children and he was the sole support of the family? I knew that he was a good young man and in every other way obeyed the law of God.’
“I assure you,” Luciani told the pastors, “the bishops would be extremely happy to find a doctrine that would declare licit the use of contraceptives under certain conditions … If there’s only one possibility in a thousand, we have to find this possibility and see if maybe with the help of the Holy Spirit we can discover something that previously escaped us.”
In a recent interview, Msgr. Mario Senigaglia, Lorenzi’s predecessor as Luciani’s secretary, recalled that his stand was well known. In fact, he said, some Italian wags referred to Luciani at the time as “the bishop of the pill.”
Paul VI got wind of the thinking in the Triveneto and sent his personal theologian, Msgr. Carlo Colombo, to meet with the bishops. Sources say that during the closed-door session, Luciani argued that Colombo’s position was “too abstract” and did not take account of the real-life struggles of couples.
In the spring of 1968, Luciani gave a series of presentations in parishes. In Mogliano Veneto, the birth control question arose. His response has been preserved in an audio recording.
“For me, this is the most serious theological question that has ever been dealt with by the church,” Luciani said. “In the age of Arius and Nestorius, the issue was the two natures of Christ, and these were serious questions, but they were understood only at the very top of the church, among theologians and bishops. The simple people understood nothing of these things and said, ‘I adore Jesus Christ, the Lord who has redeemed me,’ and that was it, there was no danger. Here, on the other hand, it’s a question that no longer regards solely the leadership of the church, but the entire church, all the young families, the young Christian families. It is a truly central point that they are still studying.”
When Paul VI issued Humane Vitae on July 25, 1968, however, Luciani’s adherence was immediate and unwavering. He wrote a letter to his diocese four days after the encyclical appeared.
“I confess that I had hoped in my heart that the extremely grave difficulties could be overcome and that the response of the magisterium, which speaks with special charisms and in the name of the Lord, could have coincided, at least in part, with the hopes held by many spouses.”
Yet, Luciani said, Pope Paul has spoken, and the proper response is assent.
The Pope “knows that he is about to cause bitterness for many; he knows that a different solution would probably have drawn greater human applause; but he’s put his trust in God, and in order to be faithful to His word, he re-proposes the constant teaching of the magisterium, in this most delicate matter, in all its purity.”
As late as 1974, after he had become patriarch of Venice, Luciani publicly acknowledged how difficult this teaching was to enforce.
“Among couples with few children, some maintain a heroic self-control that merits admiration,” he said at a convention. “Others … find themselves in difficulties so serious that, on the objective plane, not even the confessor sometimes has the courage to pronounce on the gravity of the sin, entrusting everything to the merciful judgment of the Lord.”
The story invites a historical “what if?” If Luciani’s papacy had endured longer than 33 days, how would he have handled the birth control issue?
It’s virtually certain he would not have reversed Paul VI’s teaching. The church does not lurch from position to position like that, and Luciani was no doctrinal radical. Moreover, in Venice some saw a hardening of his stands as the years went by. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that John Paul I would not have insisted upon the negative judgment in Humanae Vitae as aggressively and publicly as John Paul II, and probably would not have treated it as a quasi-infallible teaching. It would have remained a more “open” question.
Whether that would have been good or bad obviously depends upon one’s point of view.
Personal note – - One of my favorite books, Reluctant Dissenter, is the life of Bishop James Shannon, who resigned as bishop because of Humanae Vitae.
There is also the fact that Vatican II reaffirms the right of every Catholic to voice and dissent from non-doctrinal positions – this may actually be a sign of a strong moral and faithful position. That was articulated after Humanae Vitae by the “Winnipeg Statement” of the Canadian bishops and the Dutch Catechism by the Dutch bishops.
So, my thought is that the question – dissent or collapse of morals? – is not necessarily the best question. Humanae Vitae is not an infallible doctrine and the church needs to restart a dialogue on this.
some other good articles and resources that address your insightful question:
a) Shortcut to: Crown of thorns by Cardinal Henaan http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11760
b) statement today in Rome paper: Shortcut to: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL24975016
c) statement about approaching this issue: The Roman Catholic Church is a hierarchy, a tradition, and a community-these three but the greatest of these is community. And that is the root of the problem. The hierarchy has first separated itself from and then equated itself with not only the tradition in its ongoing development but even the community in its living reality. That is why one often hears that “the Church teaches” something when it only means that “the hierarchy teaches” it.
The hierarchy often replies that the church is not a democracy. But neither is it a tyranny. It is the People of God in its triadic interaction of, in this order, community, tradition, and hierarchy. To understand the hierarchy’s abuse of power within God’s people, we start with the New Testament from which the hierarchy claims its authority,
In Roman Catholic theology, the Pope is the heir of Peter and the bishops are the heirs of the Twelve Apostles. The Cardinals or Princes of the Church are not mentioned in the New Testament nor is that perverse system by which a Pope appoints the Cardinals who will elect his successor;
d) many respected theologians and moralists use the Galileo image and state that we face another paradigm shift on human sexuality and natural law – we can either ignore or wish away the recent scientific research and advances or we can restart a discussion about natural law and our understanding of human sexuality;
e) Daniel Maguire, moral theologian at Marquette University, has written an excellent book on contraception and the stance of all major world religions – Humanae Vitae is the exception.
on July 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Some might be interested in a surprisingly different media report:
http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/-40th-anniversary-of-Humanae-Vitae/1217037152.html
on July 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
We can accurately say that John Allen has joined the right wing of the church. Ratzinger got to Allen. It was obvious to me at the time when Alllen wrote R’s bio that Allen was very changed. The proof of the pudding is that Allen is the only “liberal” that is allowed on right wing Catholic and Orthodox sites.
But the op-ed takes non-sequitur to another level. The Times or any English teacher, would have never accepted such an article. HV has lasted even thought rejected by 96& of Catholics? Give us a break
Of course it is not just Allen. but Neuhaus, Novak, and all the orthodox who say the same thing. I can see no reason other than their jobs, their money and their livelihood is invested in orthodoxy. HV is an utter failure. It can only be justified on authority only and even then the lack of reason makes the authority argument weak. Certainly Thomas would have thus concluded.
on July 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Bill
Why “orthodox”? That is conceding too much.
on July 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I posted a similar comment at Pontifications, but I think I’ll write it here too.
I think John Allen has become what the Romans wanted Fr. Reese to be, someone who’d put out the official positions, note somewhat criticisms of it but never criticize it directly himself.
Phillip Hedges on CSPAN last night had an interesting word for the Washingtom political media who love to be close to the centers of power and are thus influenced by them: “courtiers”
I’m sad to say that in matters Catholic, that term probably applies to John at this point.
on July 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
JA has a limited purpose in his op-ed: to inform the readers of the NYT that HV is upheld by the official RC Church as vigorously today as it was 40 years ago, and that if anything the theoretical underpinnings for HV have been strengthened rather than undermined over that period. Many people in 1968 would have predicted that HV would go the way of many pre-Vatican 2 positions, in order to sensibly orient the Vatican to the needs of modernity. That didn’t happen, but many probably don’t realize the extent to which the only response to HV has been relatively silent disobedience.
Whether JA would have been better advised to use the space allotted him for other purposes, such as to talk about the way HV has undermined the authority of the Church, and eaten away at the bond between laity and the hierarcy, because of the latter’s inability to come up with a cogent justification for birth control, is another matter. But I don’t think the article shows him up to be a courtier.
on July 28th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
It’s kind of a quaint document, presupposing as it does that Catholics bother to marry, and when they do marry, it’s in the church.
on July 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Here’s a direct question (which neither I nor John Allen get at): Does anyone think the HV teaching is wrong? (I know many can’t say publicly, for many reasons.) Or partially wrong? Or simply could have been pjrased differently?
I think the most unsettling aspect of the (purported) story of Paul’s decision was that he didn’t want to be seen as upending precedent, to put it in juridical terms. That may have been understdnable in 1968, but that was a specific time and place.
I also have to wonder about the Vatican reaffirming a teaching that it does so little to promote, especially given the spiritual sanctions one risks. The calculus doesn’t work in this equation. But I’m lousy at math…
on July 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
On Zenit, there is a really bizarre text by Steve Patton defending the position of HV on contraception. The kind of text that makes the reader want to run away from marriage…
“Yes, people do still get married, but in fewer numbers. Why? Well, one of the reasons a man and woman used to get married was to start having sex, and contraception basically removed that as a reason.”
“Widespread contraceptive practice in many cases removed another reason that has traditionally held together married couples, namely, children.”
“Once you take away one of the greatest fears of extra-marital sex — which is pregnancy — you’re going to see an increase of that activity.”
on July 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Does anyone think the HV teaching is wrong?
Of course it’s wrong!
I was just reading A Disembodied ’Theology of the Body’: John Paul II on love, sex & pleasure, by Luke Timothy Johnson, and he doesn’t leave any doubt that he thinks it is wrong.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=200
on July 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Why is it that those most visibly carrying the water for HV these days are the laity?
I don’t ever hear priests preach on HV, and those who are out there talking about it, teaching it and practicing it (obviously) are the laity.
It seems as if it is the laity – those married couples who have found the teaching to be true, not only theoretically, but in the context of their marriages and family lives – are those who are continuing to make it a viable teaching. Not priests, who run like the wind from talking about it.
And if most western Catholics violate Jesus’ sensibilities about the importance of wealth in our lives, does that make that teaching not true? How many western Catholics consciously practice radical Gospel simplicity – including readers and commenters at this blog? Does that negate the teaching?
on July 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I wonder how many couples practicing NFP “practice radical Gospel simplicity” in the rest of their lives? For that matter, it’s been a long time since any member of the hierarchy admonished me to practice radical Gospel simplicity. But it’s interesting that Elaine’s parallel rather starkly draws attention to the difference between Jesus’s teachings and those of the Church. Because I think that is at the heart of the matter: most people don’t bother with NFP quite simply because they don’t see using contraception as a moral wrong, and if you had to press them they might guess that the Church’s views have more to do with preserving Church status and power than they do with demarcating a Christian life.
And even if many couples find NFP enriching, many others do not, and the Church has never used the happiness of the former as a justification for its position, though it pretty clearly uses it as an apologia of sorts.
on July 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
David
In think most of us have concluded that the arguments that all forms and uses of contraception are wrong in themselves are as implausible as the arguments once made that all forms of usury–i.e. charging interest for making a loan–are wrong and unnatural. It is possible to learn from history.
As for unwilingness to change a teaching because it might cause scandal and injure the repuyation of the papacy, look at the Galileo case. How long did it take? And I think John Paul II even with. let us say, good intentions failed to go the whole way.
on July 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Benedict’s elaborate threads hardly exemplify evangelical simplicity; if anything they recall Renaissance decadence.
on July 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I think Bob and Bill are right about Allen. His op-ed piece begins by invoking as straw-man the kind of commentator whose predicted forty years ago that the teaching in Humanae Vitae would not only “collapse under its own weight, but it might well bring the ‘monarchical papacy’ down with it.” The piece says little more than that such forecasts “badly underestimated the capacity of the Catholic Church to resist change and to stand its ground.”
As has become his habit, Allen dances very carefully on his high-wire here, careful to say nothing that will displease his contacts in Rome– or stretch ttoo far the considerable patience of his friends in Kansas City. But it is a tough act to pull off, and along the way there are a few shaky moments.
What could it possibly mean to say, as he does, that the future of Humanae Vitae “as the teaching of the Catholic Church seems secure, even if it will also continue to be the most widely flouted injunction of the church at the level of practice?” His sweet “nutshell” summary of Humanae Vitae, as saying “that the twin functions of marriage—to foster love between the partners and to be open to children—are so closely related as to be inseparable” would lead no one to understand why educated young Catholics in 1968 were stunned and scandalized by the Encyclical’s inept handling of natural law ethics. And then there is his notion that John Paul II’s rhetorical flights and mystifications “provided a deeper theological basis for traditional sexual morality” and a “more formidable set of resources” than formerly available to defend Humanae Vitae, a document he sees as possessing “surprising resilience.”
A much more serious and compelling approach to a forty-year assessment is to be found in 26 July’s “Tablet,” a special issue focusing on “Sex Love & the Modern Catholic.” Its editorial, “ Birth Control and Belief” is available free on their website. But the issue also includes a special section (unfortunately only available to subscribers) with articles from a range of perspectives. The authors have not been invited to hedge their bets or play the “courtier.” Among them Don’t miss the Tablet Poll, David Lodge’s reflections on “sex and sin in the 1970s,” and a short but pithy article by Charles Curran.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/issues/1000110/
on July 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Elaine, I think the principal difference between Jesus’ teaching on living a life of radical simplicity is that the church has never declared that those who do not do so are committing an intrinsically immoral act. (Perhaps the church shuld do so; now that would be interesting.)
This is perhaps a sophomoric observation, but one objection I’ve never been able to get out of my head–and one that others often raise–is the idea that with contraception, the goal is to be able to have sex without having children and to control family size. And with NFP and its church-approved cousins, the goal is to be able to have sex and to control family size. Er…
In any case, it all makes it about mechanisms–I guess what Luke Johnson was saying–rather than intentions. I recall our great horror and amusement while covering the Vatican and someone in the curia came up with the solution for men who had to donate semen for a fertility test, but of course could not masturbate in a doctor’s office. So the monsignor poisted that a condom with a pinhole at the end could be used during intercourse to collect the sample, which I assume would then be rushed by courier to the lab.
It’s the kind of thing that makes people cringe and laugh, but it gets at the Rube Goldberg nature of such theorizing.
on July 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I admit to being conflicted about HV for several reasons, not the least of which is that my spouse is a non-Catholic, and her religious tradition does not proscribe artificial contraception that prevents fertilization.
Over at the Mirror of Justice blog, Fr. Robert Araujo, Jesuit priest and law professor, has a defense of HV. (If I remember correctly, I think David Gibson alludes to Fr. Araujo’s post in his Pontifications blog.)
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/ (Scroll down to “Humanae Vitae: the “untold story”)
Whether convinced or not by Fr. Araujo’s defense of the encyclical, he has a good idea: take up the document and read it. I confess to never having done that, but I plan to.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
on July 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
David,
HV could have been phrased better. On the other hand, it couldn’t be phrased better, then. As usual in Church history, the correctness of the theology of HV was first a matter of instinct, and only later could be (will be) explained fully.
But perhaps the problem is not one of explanation but of timing. There was a year–so I understand–when no teaching was given and pastors were left on their own to counsel their people. It was rather an interesting year, too, when the word “conscience” often meant “rebellion,” for better or worse. It was a year of sex, the summer of love. Can you leave people to do as they please for a year, and then impose a strict discipline that no one understands? Maybe for some activities. In 1959, you probably could even with sex. According to my mom, married in 1963 (I’m one of six) it was “rhythm or nothin’.”
on July 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I do think Father Araujo’s post is interesting, and I must confess to finding much that must be contended with in the encylical. I don’t think the tyeaching can be dismissed out of hand as “silly,” but then again I don’t think that’s how Catholics approach it. I think that’s how they are caricatured as apporaching it.
I was too snarky by half above (not unusual) in that searching around I realized that the perforated condom idea is an intrinsic part of the GIFT procedure for inferitlity. But again, that whole procedure–what I know of it–seems millimeters away from IVF and as “artificial” as anything else that has been condemend. I think it is as disconnected from the ideal conjugal act as artifical contraception, and it is in these disconnects that the church gets tripped up.
on July 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Is HV wrong?
I don’t think of it it terms of being wrong; I think of it as a kind of ideal that is extremely hard to live up to at all times, at all ages, and in all states of health. Many of us have not been perfectly faith to it. We confess and try to do better.
I don’t want to sound like I’m pushing a “no harm done” attitude, but perspective on these things helps.
If Our Lord can forgive Peter’s denial of him on the night He was arrested, He can probably forgive a woman at age 45 at the end of her tether with eight kids and a husband who wants to be “spontaneous,” or a woman of 25 who has a heart condition that another pregnancy would worsen, or a woman age 35 who is taking medication that would cause birth defects.
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I ask the following in all seriousness and with a sense of genuine curiosity: what exactly is so difficult about not using birth control? My wife and I have been married eight years and have never used birth control. We have practiced NFP for a short period. We’re definitely big believers in theology of the body, but mostly because we found it so compelling when we read it, and not because of the arguments from authority (I don’t know that I’m qualified to adjudicate those). We have definitely found it incredibly enriching to our marriage, and if humanae vitae was “repealed” tomorrow we wouldn’t change our practice. More than that, we find it almost impossible to even consider changing the practice — it would be like switching from Abbey Ales to Bud Lite (terrible analogy, but there you go). As a result, I genuinely find myself puzzled whenever I hear about these difficulties for married couples. Don’t get me wrong, I get Jean Raber’s example above about the 45 year old woman with eight kids, etc., Those are hard cases, so I’d prefer to put them aside right now (not that they are not worth discussing). The vast majority of Catholics using contraception (which are the ones I’m interested in for present purposes), so far as I can tell, aren’t having anything near 8 kids. And if anything they seem more likely to me to be well off suburbanites (certainly more well off than we are). So, in all seriousness, what is so difficult about it? I’m genuinely open to hearing the other side, and would like to understand it (frankly, it’s relevant to how I catechize my own kids). I should add this — what I generally hear when people see a big family are comments about money/finances (usually from well-off folks). It’s not just money is it?
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ha! Just to be clear, when I say it’s relevant to how I catechize my own kids, I don’t mean so I can innoculate them against the opposition! Quite the contrary. I want to understand the issue when it comes up, i.e. what is at stake and where people stand, etc. :)
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I took a pounding over on Vox-Nova because I suggested the Church could (and should) accept the use of condoms by married couples when one partner is infected by HIV and the other is not. (A Vatican study has been completed on the matter, but I have no idea when or if a conclusion will be announced.) As one example, I pointed out that in Sub-Saharan Africa, a large number of women (over 40 percent) are married before the age of 18 to older men, many of whom frequent prostitutes and are infected. The odds that the husbands can be persuaded to use condoms don’t seem particularly good, but I can only assume that they are better than the odds that the husbands can be persuaded to opt for abstinence.
But noooo! That would be contraception, and contraception is intrinsically evil, and an evil act may never be committed even to achieve a good end. “Are you a paid shill for Trojan,” someone asked, “or do you do this stuff for free?” I am quite convinced that condoms to prevent HIV transmission under these circumstances can be justified by the same kind of reasoning that permits life-saving intervention in ectopic pregnancies. But it strikes me that those who support Humanae Vitae are sometimes not altogether rational. Kathy says above, “As usual in Church history, the correctness of the theology of HV was first a matter of instinct, and only later could be (will be) explained fully.” But what about those whose instinct tells them something else? Dissent is acceptable, as I understand it, with a good deal of study and prayer. But how do you study something in depth that has been promulgated based on instinct?
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
May I register my surprise that he dread word – chastity – is not mentioned in any of the commentaries? Nor that other dread word – celibacy?.
Are we to believe that our priests and nuns are sterile?
I have read that some young fathers lament the difficulty of having many children. Overlooked I believe is the certain boastfulness underlying that lamentation, a pride in one’s masculinity.
The pride in the womanly breast of having a brood is not to be missed. They do tend to lord it over other women.
Even Margaret Sanger boasted that her mother had 11 or 12 living children.
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I don’t think HV was wrong. But as I tried, poorly, to allude to in my previous post here, I think the church has much larger problems and trends to deal with around marriage before it can even get to conjugal sex.
Marriage as a sacramental institution, while not positively collapsing, is nonetheless in significant decline. I recall our archdiocesan marriage director reporting a couple of years ago that church and church-sanctioned weddings are down something like 25% from a generation ago. This while the church overall has been growing and, in some areas, getting younger.
Even annulment applications are down. That sounds like it might be good news, but it’s not: the archdiocesan office believes those numbers are down simply because (a) fewer Catholics are getting married at all; and (b) those who do get married don’t particularly care about being married, or remarried, in the church.
I’d think that any young adult, or anyone who has siblings, children or grandchildren who are young adults, or works with or ministers to young adults, would find my observations here to be unremarkable.
Folks, this is the biggest issue around marriage in the church today – the fact that marriage itself, under the church’s mantle, no longer is a given. All of the other serious and complex church issues around marriage – artificial birth control, annulments, homosexual marriage, and the rest – are not as important as this.
Let’s get people married, sacramentally when possible. Then we can drill down on how they’re comsummating.
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
One unmentioned aspect in the decline of number of Catholics [lege practicing Catholics] is certainly the decline in devotions. Where are the sodalities of yesteryear? Where the Holy Name Society? Where the processions? I suspect that this is caused by embarrassment at being thought “superstitious” by the surrounding [formerly Protestant] ambience. “What will my friends at the NYTimes think?”.
Dorothy L. Sayers noted that we have become too grand to ask for the intercession of saints.
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Hmm, building on my previous posts, it occurs to me that it cannot just be the money thing. It is pretty clear that Humane Vitae merely requires that couples not engage in “contraceptive sex.” Limiting family size is permitted for just reasons. So, if you have a just reason, many of which could be financial (even, say, saving up to send the kid to Catholic college), you can limit your family size. So the objection must be to NFP, i.e. to periodic abstinence, right? So what is that objection, exactly? Or is there something actually positive about contraceptive sex (which non-contraceptive sex is lacking)? Again, I honestly want to understand the position of the other side here.
on July 28th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Let’s get people married, sacramentally when possible. Then we can drill down on how they’re comsummating.
Jim,
I appreciate what you are saying, but the way I understand Catholic teachings about sexuality (including Humanae Vitae), any sex act other than one open to the transmission of life between a married man and woman is gravely sinful (intrinsically evil) and totally impermissible for any reason. It is such an extreme position, or so it seems to me, that I don’t know how it could be set aside, even if it is admitted that there are more urgent matters. And of course Humanae Vitae itself sees the other issues you point out as the result of the use of contraception, so in some sense, it seems like contraception is the issue.
on July 28th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Brandon: NFP has an unacceptably high failure rate. There are lots of people walking around who are the product of NFP–although the number keeps getting lower, as they die off and are not replaced.
But there’s also the larger problem about the way the Church treats sex, of which HV just screams out as the warning signal to young couples: “don’t listen to those old celibates on such matters”.
on July 28th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Brandon,
I know that my father, who was not Catholic, considered the “rhythm method” a trial, but he put up with it because he was a good husband, not because it made any sense to him.
There’s a great quote from Fran Lebowitz: “Spilling your guts is exactly as attractive as it sounds.” I suspect many people are reluctant to say, “I find NFP difficult because . . . .” The reasons may be extremely personal. Do you assume your experience with your wife is typical? Do you think that some people might have much stronger sexual urges than you? (These are rhetorical questions, by the way!)
on July 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
A number have counseled a re-reading and pondering of the Encyclical on the occasion of this 40th anniversary.
When it appeared I was only 3 years ordained, and was the only priest at More House, the Catholic chapel at Yale (the chaplain being on vacation). On three successive Sundays a large group met to consider prayerfully the teaching. There were, of course, a variety of views, but expressed with respect and concern by couples committed to the union of the unitive and procreative dimensions of marriage.
Over the years, I have been helped by a number of married couples to rediscover the beauty and the pastoral sensitivity of Paul VI’s letter.
One point — upon which I can stand corrected. I do not believe the Encyclical employs the terms “intrinsically evil” or “gravely sinful” with regard to the use of artificial contraception in the context of sacramental marriage.
In paragraph 14 the Latin phrase is “intrinsice inhonestum” (which the Italian renders as “intrinsicamente non onesto,” and the English as “intrinsically wrong”).
For a careful study of the sense of the phrase I can recommend Frans van Beeck’s God Encountered, vol II, part IVB, pp. 270-289 — though I realize the book is not on everyone’s night table!
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Ken: Thanks for the reply. My understanding is that NFP has a very low “failure” rate. I assume most folks know this nowadays, but it’s not the “rythm” method. The American Pregnancy Association says NFP is 90% “effective.” I know some secular folk who use it because they don’t like the artificiality of contraception (kind of along the same lines as some of the organic food arguments). I’m not sure what the larger problem is about the way the Church treats sex, so I can’t respond on that. We’re a young couple, and HV did not scream anything to us about “old celibates.” (HV predated us by a decade, so our encounter was mostly with theology of the body). Actually, the old celibates we knew pretty much screamed against humanae vitae. I’ve rarely heard an old celibate say anything positive about humane vitae. Most folks we know who speak positively about it are young married couples.
David: Insofar as “rythym method” is being used to refer to NFP, I agree it’s a “trial” in a certain sense. But, like many trials, we found it very rewarding (and, for what it’s worth, not having sex when one wants to is always a trial, even if it’s because of a “headache”, but that doesn’t mean one should have sex whenever one wants to). Needless to say, I’m not asking anyone to get extremely personal. I didn’t really think of that. I don’t assume my experience with my wife is typical, but what I relate is typical of what every other young married couple I know who is practicing theology of the body says. It doesn’t mean there is nothing difficult about it, just that it is deeply rewarding, including on a sexual level. Although I’m tempted, I can’t say more, or answer your second question, on a blog.
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I’m not sure if anyone is still interested in the thread, but I thought i’d through two facts into the discussion that you can make of what you will.
First, let us assume that it is true that only 5% of Cathlolics agree with the Church’s teaching. You do realize that constitutes a population of 3.3 Million people don’t you? That’s more people than are members of the Episcopalians, Prebyterians, Missouri-Synod Lutherans, Jehovas Witnesses, United Church of Christ, and a handful of others. In fact, this group of morally observant Catholics, if culled for the purposes of statistical analysis, would be about the 8th largest “denomination” in the US.
Now I realize there are lies, damn lies and statistics, and I don’t know what the actual count would be, but if I accept your 5%, then you would seem to be obliged to accept that 5% isn’t a small number in real terms.
Second, I might just suggest that those who rely on this statistic are being just a touch hypocritical when they are all too ready to argue that the voice of homosexual persons, who according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood), constitute only 1.1% of the population–and presumably also people in the Church. Why should we be more sensitive to the voices of 1.1% than we are to 5%?
Of course, I think that all people should be heard, but then, I am not interested in shouting down the side I disagree with by marginalizing their experience.
Whatever legitimate arguments one could attempt against HV, those who use this tired old statistic as a way of arguing against HV really ought to be ashamed of themselves and reflect on what other favored group of theirs might be discounted if the Church took their argument seriously.
God Bless,
Greg Popcak
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
HV ought to have been followed up with a worldwide catchetical program. But mobilization was, at that moment, impossible.
I believe there was a Polish bishop who did a media blitz, though…
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
David Nickol: Where on Vox Nova were you getting pounded? I’d like to check out the thread, because the issue of condom use to prevent HIV transmission from a spouse was still a very open question, I thought. (And what about that story of church authorities distributing the Pill to a convent in the Balkans when an attack seemed imminent? Was that apocryphal?)
Brandon, I’ll be so bold to ask–you brought it up, that’s my defense–but how old are you and how many kids do you have?
Bob Imbelli: Thanks for the Latin reference. Quick folo: How then do you characterize (as a priest, to a pentitent, or even to me on the blog), in terms of sin, the use of contraception?
Jim Pauwels: I am very much with you on the much larger crisis of marriage, and its priority. (A tribunal judge I know was recently relating the astonishing falloff in annulment applications–for the reasons you cited.) But many would link the two issues–contraception and the marriage crisis–intriniscallyy, let us say.
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Fr. Imbelli,
You are correct. I can’t find “intrinsically evil” in Humanae Vitae, although this passage, among others, comes very close:
However, this passage from 2370 of the Catechism is quoting from HV:
on July 28th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
David Gibson:
This link will take you to the discussion, which was about the First Things article titled “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae.”
http://vox-nova.com/2008/07/18/the-vindication-of-humanae-vitae/#comments
on July 28th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
David: 31 (sigh), three kids so far — youngest is just barely one year old. I assume another one will come along at some point in the relatively near future. But I want to be clear on something: I don’t think HV obligates you to have as many kids as you can. If I’m not mistaken, family size can be limited for “just” reasons under HV. “Just” does not mean “grave.” I’ll leave it at that because I don’t want to change the debate to what constitutes “just” reasons — but I am quite confident that they can be something well short of, say, bodily injury or abject poverty. Emotional reasons, financial reasons, the existing children’s education, reasons of calling, etc. all might provide just reasons. I don’t see any reason to think that God calls most Catholics to have eight (or even six or even four, for all I know) kids. The crucial issue with HV and TOB is not necessarily big families, but contraceptive sex. Or that’s my understanding anyway.
on July 28th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Thank God I became a Catholic as an old lady. It is easy to overlook this one, except I suppose when I have to explain it to my non-Catholic friends. B16 hates moral relativism, but it is things like HV that make on wonder about everything else that comes from the “hierarchy especially if they are not things that Christ spoke about directly. If using contraception is a mortal sin, what is pedophilia? Very confusing to non-Catholics.
on July 28th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Maybe a listing will give more light than extensive reasoning.
1. The person is right who wrote that priests and hierarchy do not push HV. The reason is they cannot explain it, nor do they believe it, and refer weakly to the so-called “internal forum” where the confessor forgives the married sinner who will try her best not to be contraceptive in the future.
2. The reason is that Paul VI was convinced to not approve his commission on birth control because he bought the argument that to reverse on contraceptives would be to impair the infallibility of the hierarchy.
3. The irony is that HV did more to destroy the notion of infallibility than anything up to that point. (Let it be known that infallibility was unheard of until the 12th century)
4. Rome’s preoccupation with sexual sins is a reflexion of its following the stoics rather than Jesus. (What was Jesus doing making an Apostle out of a woman who had five husbands?)
5. The proclamation of Jesus is the Sermon on the Mount. The sin of bishops and priests is they consider the Beatitudes as advisory rather than mandatory. Sex is sinful but killing your brother to make him a Catholic can be laudatory.
6. Augustine said that we can use force to coerce someone to be a Catholic. ..nisi hoc terrore perculisi — under the terror of this danger—Augustine on saying that many Donatist would not have changed their minds unless they were forced (under the terror of this danger). Ep93.5.17
7. So we can be violent but not enjoy sex. And Augustine clearly said that it is a sin to enjoy sex in marriage.
8. Only in the last fifty years have we begun to change the belief that unbaptized children go to hell.
9. ETC…
So Humanae Vitae is wrong. And hierarchs are more stoics (for others) than Christian. HV was a political decision.
on July 28th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
“First, let us assume that it is true that only 5% of Cathlolics agree with the Church’s teaching. You do realize that constitutes a population of 3.3 Million people don’t you? That’s more people than are members of the Episcopalians, Prebyterians, Missouri-Synod Lutherans, Jehovas Witnesses, United Church of Christ, and a handful of others. In fact, this group of morally observant Catholics, if culled for the purposes of statistical analysis, would be about the 8th largest “denomination” in the US.”
Mr. Popcak,
As a 77 year old spinster of this parish, so to speak, I must tell you that I find your use of the term “morally observant Catholics” in this context highly offensive. Obviously, it is not directed at me, but in effect it implies that many of the people of integrity whom I know and admire are “mporally inobservant Catholics”.
You seem to think that only those Catholics who follow the teachings of the current popes are “morally observant”, as if they are the only virtuous Catholics. However, if you knew more history of the Church perhaps you might realize that the teaching concerning the use of contraception has *not* been promulgated ex cathedra, so that those who, having studied the question in depth and having come to a different conclusion than yours are not “morally inobservant”.
on July 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I’m writing a piece right now on some new techniques for preserving fertility for cancer patients whose prospects for having children are significantly diminished by their cancer treatment. This seems pretty far removed from HV, but the teaching in HV bears directly on whether these techniques will be found to be acceptable. Alas, despite the many fine things in HV, its central commitment to the inseparable connection between sex and procreation in every act of sexual intercourse is, in my view, deeply flawed and it is a mistake that haunts Catholic teaching on both contraception and assisted reproduction.
on July 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Grant: Would I be correct in guessing that taking on the moral status of “contraceptive” sex is beyond the bounds of this discussion? The conclusion that it is bad is being rather tossed around here, and I would certainly value the chance to challenge that conclusion. But, of course, there are many things in life that I would enjoy and will simply have to deny myself. I suppose you could call it ethical abstinence.
on July 29th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Brandon: I, too, know a non-Christian couple who used NFP because they didn’t like the artificiality of contraception. The result: three abortions…
Also, I agree with David Nickol that NFP is not for everyone. And what is the failure rate of “almost NFP” – say, willing but imperfect couples who mostly do NFP, with occasional exceptions?
“What is so difficult about not using birth control” (at all): the world population, currently at 6.68 billion, and expected to grow to 9 billion by 2040. It is depleting the global natural resources and damaging the environment. We have the moral obligation to consider how much population the world can sustain.
Gregory Popcak: let’s take this figure of 5%. But the Tablet survey is for Mass-going Catholics, which would be only about 31% of the 66 million Catholics in the US, so that gives only 1 million people, not 3.3 millions.
on July 29th, 2008 at 8:03 am
The Times report on the Tablet survey notes that about half those responding have never even heard of Humana Vitae, though they do know the “rule” about no birth control.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4393251.ece
You don’t need to raise your hands, as I tell my students when I ask them how many did their homework, but how many here have actually read HV?
And does reading it make a difference in the way you might think about life, family planning and marriage?
on July 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
The failure of leadership is that the discussion is more about birth control and abortion than the Sermon on the Mount. More about control than the Spirit, more orthodoxy than orthopraxy, more domination than proclamation.
Why don’t we focus on the facts and face it that the 4th century triumphant boys corrupted things pretty badly?
on July 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Greg,
Ordinarily the number of people who accept or reject something would be no proof of its truth or falsity, but in Catholicism there is the concept of sensus fidelium, which some argue makes relevant how many Catholics accept Humanae Vitae.
on July 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am
This post is in part a respectful response to Brandon and some musings of my own on the topic, with which I have some personal experience.
I’m beginning to wonder whether it wouldn’t be helpful to view the church’s ban on artificial contraception in the same way that the church views capital punishment. As I read the catechism, the argument seems to be that the execution of criminals is not a good thing but needs to be tolerated in instances where there is no other way to protect the common good. A concession is made to the “facts on the ground,” the real-life situation of different societies and different historical situations.
Similarly, NFP may well be the best way to preserve the link between the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. But there are some families for whom NFP does not work—mine included. We are on our sixth pregnancy, four of which were unintended despite our willing acceptance of the principles of HV and our faithful, rigorous practice of NFP (both the Billings and the Marquette methods).
Would it be thinkable, in cases like ours, that artificial contraception should be considered permissible by the powers that be? At least until a more reliable way of natural family planning can be devised (if it exists at all). After all, the “common good” of my family is at stake.
Mind you, ours is not a hopeless situation, even though it has its challenges. We’re doing okay with the resources God has given us. And when things get tight–either in terms of our finances or our sanity–all I have to do is take a deep breath and look at my five beautiful children and consider the faith and love of my wife. Looking at my bank account, well that’s another story. . .
Jean: Both my wife and I have read HV—although that was six children ago. We found the teaching beautiful, demanding, and reasonable. That’s why we decided to embrace it when we got married. But our other “embraces” have brought us to the conclusion that as beautiful and reasonable as the teaching is, it is but one of many teachings that we must consider as we decide how we are going to live out our faith. We are also convinced that it should not be the lens through which the entire gospel should be viewed—no matter what Christopher West and his cohort say.
on July 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Jean,
I am in the process of reading HV, and based on what I have read, I am once again in agreement with Luke Timothy Johnson (see the long quote below regarding John Paul II’s talks on the theology of the body). Think of the best things you have read about love (say, a novel or a poem), and then think of Humanae Vitae. It’s just so incredibly abstract and so far removed from real experience. You get the feeling reading official Catholic pronouncements on sexuality that you need multiple degrees in philosophy and theology to really appreciate and enjoy what you do in the bedroom.
Also, the more I read along these lines, the more it seems marriage is what we used to call a “near occasion of sin.” Catholic married couples who are sexually adventuresome enough to want to do things that are considered perfectly acceptable, healthy, and normal nowadays (such as oral sex) are flirting with mortal sin every time they climb in bed.
on July 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Reread HV this morning and spent 90 or so minutes crafting a reply, a reply that was wiped out when I tried to post it. Perhaps this was divine intervention, so I will simply say that the text is loaded with assertions and non sequiturs, not arguments, and leave it at that.
on July 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Claire: Surgical intervention hardly seems more “natural” than contraception, so that story doesn’t make sense to me. If your friends were cool with surgical intervention, why not a vasectomy or tubal ligation?
Mark: Thanks very much for your reply. I take what you say seriously. Speaking honestly for myself, and hopefully respectfully, if I found myself in that situation I think I would either (a) go with it and trust God to provide, or (b) abstain perpetually, if necessary. I don’t say that easily, and with full knowledge that I have not been there, have only three children now, etc. Please don’t take this as my presuming to tell you what you should do — but that is my instinct. Needless to say, (a) can look either like heroic trust in providence or irresponsibility, and (b) involves foregoing tremendous goods to avoid evil. If I were in that situation, I think I would go with assuming I was called to have a big family — but again, I don’t mean to say that flippantly. I should also note that part of what makes it so difficult to have a big family is the lack of support from other Catholics. There are lots of two kid Catholics with huge houses, nice cars, etc. at their suburban parishes who couldn’t be bothered with actually helping the family in your situation, in part because they reject humane vitae and think you’re crazy. Again, I don’t say any of this lightly, and I am fully aware that looking at these issues in your situation means looking at them with an immediacy that is not mine right now — I don’t presume to tell you how you ought to approach this. At bottom, I just don’t think I could avoid feeling like I was using my wife if we used contraception. Does that sound crazy to you, in your situation?
David: On your last post — I don’t really get that. I don’t see a lack of adventure at all. Heck, Wotlya practically mandates female orgasm in Love and Responsibility (which, needless to say, can involve some significant creativity), and “oral sex” is fine so long as it is part of an act that is consumated in the marital embrace.
on July 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
These posts are heating up to the point that my internet filter may not allow me onto this site anymore…
But before I am bumped off, let me digress: Brandon (et al)–How is trying not to conceive with NFP different from trying not to conceive with contraception?
PS: Mazel tov on the kids and fun fecundity. As a late bloomer in both areas, I (and my aching back) can recommend early procreation, if possible.
on July 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Brandon: Should you wish to reply to David’s question, I would be grateful to know what you take to be the three or so most important arguments against the use of contraception, but perhaps such a request is asking too much.
on July 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
David: I agree. It’s very easy to veer into too much information when discussing this topic. I apologize if I have offended anyone. I’m a child of my age in terms of my lack of inhibition in discussing these topics. Not always good, and sometimes embarassing later.
David and Joe: I don’t think it is asking too much to ask me to give those arguments, but I honestly don’t have time to do so right now! I need to work! I can tell you this — the standard literature, as you may know, tends to be HV, TOB, John Finnis and Joseph Boyle and company, Janet Smith, Chris West, G.E.M. Anscombe, and a few others. Most people who embrace HV find some of those folks and their arguments persuasive, and others less so. I will try to get my three best arguments down on paper later, if I can. I should also say that, at least for me, although I get the arguments (and tend to be attracted to those put forward by the lawyers, which are actually the most “dry”, as it were), my reasons for embracing HV/TOB are honestly in many respects experiential. It really has been incredibly fulfilling and wonderful and exciting and beautiful to do so (again, not that it’s not hard sometimes). I honestly can’t imagine it any other way now — which brings me to my last point — in one of my posts before I said I couldn’t imaging using contraception because I would feel like I was using my wife. That was poorly put, and perhaps implies things that I by no means wish to imply about folks who use contraception. What I was trying to say, in brief, is similar to what I just said — I can’t imagine sex, exactly in terms of how great sex is, in any other way than in concord with HV/TOB (at least as I understand them). Again, it seems to me like it would be like going from an Abbey Ale to Bud Light, or from a great cup of coffee to nescafe. It’s more than that of course, but that gets at some of it. Taking the analogy way too far — you can get a good buzz from Bud Light, but it’s not beer, really. You can get a good buzz from an Abbey Ale too, and the Abbey Ale is also beautiful, even art. Oenophiles can sub in wine here. I realize this isn’t an argument (so please don’t poke holes in my analogy), and it especially doesn’t address some of the NFP failure issues, if they are there. Oh yeah, on that note, I checked, and according to that same American Pregnancy Association, NFP practiced rigorously is 90% effective (I think that’s the same as a diaphragm), less rigorously tends to be 75%.
on July 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Could you imagine having this type of conversation relating to money? The early church took a very strict attitude towards money. Over time, that attitude changed, so that now one has a hard time explaining to the observant capitalist how much of anything done to make money that does not involve outright lying and cheating can be wrong.
Hundreds of years from now, if there still is a Catholic Church (5-10% acceptance of a central teaching does not bode well), people will look back on the Church’s sexual teachings the way today we look on ancient church rules relating to usury and other matters. (Of course there may be interesting unforseen consequences. Some scientists find evidence of higher average IQ in the population of European Jews, which they connect to the opportunities and restrictions for Jewish employment, including those relating to usury laws. Who knows what the effect of different birth control practices will be over time in the genetic make-up of different populations.
on July 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“I should also note that part of what makes it so difficult to have a big family is the lack of support from other Catholics. There are lots of two kid Catholics with huge houses, nice cars, etc. at their suburban parishes who couldn’t be bothered with actually helping the family in your situation, in part because they reject humane vitae and think you’re crazy.”
Brandon,
Let me say that I appreciate your considerate dialogue. While I disagree with you on birth control, I do agree that an atmosphere of selfishness has smeared the efforts of good Catholics who have genuine problems with raising a family. Criticizing people who choose to have larger families is unacceptable as is condemning a person following his conscience.
I wonder whether the incredible fulfillment you and your wife experience is due to the fact that you are both generous and giving persons rather than any connection with HV or TOB. You might find the books on marriage by Bernard Haring uplifting also.
Your spirit comes through which in the final analysis is most important. You are the kind of person who belongs in Common Ground.
on July 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I am also surprised in the discussions about this topic, how little God is mentioned. We do believe – do we not? – that we are engaged in pro-creation; that it is God Who makes the souls of the children. I have read – perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere -, that it is would be imprudent to have a large family. Is this not a sign, as D.L. Sayers said of C.S. Lewis, “you religious people have so little trust in God”.
Anent the “command” to increase and multiply, my Bible notes that this not a command [as some Protestant authorities would have it] but a blessing. It was also said of the birds of the air and animals of the field who cannot receive a command.
How many parents of large families regret one or other of the children? There is something, to my mind, a tad dainty about those who in their comfortable circumstances lament the number of children, thinking of their grandparents who may have lived in slums and yet had no qualms about the number of children. Might it be that the great outcry from the Rich World about “Overpopulation” in the Poor World has a strong element of jealousy?
on July 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Brandon:
Don’t worry, I’m not offended by your words, and if there is any presumptuousness in them, I would be inclined to chalk it up to relative youth. At the age of 31, everything seems possible. But when you have passed the age of 45, as I have done, things take on a different perspective.
“Go with it and trust God to provide” has been our response to this point. And for the most part, God’s been pretty good at upholding his part of the bargain. As for perpetual abstention, that seems oxymoronic when it comes to the married state. There are, of course, those few who feel called to a “white marriage,” but that’s not us. (BTW, it’s interesting that a sexless marriage would be called white instead of drab grey or even black. Gives some sense of how sex was viewed whenever that term was coined—and how it’s viewed today.)
As for your indictment of parishioners with fewer kids, nicer cars, and bigger houses: I am tempted to agree, but then I realize that as a whole, my family is not their concern–at least not in terms of helping us with our kids. Of course, if we were living in apostolic times, things would be different (Acts 2:42 and all that), but that’s not where things are at. We have a circle of friends where mutual support is gladly offered and gratefully accepted–but never expected or demanded. I wouldn’t want it any other way, either.
On another note: Only a 90% success rate? That’s a significantly lower than the 98% statistic that is often quoted in diocesan material and TOB literature. Anyone care to venture a guess as to why? Are there other organizations out there with different studies producing different statistics?
David Gibson, I second your observation about aching backs and early procreation. My marriage, too, is a late vocation, and having six children in the course of ten years opens up its own set of adventures. My chiropractor has become a good friend!
on July 29th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
It’s a long way from praising large families (I am one of 6 kids and I think they’re great) to pronouncing mortal sin on all manner of things relating to sex.
There are lots of creatures that have many children, only a handful of whom live to adulthood. Once it was thus for humans, but outside the third world those days are long past. And a man could be expected to live only to his mid-forties, assuming he survived infancy. Those days are long past also, outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
on July 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Suggestions and images from Mr. Lauritzen and Mr. Jameson might help address Fr. Imbelli’s question about HV. My earlier post was way too long and I apologize but the story about John Paul I would be my starting point. Unlike Fr. Imbelli, I was finishing high school seminary when HV was announced…..some of our moral theology education used Haring, Curran, etc. and the “dreaded proportionalism” that you have recently heard about in regards to reasons for clerical sexual abuse:
a) the resources would be the papal commission itself – it started with a concept of family responsibility and broadened the concept of marriage from procreative only to both unitive and procreative;
b) it posited reasons to re-look at natural law so that some birth control decisions could be seen as moral – it elevated human sexuality beyond just the animal instinct and gave a place for reasoning, conscience, context, etc.;
c) simply, the moral object (birth control) must be considered in the moral grounding – marriage, culture, economics, physical/psychological conditions, family support, etc.
d) after teaching natural law to high school and college students for a number of years, trying to explain and defend HV’s concept of natural law became all but impossible – it is not consistent e.g. what is the difference between using NFP and birth control; an estimated 2 out of every 3 eggs miscarry naturally; we face new challenges post HV such as HIV/AIDS, starvation, child sexual abuse, exploding populations, etc.
e) here is a link that describes the church and its changing positions – Shortcut to: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/07/the-manifest-blessings-of-wome.html
f) respect the thinking of Janet Smith, JPII Theology of the Body but, to refer back to my story about JPI, not sure that setting the bar that high works – in fact, many folks have medical and physical reasons that make NPR impossible.
on July 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Brandon: sure, I agree with you, contraception is vastly better than NFP+abortions. I think that a couple should only use NFP if they are ready for the risk that it might fail, and would be willing to accept the pregnancy in that case. Otherwise, if they are really really not ready to cope with an unexpected pregnancy, it is much better for them to use contraception (or tube ligation). The failure rate of NFP is just too high.
on July 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Gabriel: I agree that one gets the sense that some wealthy parents choose to have few children so as to preserve their comfortable way of life, and use overpopulation as an excuse. Still, overpopulation is a very serious concern. Pope Benedict, who has been talking about the ethics of stewardship and preservation of the environment for future generations, might address that concern some day. (Living frugally is only a temporary solution: if the population keeps doubling, it only postpones the problem by a few decades at best.) I will be interested in hearing his take on the issue!
on July 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I have never heard anyone justify the small size of their family in terms of world overpopulation. The connection is so obviously too tenuous.
By the way, Brandon, as an example of benighted sex teachings, what about artificial insemination? Another teaching of the Church that will not hold up over time, since it causes real, observable pain despite being based on extremely metaphysical objections.
on July 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Back to the start: Allen lays out that the official position hasn’t changed despite lots of opposition from the non-hierarchy.
For a huge number, it lacks credibility!
That credibility gap has washed over into more conscience decisions about official positions.
There’s a clear divide on whether what’s offical equals unchangeable or true.
Folks understanding of marriage and the importance of procreation’s role therein has changed and continues to evolve: the relational aspect of marriage is surely valued more greatly than the pre-HV time.
Women’s equality has also changed the perspective on marital roles.
But we don’t want to seem to really thresh all of this out -leadership wants not to break with past tradition, no matter what,
I sense this thread could go on indefinitely with pros and cons, but no real settlement appears on the horizon – just the same divides that continue to mark the current JPII and after Church.
on July 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Brandon, just to allay concerns, no offense taken whatsoever at your disclosures/language. Envy, perhaps. But no offense.
on July 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“I appreciate what you are saying, but the way I understand Catholic teachings about sexuality (including Humanae Vitae), any sex act other than one open to the transmission of life between a married man and woman is gravely sinful (intrinsically evil) and totally impermissible for any reason. It is such an extreme position, or so it seems to me, that I don’t know how it could be set aside, even if it is admitted that there are more urgent matters. And of course Humanae Vitae itself sees the other issues you point out as the result of the use of contraception, so in some sense, it seems like contraception is the issue.”
Hi, David N., you’re right that the greater importance of other issues doesn’t make the problems of HV disappear.
Fr. Imbelli alluded to this to some extent, but I’d also like to pick up on it: saying something is intrinsically evil is not the same as saying it is gravely evil. Gravity and instrinsicity (if that’s a word) are two different dimensions, i.e. something could be grave but not intrinsic; intrinsic but not grave; both grave and intrinsic; etc.
So, how big of a sin is it that a married couple contracepts? I don’t think it’s possible to give an answer to that question that doesn’t take into account the circumstances of the couple. My hunch is that for many/most couples, culpability is minimal/non-existent, because the church teaching has been poorly explained to them, or not explained at all.
The teaching does seem extreme, doesn’t it? Yet proponents of the teaching are quick to point out that there is little that is novel about it; that if there is any novelty or genuine development in it, it is in conceding that there is a unitive aspect to marital sex; and that, while referring to as the church’s “constant teaching” may be an exaggeration, nevertheless there seems to be a well-attested continuity of teaching throughout the ages about marriage, sex and procreation. If it seems extreme to us, perhaps that’s a commentary on how disengaged our culture is from its roots.
on July 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Here’s another argument on behalf of HV and NFP: Women can pee without messing up the ecosystem:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803877.htm
LeChevallier shared the podium with Roxana U. Barillas, a domestic policy adviser at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for a discussion on “Toxins, the Environment and the Child in the Womb.” He spoke about the drastic effects that discarded contraceptive medicines and devices have been having on the nation’s water and animals, especially fish.
In a talk with the daunting title of “Endocrine Disruptions: Chemical Contraceptives in Sewage Effluents,” LeChevallier explained that like secondhand smoke, “secondhand estrogens are being released into the environment,” to devastating effect on fish, panthers, alligators and other wildlife.
He said the media “did a little bit of a disservice” to the American public when they reported earlier this year that the levels of contaminants found in drinking water could seriously harm humans.
For example, “you would have to drink 100 million gallons to get the dose found in one Tylenol,” he said.
But “the synthetic estrogen used in birth control pills can wreak havoc on the sex lives of fish,” LeChevallier said, citing reduced penis size in male fish, masculinized female fish and other sex-related changes.
Because the synthetic estrogen is not absorbed well into the body, much of the drug is released into the environment through women’s urine, he said. In addition, used contraceptive rings and patches are having a further polluting effect, he said.
on July 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“spent 90 or so minutes crafting a reply, a reply that was wiped out when I tried to post it. Perhaps this was divine intervention”
Hey, Joe, I’ve received that form of grace more than once myself. On occasion I’ve pasted my reply into MS Word before I’ve clicked the “Submit Comment” button, just to make sure it doesn’t get flushed into the ether. On other occasions I’ve breathed a sigh of relief that it didn’t make it onto the forum. :-)
on July 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“Jim Pauwels: I am very much with you on the much larger crisis of marriage, and its priority. (A tribunal judge I know was recently relating the astonishing falloff in annulment applications–for the reasons you cited.) But many would link the two issues–contraception and the marriage crisis–intriniscallyy, let us say.”
Hi, David G., yes, if I may make so bold, I think the four “prophetic predictions” of Paul VI as expounded by Mary Eberstadt in the current First Things article have not had sufficient notice paid in this forum. While it seems simplistic to say that the Pill “caused” an increase in infidelity, or the objectification of women, it seems reasonable that it has been part of the witch’s brew.
Ntw, probably not news to readers of dotCommonweal, but Archbishop Chaput wrote an essay in defense of HV ten years ago, to mark the thirty-year anniversary. Eberstadt’s recent First Things piece covers a lot of the ground that Chaput covered ten years ago. (And as a semi-frequent reader of church docs, I have to say that I find the archbishop’s vigorous prose style to be quite readable – a welcome contrast to most of what makes it from Rome to my screen.)
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/chaput.htm
on July 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
“I ask the following in all seriousness and with a sense of genuine curiosity: what exactly is so difficult about not using birth control? …The vast majority of Catholics using contraception (which are the ones I’m interested in for present purposes), so far as I can tell, aren’t having anything near 8 kids. And if anything they seem more likely to me to be well off suburbanites (certainly more well off than we are). So, in all seriousness, what is so difficult about it? I’m genuinely open to hearing the other side, and would like to understand it (frankly, it’s relevant to how I catechize my own kids). I should add this — what I generally hear when people see a big family are comments about money/finances (usually from well-off folks). It’s not just money is it?”
Hi, Brandon, I’ve appreciated your contributions to the discussion – and your advocacy of being faithful to HV.
I’ve recounted my marriage’s history with birth control here within the last two-three weeks, so no point in rehashing it all. But we did use the pill at the beginning of our marriage, so I can speak from experience. In our case, I don’t know that it was all about the money. It was more like this: we were both getting our careers launched; we both had plans to begin graduate school soon; we were very much enjoying being married to one another; and, honestly, we didn’t want kids right away. Add to all those things that we had little/no understanding of what the church taught; and as far as I know, the term “theology of the body” hadn’t been coined yet, much less expounded to the faithful (a task perhaps still needing to be done).
Don’t think we were unusual in any of these respects. We were behaving in the way that seemed natural and sensible to us. All through primary school and college, we had been pointed and groomed toward career achievement, and we had finally reached that stage of our lives and were eager to get it all underway.
Am not justifying myself in any of this. Just reporting.
on July 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Yes being faithful to the teaching authority of the Church is “quite strange” and “disappointing.” How dare John Allen Jr. be a faithful Catholic and not a dissident! Catholics obviously should not be faithful to a doctrine taught throughout the history of the Church from scripture and the Fathers of the Church. Ignore the ordinary magisterium of the Church to be fashionable.
By the way Vatican II said:
LG 25: “Religious submission of mind and and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking.”
So where the the “Religious submission of mind and will” in this comment section and on the Commonweal site? Or is it the old spirit of Vatican II and ignoring the actual text?
on July 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
So, how big of a sin is it that a married couple contracepts? I don’t think it’s possible to give an answer to that question that doesn’t take into account the circumstances of the couple.
Jim,
Maybe I am missing something, but it does seem clear to me that in its official pronouncements, the Catholic Church is intentionally saying that one contraceptive act, even by a married couple faithful in every other act and in every other way to Church teaching, is gravely evil. I personally find it difficult to believe that two married people who genuinely love each other can commit a “mortal sin” having any kind of consensual sex.
It seems to me the “open to life” criteria is made so important (even when there is absolutely no possibility of transmitting life) that sexual behavior considered normal and healthy by psychologists and doctors is categorically prohibited under pain of eternal damnation. Here’s an example: “”Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2352). Contrast that with what the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Treatment says (http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch203/ch203a.html), or with what any contemporary medical reference says.
on July 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Jeff: I read your quote (LG25) three times and I still cannot parse the grammar. What jargon!
I was just starting to have an inkling of Jim and Brandon’s viewpoint. If I am some day convinced that HV is right, it will be from witnesses who show that it is a source of growth and joy for them. They make me wonder if perhaps they have some piece of truth that I do not have, and how things would look if I just shifted perspective.
on July 29th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“Maybe I am missing something, but it does seem clear to me that in its official pronouncements, the Catholic Church is intentionally saying that one contraceptive act, even by a married couple faithful in every other act and in every other way to Church teaching, is gravely evil. I personally find it difficult to believe that two married people who genuinely love each other can commit a “mortal sin” having any kind of consensual sex. ”
Does HV say that such an act is “gravely evil”? I don’t think it says anything about the degree of evil? It seems more than possible to me that a lot of couples who contracept aren’t committing a mortal sin. (I hesitate to comment beyond that – as I said previously, I’d think one would have to consider the circumstances, examine conscience, etc.)
“It seems to me the “open to life” criteria is made so important (even when there is absolutely no possibility of transmitting life) that sexual behavior considered normal and healthy by psychologists and doctors is categorically prohibited under pain of eternal damnation. ”
One of the points of the encyclical seems to be to offer a corrective to the contemporary notion that medicine and psychology capture the totality of meaning of a couple’s conjugal relations.
on July 29th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
One of the points of the encyclical seems to be to offer a corrective to the contemporary notion that medicine and psychology capture the totality of meaning of a couple’s conjugal relations.
One of the great problems in discussing concepts like “intrinsically evil,” or “intrinsically and gravely disordered” with Catholics is that the Catholic Church has it’s own definition of what the “natural order” is. Consequently, when it is demonstrated that homosexual behavior, masturbation, and oral sex all occur naturally in the animal kingdom, it is still open to Catholics to argue that it is “unnatural” and “intrinsically disordered” because the purpose of sex is procreation, and these behaviors are nonprocreative.
Sexual reproduction has been going on for over 500 million years, and I think it is perfectly safe to assume any sexual behavior we see in nature has millions of years of history, predating the first humans. I would never argue that because a behavior occurs in nature, it is permissible for human beings to engage in it. But I fail to understand how something that occurs in nature can be “intrinsically disordered” or “unnatural.”
on July 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Curt Jester,
“So where the “Religious submission of mind and will” in this comment section and on the Commonweal site? Or is it the old spirit of Vatican II and ignoring the actual text?”
My guess the “submission of the mind and will in this comment section and on the Commonweal site” is the same place the Pope attempts his “submission of his mind and will” – THE WORD OF GOD! Hint – re-read the FIRST two chapter that precede LG 25 and/or any the BEGINNINGS of a variety of other Vatican documents – They usually start with something like: “Christ is the Light of nations” (LG), or some other reference to God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and/or the Word made Flesh – for example.
“old spirit of Vatican II”
Contrary to what many in the self-proclaimed “traditional Catholic” quarters would like others to believe – the project is far from exhausted – in fact it is experiencing a revival – may of use have come to our senses and see the importance of what our parents have contributed (and still do) to our Faith and Church.
on July 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
My last take here on the subject that will go on and on here and over at David’s site.
Jean hit on the big point – what to make of the magisterium and our relation to it.
The divide on that point will overshadow any discussion of specific non-defined teaching.
One side will see the amgisterium in its ordinary form as immutable truth.
Others will point to history and see change in teaching, note the non-infallible character of the ordinary magisterium, further note the encyclical was originally not meant to be a final statement ,and, lastly, ask what how does one submit one’s mind to what one finds incredible,not only this teaching., but others as well (e.g. women priests?)
Clearly there are significant numbers of Catholics who know and take seriously the pronouncements of the Church, but also reject them as incompatible with their thoughtful reflection.
Some will see that as a “submission of the mind,” some won’t.
Beyond that, some will also see, from JPIIon, the assertion of Magisterium with no qualification as a source of fiath as a power assertion to bring folks into a catholic identity line.
Hence, Bishop Robinson’s “questions” about power and “creeping infallibility.”
The role of the faithful and sensus fidelium will play into the discussion. as talked about here as well.
What I tried to say was that as long as the (admitted?) motivation of say Humane Vitae was to avoid change of long standing teaching, and that that outweighs all else, reasonable discussion not only of what’s taught or teaching authority itself and what it means has a difficult time moving forward
on July 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Well written and insightful summary, Bob. Now, for some levity, here is a posting from one of our American bishops describing how birth control led to the clerical sexual abuse crisis: link – Shortcut to: http://reform-network.net/?p=1865
on July 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
To folo on Bill DeHaas and Bishop Morlino, Michael Novak adverts to a similar link over at “The Catholic Thing”:
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=314&Itemid=2
“In the long years after 1968, many abuses took root in the church. Most of the Catholic West drifted away from Humanae Vitae. In all these years, I recall hearing only one sermon that presented a succinct argument against the corrosive effects of contraception, and offered a special vision of Catholic marital life.”
“Worse, far worse, many Catholic priests habituated themselves to rarely or never speaking of self-mastery. Most became reluctant to talk about sexuality at all, let alone chastity. In this darkness, a few granted themselves the same leniency their silence granted lay persons. A few brought intense public shame on the Church.”
I suspect he is talking about the Geoghans rather than the Laws.
on July 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
” “Worse, far worse, many Catholic priests habituated themselves to rarely or never speaking of self-mastery. Most became reluctant to talk about sexuality at all, let alone chastity. In this darkness, a few granted themselves the same leniency their silence granted lay persons. A few brought intense public shame on the Church.”
“I suspect he is talking about the Geoghans rather than the Laws.”
Overall, the Novak piece is pretty interesting. But regarding the portion I quoted here – I’m sorry, I don’t think it’s possible to draw a straight line from the Pill to the Geoghans of the church. For one thing, the evidence accumulated by the American bishops and others shows that abusers were active before HV, before the ’60’s happened.
It is possible that the wave of permissiveness that (I’m told – wasn’t old enough to experienece/understand it) swept over the entire culture in the ’60’s fed a particularly virulant symptom of clericalism – the closing of ranks such that priest A doesn’t blow the whistle on criminal Priest B in the same rectory.
on July 30th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Really – I only meant the link as a joke. Going back to B. Nunz’s summary – we could lay out a graph with First Things, M. Novak, etc. on one side and Concilium, H. Kung, & C. Curran on the other side each marshalling their lists of what led to what.
Sorry, but the role of a pastor (pope, council, bishops) is to challenge and respond with mercy, love, and truth. HV has not passed that test of time no matter that a minority may see some light behind it. If anything good came of it, it forced the average Catholic to grow up, move to an adult faith, and give up the comfort of a “pray, pay, and obey” church. In that adult faith, some find value in parts of HV, others reject it out of hand, others try but can not reach its goals.
By the way, pedophilia is a disease and crime…..birth control is neither. To even equate or mention them together is ridiculous but then many of our bishops have achieved that distinction.
on July 31st, 2008 at 8:02 am
I know Brandon meant it in good faith. I once asked a classmate, sincerely and without bad intent, why she took so much time out of her day to apply make up before a job interview and it’s a question I will never ask again. She wasn’t angry at me but responded as I might have to Brandon, to the effect of: “well aren’t you the lucky one to be spared such difficulties and dilemmas in your own life.”
Forgetting about whether NFP (or FAM as I like to call it) should be the only licit form of contraception, there are people for whom it makes sense and there are people for whom it does not. Why can’t we leave it at that?
on July 31st, 2008 at 11:06 am
To all the folks who replied to me — thanks. I’ve appreciated the chance to hear what you all have to say. I have more thoughts and hope to be able to post them later (especially in response to what I take as requests for arguments of a more philosophical/theological nature — which I promise I do have — but I assure you, other than the experiential aspect I alluded to earlier, they are not of my own invention and can mostly be found in one form or another in the writings I mentioned earlier). I imagine any future postings may be after this thread is long dead and gone (if it is not already). Anyway, I wanted to let you know I appreciate your taking the time (which, I bet, is in as short supply for you as it is for me).
on August 8th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Someone needs to post a new HV article – R. McCormick in the America blog. It sheds a different focus on this thread and highlights that HV is NOT about the best birth control method – artifical vs. NFP…..this thread about personal experience completely misses the point that some were trying to make.
a) serious Catholic couples all understand that sexual activity is both procreative and unitive;
b) but, the papal commission realized that science, ethics, etc. indicated that even the natural life cycle interrupted the procreative means 40-50% of the time; so, they accepted that for serious reasons a couple could use contraceptive means – interpreted as both artificial and NFP;
c) it sees HV as a flawed fearful authority declaration based on an anti-modernist interpretation of dogma & natural law that Vatican II tried to reject.
Shortcut to: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=9E09D7FF-5056-8928-101EB23080BE3B40