Posted on 08/16/2005 1:48:10 PM PDT by NYer
Having married in 1985 when both were medical students, Ann and Michael Moell had their life together planned out.
Once they established medical practices and had a big house with a sprawling back yard, they would begin to have children. Until then, Ann would take the birth-control pill.
Although both had grown up in large Catholic families in Ohio, neither was well versed or much interested in the Church’s teaching on birth regulation.
“While we were in medical school and residency, we didn’t think we had time for a child,” Ann says. “We had the American dream in mind, not just for ourselves but for the children we would have.”
Their plans began to unravel four years into the marriage, when Ann stopped taking the pill because of persistent headaches.
“Here we were, both studying medicine, and neither of us knew anything about the pill and its side effects,” she recalls. “It just isn’t a topic in medical school because the pill is assumed to be a good thing.”
They used periodic abstinence, condoms and other barrier methods but, within a year Ann became pregnant. They welcomed the child into their lives, yet continued to contracept.
After their third child arrived, Ann says, “That was it. We were still young, with three children and growing medical practices. We thought we had to do something foolproof that would keep us from having more children.”
They discussed the possibility of a vasectomy for Michael.
“We thought it would be the best thing for our family,” Michael explains.
Something happened, though, in the Moells’ pursuit of the American dream. Ann began to pray. The couple had begun attending Mass again with the birth and baptism of their first child, but they were “just doing the Catholic thing,” Michael says. “We didn’t know anything about contraception being sinful or that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. We were missing so much.”
“To actually ask God to give us an answer was something new,” Ann admits. “I was praying at Mass, ‘God, show us what to do about this issue.’ A month later, I was pregnant. It was God’s answer. It was so immediate, so direct, and I was elated. It changed our whole attitude about who was in charge of our lives and our marriage.”
They began using natural family planning, and have welcomed two more children into their lives.
But God was not finished with them yet. Ann was a family-practice physician who prescribed the pill. Michael was a pediatrician who was prescribing the pill for young girls. Someone gave them the videotape “Contraception: Why Not?” by Janet Smith. “It changed the whole direction of our practices,” Ann says. “We started looking into the side effects of the pill and I knew I had to stop prescribing.”
Now Dr. Ann Moell is a stay-at-home mother who volunteers as a prenatal-care physician at a pro-life pregnancy center in Dayton, Ohio. Michael left a pediatric partnership to open Holy Family Pediatrics, in the same building as the pregnancy center. About half his patients are pregnant teens referred by his wife. They recommend abstinence before marriage and NFP in marriage to their young patients. Many Catholic parents travel long distances to bring their children for routine care to Holy Family Pediatrics.
“This has been a huge spiritual journey as well as a growth and learning experience in proper health care,” says Ann.
“It was a huge financial leap and leap of faith, to give up the partnership and open my own medical practice,” Michael adds. “Four months after I opened the door, our fourth child was born. I was questioning God the whole way. But it’s worked out better than I could have dreamed.”
Conversion is a word Penny and John Harrison use often to describe their experience with birth control. They were married in 1983 in Penny’s Protestant church; a Catholic priest witnessed the ceremony for John, who was raised in a Catholic family.
They used various forms of contraception for the first 10 years of marriage and had two children “pre-conversion,” as John describes it.
A Catholic Marriage Encounter weekend opened Penny’s heart to the Church, and, when she decided to become a Catholic, all the assumptions of their lives were uprooted. While she was going through a parish RCIA program in their hometown of Kansas City, Mo., John began looking at his own faith and asking questions. He had no problems with the sacraments or the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but his vague knowledge of the Church’s teaching on contraception nagged at him.
When he and Penny asked a priest about the issue, “we got some confusing and unspecific answers,” John recalls. “We ultimately were told to ‘follow our conscience.’ Unfortunately, that’s the answer too many Catholic couples get today, and they’re not being told the full beauty of the truth.”
Penny entered the Church at the Easter Vigil in 1993 and shortly thereafter she and her husband went on a 10th-anniversary vacation without their two children.
“We were both very uncomfortable using contraception on that trip,” John said. “We came back and just stopped using contraception of any kind, and prayed and hoped for another child.”
Key to their decision was hearing a talk by Catholic evangelist Scott Hahn, a former Protestant minister, and reading Rome Sweet Home, in which Hahn and his wife, Kimberly, defend the Church’s teaching on contraception.
“We date our deeper conversion to the heart of the Church primarily from the fervor we took from listening to Scott Hahn’s talks,” John says.
Since their conversion, the Harrisons have had three more children, including twins in 1999.
“I come from a Protestant background where it is considered irresponsible not to practice contraception, so I’ve come a long way,” Penny says. “The problem was that when I was preparing to enter the Church, we knew what Catholics were supposed to believe but we couldn’t find any Catholics who actually lived the teaching on contraception.”
As teachers with the Couple to Couple League, which promotes NFP, John and Penny are seeing “more and more couples open to the gift of life,” she says. “I tell them that, in the Nicene Creed, we call the Holy Spirit ‘Lord and Giver of Life.’ If we take that title seriously, we cannot shut the Holy Spirit out of our marriages.”
John says he tells couples who are not particularly religious that contraception is “disrespectful to your wife’s body. You expect a woman to take these hormones that make her body think she’s pregnant just so she can be available to you sexually all the time. And it goes the other way too. Your wife expects you to put on a special device. That’s not very respectful of the man, either.”
“Love means giving your whole self to your spouse,” adds Penny. “And that’s the great gift of NFP.”
First, I am thrilled to see a Protestant (you are evidently not familiar with the Catholic Church's view on Mary's immaculacy, something we are not going to debate on this thread) posting from a pro-life position on contraception.
I am not clear what exactly youe view is. I am not in full agreement with Hermann's "social obligation" theory, so to argue that you need to wait for his reply.
Generally, Catholics do not expect the teaching to necessarily come directly and quotable from the Bible. We are content to obey the Church who has an apostolic authority to teach on any matter (something, again, better left for another thread).
Lastly, the Catholic teaching on family planning never contradicts the commandment to be fruitful. Remember, it is a distortion of the teaching to view it as a contraception method. Contraception is, of course, explicitly forbidden in the Bible through the Onan episode. NFP teaches that it is OK to abstain from sex periodically, if the commandment to be fruitful is otherwise satisfied. We see many episodes from the Bible when couples abstained form sex, for example, because they traveled or went to war. We do not have an example of a couple licitly abstaining from sex in order to not have any more children, because such desire would not manifest itself in an argicultural economy where every child is a working hand in the family enterprise. (There was, I beleive, an incident of voluntary abstinence between Jacob and Leah, but it is problematic to treat that as a positive example, -- I'll check when I find time)
We have ample advice to be chaste in the Gospel, see for example, the discourse of Jesus regarding the voluntary eunuchs, numerous references to either celibacy or marital chastity in the Epistles. Let me know if you need the verse references; most people familar with the New Testament are familiar with them.
The early church practice included chaste, and often celibate priesthood and monasticism; the early Christians prided themselves on being continent in all they did. Those you may or may not be familiar with, let me know if you need patristic references.
Generally, I think it would help if you separated in your mind issues of NFP, on which, I think, you have already gotten plenty clarification, from an overall discomfort with Catholicism, which would be a distraction on this thread. I, and others, will be happy to explain the Catholic view on the Church authority, Mary, or any other matter when the thread is appropriate for such a broad topic.
Sorry, but while you maintained a civil tone more or less until this nasty post, most advocating NFP on this thread have been insanely arrogant, condescending and supercilious (and you've betrayed a hint of it, as well).
Prolifeconservative has been attempting to explore the issue and gotten a bunch of wide-eyed "I don't understand why you don't get it!" crap in return.
Oh, as to pornographic hyperventilating? I can't wait to see your comments on the completely unnecessary post #63. Pinging the poster of the thing.
Re your post 140:
Outstandingly put! Especially here:
"However, my own experience is that folks who employ NFP are not sex-mad maniacs who are boinking 24/7 during their infertile time, and then holding on for dear life during their fertile time. LOL."
And here:
"Rather, these are usually couples who often have done a good job of integrating a morally-worthy life of physical intimacy into their overall marital relationships."
Bravo!
Dear Maximilian,
"Using NFP is comparable to getting an annulment. Both can sometimes be legitimate,..."
Then we agree that the use of NFP is not intrinsically evil, right? NFP is a moral means, apart from the question of the end.
I believe that Prolifeconservative is having problems distinguishing between moral and immoral means in this question.
Finally, I don't think that folks who employ NFP are actually employing a whole lot of NFP. Thinking in my head, I only know of two families who use NFP with fewer than five children. One of these families has only three, but the wife is, I think, 31, and I think it's likely by the time she's 40, there will be a few more.
The other is my own family, we have two sons. We're 45, I'm not sure there are any more on the way. I'm not Oprah, and I'm not on her show, so I will leave that part of the discussion at this: It wasn't our intention to have but two, but we treasure that we were permitted the two we have.
Beyond these two families, I know a few families with five, more with six, a bunch with seven, and still others with more. Some of the "smaller" families (five, six, or seven) may not be at "full strength" yet because the husband and wife aren't very old, yet.
I suspect this is a significant problem in getting others to forego artificial contraception, as they believe that they will wind up, using NFP, with six, eight, twelve children. I suspect their fear is rational.
I think many of them would would, indeed, wind up with large families, although not because NFP is "ineffective."
My own personal opinion, based on my own experiences of people, is that most couples who employ NFP wind up with the attitude of "the more the merrier." We have one 45 year old friend who is quite sad that it appears that she may have no more than five.
sitetest
Since I was one who responded to many Prolifeconservative's posts, I'd like to know which post of mine you find "wide-eyed crap".
It is hard to avoid sounding condescending when one explains the subject one has studied and understood, to questioners who would not read the explanations already available on the thread. Nevertheless, if anyone feels condescended to, I apologize if I created such impression without intending it.
I agree with you on the minute difference. The way NFP is often presented is at odds with it's intended use. Classes are given in Pre-Cana and they act like it's just a pill substitute. Unless you are following in taxchick's footsteps, you are committing a grave sin in the Catholic Church.
You cannot use NFP to avoid pregnancy for any reason other than a "grave" one. Illness, financial strain, etc.
Using NFP just because you don't want more that 3 or 4 kids is just as sinful as using a condom.
(And I don't abide by this practice, though I have studied it. I have my hands full with the 3 boys I have. Any more I know I couldn't parent they way I would want. I know that's not a good enough excuse, but I'll have to deal with it in the hereafter.)
Personally, I believe this is an area that the Roman Catholic Church has really shown leadership. There are far too many Protestant churches that have no true understanding of the God-ordained requirements on Christians. There are many other issues of the sanctity of life where the RCC is also way in the lead.
I don't intend to challenge the Roman Catholic belief in this thread but I do desire to better understand the point of view regarding contraception, "family planning", and sactity of life issues. Hopefully, many Protestant churches will fall in line with the RCC on this biblical concept in their lives. But it is important to extract the proper (Godly) aspects of this view and not just make it some legalistic or Pharisiacal requirement.
I hope to learn from those in the Roman Catholic Church who struggle with this issue and use this to inform my opinion. My personal view, prior to visiting this thread, was that NFP was merely a RCC approved means of disobeying God's command to multiply. Perhaps further dialog will convince me otherwise??
I have problems with arguments that use economic factors as an excuse or justification...
Yes, we agree, except to this extent: I contrast "NFP" with "periodic continence." The phrase "periodic continence" appropriately describes the means and implies appropriate ends. "Natural Family Planning," in contrast, while in theory it should be identical, has instead morphed into a cult of its own. So when I attack "NFP," what I am opposing is not the method of periodic continence, but the propaganda enterprise which has misled Catholics into believing that "providentialism" is a bad thing.
Here is the kind of thing I have in mind:
Chris Ferrara re "The Mysticism of Charting"
Thinking in my head, I only know of two families who use NFP with fewer than five children... I know a few families with five, more with six, a bunch with seven, and still others with more. Some of the "smaller" families (five, six, or seven) may not be at "full strength" yet because the husband and wife aren't very old, yet.
I suspect this is a significant problem in getting others to forego artificial contraception, as they believe that they will wind up, using NFP, with six, eight, twelve children. I suspect their fear is rational.
Yes, I agree with you here also. I haven't mentioned it on this thread, although I've often stated similar things here on FR in the past, but my belief is that "The only good thing about NFP is that it doesn't work." I'm with Crocker when he says that the statistics for NFP effectiveness only apply if the husband is stationed at sea for long periods of time. Or perhaps, like Crocker, I'm just too excessively virile for NFP to work.
My own personal opinion, based on my own experiences of people, is that most couples who employ NFP wind up with the attitude of "the more the merrier."
While I agree with the general thrust of your comments, I have to draw a distinction here. I see a very different reality in NFP users. What I find is that they end up having a bunch of children, but they are not truly joyful about it. They feel perpetually cheated. They have never come to accept complete surrender to God's divine providence. There is a continual discontent.
If only those same people could have the same children, but it do it in a spirit of joyful acceptance of God's will for them, their graces would be infinitely multiplied.
This thread re NFP has generated an interesting and informed Catholic discussions, I believe, so I'm sending out a ping. You know you'll see some solid Catholic doctrine once you get Hermann and Gbcdoj involved. This post will be approximately #150, but readers may want to profit by going back to the beginning of the thread.
This thread re NFP has generated an interesting and informed Catholic discussions, I believe, so I'm sending out a ping. You know you'll see some solid Catholic doctrine once you get Hermann and Gbcdoj involved. This post will be approximately #150, but readers may want to profit by going back to the beginning of the thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1464599/posts?page=72#72
You have no way of knowing what other subjects people debate and discuss so your arrogant declaration that the person is not interested in the finer points of "Thou Shalt not Kill" is completely off the charts.
The thread is about contraception.
I commend your interest in the sin of Pride. I suggest you contemplate its application to yourself.
Oops, sorry for the double posting, my computer was hung up.
Dear Maximilian,
"Yes, we agree, except to this extent: I contrast 'NFP' with 'periodic continence.' The phrase 'periodic continence' appropriately describes the means and implies appropriate ends. 'Natural Family Planning, in contrast, while in theory it should be identical, has instead morphed into a cult of its own. So when I attack 'NFP,' what I am opposing is not the method of periodic continence, but the propaganda enterprise which has misled Catholics into believing that 'providentialism' is a bad thing."
Okay. I think we have areas of disagreement, but I think we also have areas of agreement that are larger than I previously thought. I wonder if it's because of differing experiences.
I'll make a confession: I've never met anyone from the Couple-to-Couple League. Our decisions regarding contraception, NFP came through discussion between ourselves, reading, and lots and lots of prayer. Regrettably, until recent years, I think I could count on one hand the number of Catholic couples I knew who did not abjure artificial contraception.
We read up on methodologies, it didn't seem very tough. It ain't rocket science.
I don't know of anyone who came to the practice of NFP in another way. So, I wonder if I've missed a lot of the "propaganda" of which you speak. That difference could color our respective views.
"Yes, I agree with you here also. I haven't mentioned it on this thread, although I've often stated similar things here on FR in the past, but my belief is that 'The only good thing about NFP is that it doesn't work.' I'm with Crocker when he says that the statistics for NFP effectiveness only apply if the husband is stationed at sea for long periods of time. Or perhaps, like Crocker, I'm just too excessively virile for NFP to work."
Well, my own view is that it does work, very well, if what you're trying to do is space things out a bit. I know folks who wind up with two, three, even five year gaps between kids. But, it doesn't work as well if you're trying to have a very small family. Folks who intend two or three will usually be disappointed.
However, that's part of my point. I think that the practice of NFP has changed the hearts of many folks, so that, once having decided to abjure artificial contraception, the idea of more and more becomes increasingly attractive.
"What I find is that they end up having a bunch of children, but they are not truly joyful about it. They feel perpetually cheated."
Really??? Wow!! Your experience IS far different from mine. I've seen that sort of thing with folks who are old enough to be my parents, folks who were young and married in the 50s and 60s, and who obeyed the Church rather than contracept, and who viewed with some bitterness the passel of kids they had.
But of my own contemporaries (I'm 45, again), and younger, I just haven't seen that at all! I've seen bitterness related to some of the external contradictions in the Catholic community, regarding children. Nearly all the NFP families I know homeschool, in part because, at least in our area, if you have five or eight kids to send to Catholic school, you need to be very, very well off. A year of elementary school will typically cost $4,000, and a year of high school will run around $8,000 - $12,000. Very little by way of "family discounts." You do the math. Eight kids in, say, 15 years is a financial backbreaker, if your desire is to send them off to Catholic school.
Thus, I've heard folks with large families make derisive remarks toward the Catholic school system, toward the schools themselves, toward the pastors and bishops, for encouraging large families, but then not lifting a finger to help provide a Catholic education for the children of large families.
But that's just led a lot of folks around here to homeschooling, and that's been a very happy experience for so many of us! So, even there, bitterness is ameliorated by the gift we've all discovered.
"If only those same people could have the same children, but it do it in a spirit of joyful acceptance of God's will for them, their graces would be infinitely multiplied."
I don't know of any large families who do not enjoy those infinitely-multiplied graces. They are all a witness, an example, a model of Catholicism to me. I am grateful for these Catholic friends, who help me see how to better live my own life each day.
sitetest
Not an easy task even 20 years ago. I can recall one occasion when I was in the company of all Catholics and the topic of birth control arose. Myself and another were the only ones opposed to the pill and for NFP.
People really should do the research. Far from the rhythm method, if done correctly it works well and there are no harmful side effects. It is acceptable to the Catholic church so it is a good solution for Catholics, but people of other or no faiths would be wise to look into it as well.
Thank you for your post. I take much narrower view on economic excuses for prevention of pregnancy than some others. Surely, if the hardship spills over onto others through bankruptcy or welfare, may be it is time to validly and virtuously stop procreating. Short of that, one really needs ot examine one's conscience before preventing pregnancies for economic reasons.
My reference to "splitting hairs over the Do Not Kill commandment" was a response to #48 where Prolifeconservative said that s/he understood Do Not Kill but felt that we are splitting hairs over family planning.
I believe I was understood well by the poster I was responding to.
I did not say you weren't understood by the poster. I see the reference at #48 and concede I missed it.
This is so very nicely put.
As you said, our different experiences might color our perceptions, although we agree on the fundamental principles.
I have witnessed Catholic mothers with what one might call an "NFP mentality" being grieved and unhappy when they conceive their 9th child, instead of joyfully thanking God for one more gift of providence. As long as they were going to have 8 anyway, why not go ahead and have 9? Society at large is going to think you're just as crazy either way.
I think the most daunting aspect for these mothers is facing their friends and family, most of whom are Catholic, whom they know are going to be disapproving and not happy and cheerful about their news. But if these women (and men) would only go ahead and shake off the last vestiges of the anti-child mentality, they would be able to have a Mary-like appreciation of the new life they have conceived, and they could enjoy the true supernatural satisfaction of being under God's watchful care.
I've never met anyone from the Couple-to-Couple League.
I know lots of people from the C-C-L, but I won't post my experiences publicly.
I think that traditionally, we have viewed "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28) as a blessing, not as a command. St. Augustine, for instance, calls it "that blessing" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis, III, 12:20). This has reason, since the same form is used in addressing the beasts: "And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth." (Gen. 1:22)
Likewise, the notes of the Douay-Rheims translation say:
28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth."Increase and multiply"... This is not a precept, as some Protestant controvertists would have it, but a blessing, rendering them fruitful; for God had said the same words to the fishes, and birds, (ver. 22) who were incapable of receiving a precept.
Our rationale for the obligation of men to have children would be based on considerations from natural law, as those used by Pius XII, rather than Gen. 1:28 and similar statements which you have brought up here.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. (Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives)
That this obligation is not absolute may be shown by the principle of analogy, from these words of Christ:
And the Pharisees said to him: Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, himself and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him? And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. (Mark 2:24-27)
Nevertheless, grave reasons - as that offered by our Lord in example - would be necessary. Contraception, however, can never be permitted, because it is a "a detestable thing" in the eyes of the Lord (cf. Gen. 38:9-10; The Sin of Onan Revisited).
You don't have to have that many kids, but if there has to be an openness to God's right to create life, which He generously shares with man.
God doesn't need a single act of intercourse to create human life. He can create it out of dust. Our participation in the creation of life is a great privelege. Using contraception is the equivalent of telling God, "We'll let YOU create life when WE'RE good and ready!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.