Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]

Catholic Exchange ^ | April 23, 2008 | Anna Pier Day (pen name)

[Salvation]

Journey to the Truth

May 23rd, 2008 by Anna Pier Day

I argued with the priest — the strong-willed one — who sat opposite me in the confessional. For every argument I presented, though, his response was the same: a calm, understanding, but firm, “There are no exceptions to the Church’s teaching against contraception.”

Truth be told, if the Church had been less wise and had made exceptions, our family situation might have qualified as one. A few months earlier, after the birth of our youngest son, I had suffered from an acute depression with accompanying suicidal thoughts and a brief psychotic episode that had landed me in two different mental hospitals. I had been torn away from my life as the stay-home mother of a toddler and a still-nursing infant for the two weeks of hospitalization my treatment required, and the whole experience had been devastating — not only for me, but also for my family and everyone who cared about us. As a result, my husband and I were very afraid of the possible ramifications of another bout of post-partum hormone fluctuations. And, having recently returned to the Church after a 20-year absence, I was finding her teaching against contraception very difficult to accept.

But there was something about the way this priest calmly stood his ground (even when I told him for the twenty-third time why my family should be exempt from this particular teaching) that made me believe he was giving me the Truth. So, after a few more weeks, my husband and I discussed natural family planning, and we (somewhat fearfully) agreed to try it.

Our priest helped us again by putting me in touch with a nearby couple who taught the Creighton method of NFP. Soon after I began NFP classes, my husband and I did away with the contraceptives we had been using. As soon as we did, an amazing thing happened. It was as if God lifted the scales from my eyes, and instantly, I understood. I suddenly saw the pain a “contraceptive mindset” must cause our Loving Father, who cares for us and would never let anything happen to us that was not for our good. I saw what a great privilege He gives us by letting us share with Him in creating His greatest miracle — a new baby’s life. And I saw contraception for what it is — something we do to thwart God’s loving plan for our families.

Since then, our family has experienced God’s love more fully. He has blessed us with our first daughter, who was conceived when our Creighton chart said conception was possible. Our daughter brings great joy and love to our family, and the happiness she brings us far outweighs the pain of the (relatively minor) symptoms I experienced during pregnancy and shortly after her birth. I shudder now to think that we might have missed out on the privilege of raising her — and a lifetime of joy with her — just because of the weakness of our faith that God would take care of us. And I pray every day for a world full of priests who will stand firm on Church teaching, just like the one who first told us the Truth.

God Our Father, please send us holy priests…all for the Sacred and Eucharistic Heart of Jesus…all for the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary…in union with Saint Joseph. Amen.

 

Anna Pier Day (who used a pen name for this article) lives with her husband and three children in North Central Florida. She has been a teacher and now enjoys being a full-time mother and an author. Her first picture book for children is tentatively scheduled for release in May 2009.

[steadfastconservative]

NFP does not in any way frustrate the natural end of intercourse, it does not prevent conception. Every act of intercourse remains open to the possibility of conception. If a couple misreads the symptoms of the woman’s fertility and has intercourse when she is fertile, there is nothing to prevent conception.

[trisham]

The Catholic Church teaches BOTH uses of the marital act, procreation and mutual pleasure. That you keep pretending otherwise reflects on you and your men of straw.

******************

I may be wrong about this, but I thought that the Church also considers it to be important in maintaining strong marriages. Am I incorrect?

[rollo tomasi]

“It has nothing to do with these ridiculous claims that Catholics believe every sperm to be “sacred.””

Again I ask why is it Ok for male on female oral climax but female on male oral climax is wrong. The sperm MUST be ejaculated in the vagina. Hence your Church gives ammunition to “Monty Pythonism”.

Catholic Church deems the sperm “worthy of respect”. How else can you explain the blatant hypocrisy unless your church does not deem the sperm worthy of respect but must give those little guys special attention, huh?

[mockingbyrd]

Theology of the Body addresses how the physical expression of love is necessary for a strong marriage, since it is the physyical expression of a physical reality. People are mental, spiritual and physical beings. They must be united in all three to truly be married.

It’s not by accident that God created oxytocin to be released during the marital act. You do physically bond to your spouse. At least women do.

[rollo tomasi]

During a marriage retreat. I recommend those to the married freepers, it really helps the relationship to grow.

Not sure how they make pronouncements in terms of the commands but they have changed over the years. This was SEVERAL years ago so things might have changed.

At least the Catholic Church is open. There are some Protty churches that think the missionary position is the ONLY position allowed.

[trisham]

Theology of the Body addresses how the physical expression of love is necessary for a strong marriage, since it is the physyical expression of a physical reality. People are mental, spiritual and physical beings. They must be united in all three to truly be married.

It’s not by accident that God created oxytocin to be released during the marital act. You do physically bond to your spouse. At least women do.

***************

Thank you. It's one more example of God's love for us. :)

[Salvation]

**I have noticed that there seems to be a better understanding of NFP through out the medical communit**

Fantastic!

[Salvation]

Glad to be back, too.

[Salvation]

Appreciate your comments.

[Salvation]

Pardon me. Your statement is not polite at all. If you wish to remain on this OPEN thread, please choose your words more carefully.

[Salvation]

**Meanwhile, I hope this thread survives so I can do some posting on this subject.**

Me too.

[Salvation]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2020540/posts?page=64#64

Ping

[tiki]

All I know is that it seems like some people aced their advanced jackass class.

[Running On Empty]

Can’t help but laugh with this one. :-)

[PresbyRev]

Pardon me. The aspersion, “protestant drivel” was hurled first.

[Salvation]

I guess I didn’t see that.

[PresbyRev]

I’ll leave off this thread by writing that I agree with the substance of your post - God and Israel, Christ and Church, both used the metaphor of husband and wife. Marriage is a covenant between a man and woman, children may come from it. I simply don’t buy into the legalistic prohibition on responsible family planning by Rome. No one yet has admitted to the condemnation by Rome of sex acts, inside of marriage, resulting in orgasm that is non-procreative, actual or potential. Rome’s position is not scriptural and contrary to reason and nature. Again, more power to the folks who are gratified by various methods of birth control they deem ‘natural.’

[narses]

One problem protties have is they see the world ina linear fashion. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony confers many Graces. Children, pleasure, companionship, mutual support both natural and supernatural. If I get to Heaven it will be in no small part due to my wonderful wife. (She is the living example of what a wife can and should be, imho.)

[Running On Empty]

To some, Rome’s “position” is considered contrary to reason and nature. So be it.

I am recalling the words of Henry Drummond-—the famed (non-Catholic) nineteenth century evangelist from Edinburgh who wrote “The Greatest Thing in the World”.

He wrote in that book: “The most obvious lesson in Christ’s teaching is that there is no happiness in having and getting anything. I repeat—there is no happiness in having or getting anything, but only in giving” Drummond understood the difference between the temporary moment of pleasure and the lasting status of happiness. He also wrote: “Some of us have not much time to love. Remember once more that this is a matter of life and death. I cannot help speaking urgently—for myself, for yourselves. It is better not to live than not to love...love is unselfishness, which does not seek its own.”

Henry had it right.

And it is the whole ethos of married love.

[Mad Dawg]

No one yet has admitted to the condemnation by Rome of sex acts, inside of marriage, resulting in orgasm that is non-procreative, actual or potential.

Aside from hurling drivel around, there is plenty of "Failure to communicate" going on. Could you say again the question you think we aren't answering? I ask because I thought I saw a charge of an unanswered question and I thought I tried to answer it.

And if you want, could you explain the word "legalistic". In my experience that word mostly generates heat and obscures the little light that might be floating around.

I simply don’t buy into the legalistic prohibition on responsible family planning by Rome.

Of course this is a highly tendentious way of expressing what nearly all Xtian denominations taught until less than 100 years ago. "Rome" is not against family planning and "Rome" is not against being responsible. "Rome" generally thinks that sin is intrinsically bad for one, not in terms of a future punishment but also in terms of a current hindrance in one's walk in Christ. "Rome" thinks, I'd venture to say, that while not all married couples are able to fulfill the archaic command to be fruitful and multiply, inability is one thing and setting out deliberately "with - if not malice, certainly disobedience aforethought" is not just a blot in one's copy-book, but contrary to how God intends and designs redeemed humans to be healthy, holy, and happy. And she sees artificial birth control as such an act, bearing its consequences within itself.

All the dire threats made by the fuddyduddies in reference to ABC have come true. They were pooh-poohed at the time, But homosexual genital activity has gone from the love that dare not speak its name to a civil right, promiscuity beggars the imagination, mothers dress their pre-pubescent daughters like trollops, TV advisors think adolescents should be sexually active and say so, illegitimacy is, unexpectedly at a very high rate and so on. When I was a deputy just a few years ago we transported some kids from the Juvie to Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and heard the young men bragging about the bastards they'd sired -- Juveniles! Under 18! Students at UVA had their underthings all in a twist because the state subsidy - SUBSIDY! - on Artificial Birth Control was being reduced and they were going to have to pay more for their pills.

All this, though not in such detail, was predicted when the Anglicans at Lambeth in 1930 decided to come out in favor of "responsible family planning".

Of course, at the last Diocesan Council I attended as an Episcopal priest, the argument was seriously raised that the old notion of marriage being lifelong was made popular when people died younger and women died more often in childbirth. But now that we have the curse of better medicine and it's diabolical result that our wives actually hang around for a while, the burden of lifelong marriage had become just too much to expect of the modern Christian. Artificial Birth Control was going to reduce sexual frustration in marriage and so reduce the impetus for infidelity and the resultant divorce. But the unintended consequence of women living longer was now offered as a justification for MORE divorce!

Consequently, I think a little disagreement about what exactly constitutes responsible family behavior is not out of order and the view opposing yours is not fit to be dismissed as a legalistic condemnation of responsibility.