Author: Valerie Pokorny

Concerns of a Passenger

NB: I wrote this several months ago, but it continues to capture some of my feelings about recent goings on.

Dear Church,

I don’t like to feel like a Complainer, because a Complainer is about the worst thing anyone can be.

Complainers are politely dismissed, rarely listened to, and only accepted if they Change Their Ways and focus on The Positives. Regardless of whether their concerns — er, Complaints — are justified.

I’m sure this social conditioning has a purpose. After all, any human community can thrive only when its members are positively disposed toward working together, as a community. It’s the point of being community. I get it.

And honestly, who WANTS to dwell on the negatives? It’s depressing.

But, Church, you told me that you were the Keeper of the Word, the Keys to the Kingdom, the Barque of Peter that is headed toward the Pearly Gates and interested in taking as many souls with it who are willing. And now I am questioning whether that glowing Positive Course is even true…or whether YOU even believe it is true.

Some of us were born on board this Ship, others boarded at many ports along the way. We’ve been on board for a long time. Long enough to experience many crews and hands. Long enough to have realized that not everyone on board is (yet) a saint.

One of the hardest things to deal with on this long voyage is watching fellow members decide to jump ship. Some of them, sure, make reasoned decisions to disembark at a port along the way and discontinue the journey. We miss them, especially we who have begged them to stay. Some can’t even wait for port. They decide to try their luck in the sea. The grief is worst for those.

There are others, though, who don’t *want* to disembark, but who are so miserable that they try to stay on board, but barely. Maybe they are hiding in a lifeboat thinking about cutting the line. Maybe they are hiding somewhere on board, in the cargo hold or far below deck, where they are unlikely to run into Crew members who have turned out to be violent or unstable or unable to keep their hands to themselves. Maybe they think, “If I could just get off this ship with *something* that floats, I could still ride in the wake and follow the ship to shore without having to stay in this mess.

You see, they still believe the overall Course of the Ship. They just have given up hope that they can be fully functional members of the society on board the ship and that mere survival requires distance.

Now, you would think that the Captain and Crew of a ship that believed in its Course and desired to get as many people to the destination as possible would actively be checking in with its passengers, ensuring they had what they needed for their journey.

If abuse, for example, were prevalent on the ship, who would want to stay? Would it not make sense to throw the abusers in the hold and boot them off the ship at the next port? If there were individuals on board who had never learned to live in community, would it not make sense to instruct them in some best practices? If there were folks who needed a bit of extra support and care, would it not make sense to minister to their needs in a special way?

I can tell you, if I noticed that the ship’s Captain and Crew seemed less and less interested in the people on board — especially the suffering — and more and more interested in stopping by any port or island where there was a promise of Treasure….if I noticed that the Crew was spending more and more time pursuing their Own Pursuits and dismissing the stated needs of their passengers, or even the care of the Ship…if I noticed that at every port the Crew was taking on more hands who seemed to prefer expeditions that steered the ship off its course…I would begin to lose faith in the Captain and Crew of that ship.

Let me speak bluntly, now. Because I think you can see where I’m going with this.

The Church is hurting. Individuals and families on the Ship are suffering. Many of them are overwhelmed by real need, real disease, real abuse, real sadness and debilitating despair. Real sin.

There are women in “Good Catholic Families” who are afraid to deny their husbands sex because they know their husbands are sorely tempted or addicted to pornography. Or because their husbands give them zero attention outside of the bedroom.

There are children in “Good Catholic Families” who are addicted to devices because their moms are always “doing God’s work” and are too busy to spend time with them.

There are couples trying to adapt to Christian Marriage without support for the “sick times” that come on all too quickly. There are other couples whose marriages should have been stopped before they even got started…had those in charge of their formation taken their role seriously or been willing to Say Something when they Saw Something.

There are individuals whose mental health struggles keep them at arm’s length from participating in the Good Life of the rest of the community. They are lonely, broken, and sad, but no one seems to want to or know how to listen to them.

There are victims of sexual, emotional, physical and even spiritual abuse who are literally hanging onto the side of the ship, teetering on the verge of letting go. They can’t wrap their minds around how this ship, that promised to carry them to Salvation, has no remedy for them and struggles even to acknowledge them. They watch their abusers, in the meantime, be promoted up the ranks or participate in all the perks of being a passenger, with none but the victim the wiser.

There are one-time Crew members who passionately sought to support their fellow travelers and desired to implement programs and community events that would reach some of these wounded and broken passengers but were told by the Captain that this was not their duty and that, because they couldn’t control their zeal, their services were no longer needed.

There are others who noticed criminal behavior of high-ranking Crew members and were silenced with threats of violence…or worse, were tossed overboard in the middle of the night.

Many of the longtime, committed passengers have appealed to the Captain and the Crew, relentlessly. Some have simply given up, finding no quarter for their heartfelt concerns. Some have even banded together, without the Crew’s blessing or involvement, to try to resolve some of their issues, and have ended up creating more problems and have brought down the ire of the Captain, facing strict rations and even confinement. In the name of Unity.

Even “good” Crew members who seem to have a modicum of concern for the plight of the passengers seem to prefer pat answers and trite responses rather than to really engage in meaningful knowing and community with their passengers. In fact, the more challenging the circumstance, the more likely the Crew members are to resort to spiritual platitudes that offer little real hope of redemption. And then, they avoid future interactions with those passengers whenever possible.

I don’t want to be a Complainer. But it is almost as if the Crew has lost faith in the Course itself and believes, perhaps, this sordid squalor is really All There Is.

And if it is true that the Captain and Crew are wondering if the Course is worthwhile, then perhaps all of the side excursions make sense. Perhaps it makes sense why the Crew seem to be recruiting hands who do nothing for the passengers but make the Crew’s lives more pleasant and fulfilling, even if that fulfillment is only in the form of base pleasure and the revelry of the moment.

Or perhaps it makes sense why the Captain and Crew are bartering at ports in ways that curry the favor of the ruling bodies there, picking up Causes and Activities that seem to have political benefit more for those bodies than for the Ship’s passengers and Course.

For the passengers still yearning, and hoping against all hope that the Course will prove True and the ship will carry them to that destination — *especially* those whose hope has been strained by abuse or who feel unseen and unheard in their struggles — it feels like a punch in the gut to hear the Captain of the Ship announce that the Course is not, in fact, what they thought it was, and that instead a new direction will be charted. To watch the Crew no longer simply ignore, but actively hunt down passengers who have been on board for years and force them off the ship via ultimatums that they cannot accept nor understand breeds horror. To watch the Captain announce that primacy of place will be given to passengers who openly revile the values so many on the ship have been striving for, however imperfectly, and put Crew members in place who openly sneer at — or who even caused — the struggles so many existing passengers face is too much to bear.

A Church that struggles to support the people who are trying to stay on the boat and are falling off the sides should not be pushing those people away and letting them drown while they send out lifeboats to the people calling for mutiny and seeking to change the ship’s direction.

Unless, of course, the Church has lost faith in its own Course.

Guardians of Hope

Spoiler alert! You may want to watch Guardians of the Galaxy 2 before reading this post.

The nostalgia was palpable as the movie began — a guy and a girl, laughing, singing, embracing, sharing hopes and dreams of the future. A storybook romance.

Fast forward to the revelation of a painful void created by the absence of a father, the loss of a mother. A son’s uncertain identity, and all the reservations and questions that come with it.

Then, the unimaginable happens — the father appears, and reveals that the son’s life is the product of true love — a beautiful, meaningful gift. Embellished, even, by the depiction of a baby in utero, growing under the loving embrace of a father and a mother.

I knew at that moment that a twist was inevitable. There was no doubt. It was all too “good” to be true.

Enter the plunge into the modern world’s despair.

The beauty and grandeur of the father’s home, his grace and charm, his warmth and his care were revealed as an illusion. What had appeared to be an outward-focused benevolence, a desire for union and communion for the good of the other, were shown to be a selfish, unrestrained passion. The singular devotion for one woman was a sham; she was just one of many partners who had bought his line. His progeny were begotten purely for his own fulfillment — they were of no value in and of themselves. No one was above being discarded once their purpose had been exhausted.

Guardians grabbed our hearts with nostalgia, and crushed them with reality.

The nod to old-fashioned family values, the organic process of creating life, the father-son bond — it seemed so unbelievable because, to our modern world, it is unbelievable. Millions of people today have no idea what a nuclear family is actually like. Marriage ‘till death do us part seems like a pipe dream. Embryos are being pieced together in petri dishes, purportedly sometimes with more than two parents. Wombs are being bought and sold (and soon, perhaps, artificially provided), sperm donors are carefully selected for the perfect genes, and frozen “left-overs” are being crystallized into jewelry and keepsakes — all for a price. Many of the children who are “lucky” enough to be born of the “love” of a man and woman find themselves unwanted, uncared for, and left to their own devices, or tossed about in the wake of divorce or separation. Some even find themselves literally being sold in human trafficking by people they thought would give them the attention or protection they craved.

Guardians gives us a great cross-section of today’s population: The cocky hero with the absentee father who struggles with insecurity under his confidence and pride. The emotionally chilled lead heroine who fought her way to the top and isn’t about to let any man crack her tough exterior. The horrifically abused underdog who’s trapped, understandably, in her need for vengeance. The socially oblivious, honest-to-a-fault strongman who everyone likes to have around because he’s just so quirky. The meek, subservient female character who has only ever been told that her value is what she can do for someone else. The scrappy thief who feels like he’s always been “bad” and isn’t quite sure if he’ll ever be able to make himself “right.” And a genetically modified non-raccoon who is quick to deal out insults as a cover for his vulnerability, his wounds rooted in his creators’ lack of personal care.

Oh, and there’s the adorable Baby Groot. I’ll come back to him in a moment.

Violence, abuse, neglect, impossible standards, betrayal, abandonment, use. These are the realities of the modern world. The Guardians are the heroes du jour — resilient outcasts who will make a way against all odds. And this second installment brought into focus just how enormous the odds are.

It used to be, I believe, that our collective hope in old-fashioned values was kept alive by beacons of light — people who appeared to be living in upright, morally virtuous ways. Couples who seemed to have enviable relationships of 50, 60 years or more. Individuals whose public personas exuded extraordinary generosity and kindness. Who appeared to keep their promises. Leaders who we thought stood on principle and fought for what was right.

Historical fiction and popular entertainment boasted heroes who were unflappable in their fight for justice. Teachers, priests, and coaches pushed us to grow, and encouraged us to become better, stronger — and we perceived them to have precisely the virtues they aimed to cultivate in us.

But, like Ego’s planet, the inspirational beauty of those old tales has been shown to be rotten at its core — if not in truth, then in perception. And today, perception matters more.

In our world, spouses aren’t faithful. Parents don’t stick together. Neighbors don’t watch out for each other. Priests, teachers and coaches can’t be trusted — too many have abused children. Government leaders are corrupt. Heroes are conflicted, and some villains may not be so bad after all. Everyone is broken, and the old values — well, we’re not sure anyone ever really lived them out to begin with. So now we’re kind of making it up as we go along.

On the one hand, that frees us from the harsh judgment of the past — it promotes empathy and understanding. Everyone has a seat at the table. Anyone can “belong.”

On the other, there seems to be a pervasive confusion about what things are “right” and “wrong,” to the point where almost every type of behavior seems justifiable to some degree.

In any case, it is clear that the old order of union and communion doesn’t apply anymore, and must be replaced with something much more inclusive.

In that vein, Guardians 2 argues that “family,” in its traditional sense, is dead.

The message resonates powerfully with the modern person because it speaks to the lack we experience. It even attempts to provide a common-sense substitute — “friends are family,” it reiterates, over and over again. And for many, this rings absolutely true. And necessary for survival.

But you know what’s interesting?

They can’t let go of family altogether.

Enter Groot, dancing and joyfully oblivious to the violence around him. Being sheltered. Yawning and laying his head upon Drax’s shoulder.

The child still exists. And the child is the sign of hope.

Fidelity, true love, acceptance, affirmation, protection when we are vulnerable — we all ache for these. In the one place where these are first possible for us — our biological familial relationships — our hopes are often dashed. We are repeatedly, sometimes cruelly, let down. We are abandoned by those who are supposed to love us most. We learn to earn these things. We put up with all kinds of use and abuse seeking these things.

Sometimes, we even harden our hearts, afraid that on the other side of possibility lurks even more rejection, more use, more hurt.

But, if we are perceptive enough, the innocence and dependence of a child reminds us

-We were and are worthy of love.

-We were and are worthy of care.

-It is an injustice for a child to be abandoned, neglected, abused, bought and sold.

We do want better for future generations.

There’s no doubt that Guardians is speaking to the heart of a world that has lost hope in the traditional idea of “family.” That despair is pervasive, even as we watch the characters struggle toward some semblance of healing.

But even as the film advocates for a re-definition of family, even as the characters come to terms with the fact that their parents, creators and caregivers have failed them in many ways, the presence of a child calls forth the hope that for this one things can be different. For this one I can make a positive difference.

May the presence of children always do the same for us. May we see in it a spark of hope that family is not dead — and strive to do what we can so that tomorrow’s children can know the fathers and mothers that they deserve.

Yes, breasts are sexual

It’s summer. In Texas. It’s hot.

Not surprisingly, conditions 1 and 3 annually coincide with a flood of social media chatter about how women ought to keep their “parts” covered out of concern for men’s struggle with lust…Which reminds me of a provocatively titled post that Marc Barnes over at Bad Catholic replied to about three years ago. Go read his response — it’s full of great points.

I got caught up in the comment thread when one man claimed that “Guys like boobs, instinctually. I think a mother could realize drawing out her breasts for ANY reason will make guys all hot and bothered…,” and another responded, “Breasts are not ALWAYS sexual to a man — at least they should not be, if he is being chaste as defined by the Catechism.”

At the time I responded anonymously:

As a woman and a mother, I’m really grateful to see/read guys defending public breastfeeding as a chaste action 🙂 But I do have a recommendation, and that is to not balk at the idea of breasts always being “sexual.” They are. Accepting that is one step closer to rightly integrating one’s sexuality.

I’m going to make my case short and sweet:

“Sexuality” is the quality of being either male or female.

Women have breasts that are able to nourish a child. Men don’t. Breastfeeding is, therefore, an inherently “sexual” capability. In other words, it differentiates one sex from another.

The essential difference between the sexes points to our complementarity, and our complementarity points to the fact that we are called to sexual unity. This is the logic built into our sexual — male and female — bodies.

So yes, it’s perfectly “natural” that that which differentiates us helps to attract one sex to the other. It’s perfectly “natural” that there would be an element of awe, an element of attractive beauty attached to what is “other” or outside of our own experience of life. “I’m made for you. You’re made for me. We see this in our bodies. We belong together.”

But that logic of complementarity, in the mystery of its imago dei, does not simply feed one into the other, as if it were a matter of filling a mutual void. No, the logic of complementarity that we read in our bodies necessarily pours outward in new fruitfulness, increasing wonder upon wonder.

Thus, when men (or women) make the argument that mothers ought to cover up when breastfeeding “because their breasts are sexual,” my heart aches for the vision they lack.

By reducing “sexual” to “that-which-arouses-me,” they have reduced complementarity to an exchange of self-serving use, and have severed its fruitfulness. In saying the “erotic” value of the breasts trumps the nurturing, self-donative value, they have shown their ignorance of the meaning of “sexual” in the first place, and in doing so have shown their poverty. And those who insist upon this poverty, as if it is “just how God designed men,” are missing out — not just on the full beauty of the sexuality of women, but in the dignity of the sexuality of men.

That child breastfeeding is the crown of our sexual complementarity — a gift that completes the sexual logic of our bodies and showcases it in all its glory. That child is a reminder to a man that a woman is his equal in dignity, not his object of pleasure or his toy. That child reminds man that together he and she have poured their lives out to one another for neither simply his sake nor hers, but for that of another.

A man who is truly attracted to the full sexuality of a woman should see in the act of breastfeeding the epitome of her sexuality — and his response should be awe, gratitude, and respect. It should be the same awe and gratitude with which a father watches his wife gently tend to any of their child’s other needs with the special grace bestowed upon her.

It should never be a jealous, “I wish I were in the child’s place,” nor an uneasy battle with an interior desire to “have” or “own” her, nor disapproval or disgust. The latter, sadly, are too often the reality for those who make the argument that women ought hide themselves away while breastfeeding. They are the mark of a man who wants to keep woman for himself.

Yes. Breastfeeding is sexual. It is something only she can do. And we should thank her for it, as it is a reminder that we all exist for the good of the other.

The Dandelion

On Wednesday, Dec. 16, I arrived at Roscoes Coffee Bar and Tap Room in Richmond, Indiana, with my husband and daughters for a much-anticipated meet-up with my good friend and former college roommate.

We placed our orders, rounded up our rowdy crew, and settled in the spacious back room.

I was instantly drawn to a vibrant painting of a dandelion displayed on the wall across from where I was sitting. The composition and colors were striking — sparkling white dandelion seeds, half-blown, against a shimmering blue and green background.

The Dandelion | painting by Lynda Henderson

The Dandelion | painting by Lynda Henderson

I crossed the room to get a closer look. The subject itself brought back so many memories. Who doesn’t immediately think of the simplicity and joy of childhood when they see a dandelion’s delicate seeds ready to take flight? Besides, I used to take bouquets of yellow dandelions to my mother as a gift, and years later even drew her a sketch of a little-girl-me presenting her with the cheerful weed.

As I stood looking at the painting, I briefly wondered whether it was for sale. I would have liked to hang it in my daughters’ room. But we were on a month-long road trip from Texas to Ohio and back again, and it was just a dandelion after all…surely I could find a similar picture that would suffice. So I contented myself with a quick snapshot on my phone.

A Gift from Joy

When our Great Christmas Road Trip was over and I downloaded the photos from my phone, I took a closer look at the paintings below the dandelion.

“Live in Joy,” one read.

And, “Hello Joy,” read the other.

Then I knew I just had to inquire about whether the painting was for sale.

You see, one year before our visit to Roscoes, just days before Christmas, we lost who would have been our third child in miscarriage. She was only about 7 weeks old in utero. We even got to see her little heartbeat before she left us.

We weren’t planning to name her, but the name had come to me the following Sunday: Joy.

Just as I had gifted my mom with dandelions as a little girl, my little girl was gifting me with one.

So I emailed Roscoes, sharing how the painting and the messages below it had struck me. The owners in turn put me in touch with the artist, Lynda Henderson. I found out that the painting had been at Roscoes for a local art show, and the owners liked it so she had left it there.

Lynda was touched by our story and offered us a generous deal on the painting and went out of her way to try to find a shipping solution.

All in the Family

The story of how it ended up traveling from Richmond to San Antonio is its own sort of miracle — the kind that awesome, resourceful grandparents bring about.

My grandmother found out that my uncle was planning to drive past Richmond on Route 70 on his way home from a business trip to Indianapolis. He agreed to pick up the painting from Lynda, and I helped them arrange to meet at a small restaurant close to Lynda’s home.

Right about the time the pickup was supposed to take place, I received a text from Lynda saying she hadn’t heard from my uncle yet and was concerned. Moments later I got a call from my uncle: “Um, Valerie, I’m here — But you were getting a painting, right? Not a mirror?”

Lynda learned later that a woman who worked at the restaurant used to own an antique store and was expecting a Linda (!) to come by to pick up the mirror. Luckily, my uncle had taken a closer look at his parcel before driving away!

Lynda (the artist) arrived at the restaurant shortly afterward to give him the painting, which he took back to Ohio with him.

We were content that the painting was in my family’s possession — we figured one way or another we would eventually get it.

Several weeks later, as I was standing outside watching the girls play, my husband popped his head out the door and told me, “Your Aunt Debby is bringing the painting! She’ll be here on the 30th!”

Apparently, my great aunt and uncle had been visiting with my other set of grandparents about a week prior, and had mentioned that they were planning to stop in San Antonio near the end of their own cross-country road trip. My great uncle had been stationed here about 50 years ago, and had never seen the River Walk, so it was on their bucket list.

My grandfather tracked down the painting (which was at my parents’ house by then) and my dad brought it over for them to take up to Cleveland until their trip.

So this painting of a weed that captured my gaze in Richmond, Indiana, ended up traveling to Cleveland, Ohio, via Galion, then on to several National Parks, Las Vegas, the Grand Canyon, and El Paso, and…finally…arrived in San Antonio on the last day of March.

A Call to Joy

I have had three months to ponder the circumstances surrounding this painting. I still remember the moment that Joy’s name came to me — how right it seemed, but also how ironic. The painting echoes that moment — it brings delight on a superficial level, but it also epitomizes my struggle with joy.

Some describe joy as an emotion of deep-seated happiness that persists even amidst trial and suffering. The prior year had brought its share of suffering, to be sure — but even in the “good times” I struggled — and still struggle — with feelings that were quite the opposite of joy.

How appropriate that God nudged me with a dandelion. It’s a weed, for goodness’ sake! And a dying one at that! But a weed that children love, a weed that engenders hope, happiness, and joy: the hopefulness of making wishes, the magical happiness that comes from watching those sparkling white wings swirl through the air — the promise of life in the midst of death.

So now the painting — “Joy’s painting,” we call it — hangs in our home. Reminding me to be grateful. Reminding me that hope endures. Reminding me not to give up on joy.

Thank you, Lynda. Thank you, folks at Roscoes Coffee. Thank you, Emily, for suggesting we meet there. Thank you, Grandma. Thank you, Uncle Patrick. Thank you, Grandma and Grandpa and Dad. Thank you, Steve, for encouraging me. Thank you, Uncle Mike and Aunt Debby.

Thank you, Joy.

Stalked by saints

Last spring a lovely group of ladies joined me in the Endow study “Setting the World Ablaze: St. Catherine of Siena.” (Never done one? Check them out!)

One of the things I find charming about Endow studies is how different aspects of the study — sometimes the words on the page, sometimes the discussions that they prompt — smack me upside the head at just the right time. Those messages stick with me and continue to challenge me long after the study is over.

And sometimes saints just stalk me. Ask me about St. Anthony of Padua. Or the kissing saints.

I’m convinced it’s a coordinated effort to save my soul. Seriously. Life’s full of distractions, and God knows I need reminders about the Important Things. So he sends in special agents — like friends, family, random strangers, or even sometimes a 14th-century doctor of the Church whose body is in Rome and whose head and thumb are in Siena — to bring me back around.

As I was flipping through a travel book from my honeymoon shortly after the Endow study was over, out fell these prayer cards from St. Catherine’s tomb at the Basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome.

SCatherinePrayerCards

I’m not sure whether my husband and I picked them up on our honeymoon in 2009 or if he picked them up during a previous trip to Rome. All I can say is that, true to form, St. Catherine is one persistent woman. At minimum, six years had passed before I happened to flip open that travel book, and it just happened to coincide with the end of the Endow study.

Finding the prayer cards caused me to reflect again on a particularly memorable quote from the study. In the following message from The Dialogue, God responded to St. Catherine’s request for guidance on pursuing perfection in charity in a broken world:

So if you would attain the purity you ask of me, there are three principal things you must do:

You must be united with Me in loving affection, bearing in your memory the blessings you have received from Me;

With the eye of your understanding you must see my affectionate charity, how unspeakably much I love you;

And where the human heart is concerned, you must consider my will rather than people’s evil intentions, for I am their judge — not you;

If you do this, all perfection will be yours.

(pp. 191-192 of The Dialogue, translated by Suzanne Noffke, O.P.)

Need a New Year’s resolution, anyone?

Oh, and if there is one thing I learned from the Endow study, it’s that Grandma’s arm twisting has nothing on this woman. If you’re being stalked by St. Catherine, be prepared to hear from her, even when you’d rather be left alone in your errant or cowardly ways.

She was known to be especially persistent in reaching out to and encouraging her spiritual children who were struggling. Sometimes this took the form of calling a disciple away from worldly pursuits, with copious reminders of her maternal affection; other times this meant calling a pope to “be a man” instead of a cowardly boy in the face of political pressure.

I can’t say that I enjoy being stalked by saints. It’s really uncomfortable to have your soul pricked where it most hurts. I just hope that in the end I’ll be able (to paraphrase St. Catherine) to bear it in memory as a blessing from a loving Father.

Some honeymoon photos of St. Catherine’s hometown, Siena:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

“Catholic” objections to NFP that don’t make sense

Marie just pointed out to me that one year ago today, this Facebook post inspired her to suggest that we blog. I can’t believe it has been that long! Since the issue is still relevant, and since we now have a blog to post it on, here’s the “rant” that started it all …

[Fair warning: looong rant ahead]

Ahh, the joys of NFP week.

99% of the U.S. population probably has no idea it’s even a thing. Yet a tiny fraction of the Catholic population thinks it’s useful to rehash arguments against what has up until recently been the only advocacy within the Church — and pretty much within the world — for women and men to understand the woman’s menstrual cycle and how it affects not only their procreative potential but also various aspects of the woman’s life and well-being, including her relationship with her spouse.

Caveats before I go on:

  1. I wholeheartedly believe siblings are the best gift parents can give their children.
  2. I wholeheartedly believe that Christian spouses should strive to make decisions about their family (size and otherwise) based on well-formed consciences and ongoing conversion to Christ, seeking pastoral guidance when appropriate. (Duh! Although the availability of solid pastoral guidance is wanting … but that’s another issue.)
  3. I wholeheartedly agree that the “contraceptive” and now “consumerist” culture exert an unfortunate and deplorable amount of influence on childbearing and familial life.
  4. I wholeheartedly believe “NFP” (“natural family planning”) is an awful term and “fertility awareness” would be oh-so-much better, but the secular world has already grabbed that term (see “FAM”) to differentiate itself from the “Catholic” versions, so it would be kind of awkward to rename it now…
  5. Finally, I believe in God. Which means that I believe that God is in control, period. And all that entails …

The crux of what I don’t understand, I guess, is why it seems that sex seems to be the god of the conversation when it comes to all things NFP. I get the sense that there’s a belief out there that married couples are simply entitled to as much sex as they can have, and that it’s a shame — a crying shame, and sometimes even *gasp* a sin — to say no to that urge (even if it’s only felt by one spouse).

These kind of arguments, coupled with the argument that NFP — and by extension, I assume, fertility awareness in general — should play only a minimal role in most marriages make their proponents sound, well, kind of sex-obsessed. I’m just saying. It sounds to me like they are arguing that regular and frequent genital sexual union a la urge is a sacred cow that must not be touched.

I simply do not see how — outside of intentionally “using NFP” to have as much sex as possible and simultaneously to avoid having children at all — using NFP to avoid pregnancy for a time can be equated to not fulfilling the procreative end of marriage. I mean, what if the couple already has a child … or two or three or four or five or six? Those don’t count? And how much sex is “enough”? In order to prove that you’re fulfilling your procreative end, do you have to “do it” once a month? A week? A day? Does anyone else see why this perspective just might be a tad problematic?

Sure, I get the “generosity” thing mentioned in Humanae Vitae. But what about the “prudent” part? And in my reading, those two are applied to the couple’s decisions (What? You mean the Church actually acknowledges that spouses have a decision to make in the matter? It sure seems so …) to bring new life into the world. Not to the decision about when to have sex. I mean, sure, generosity is a virtue to be applied to all aspects of life. But so is prudence.

So … do tell: How is it prudent (or truly generous, for that matter) to argue against practical knowledge of NFP (which is essentially, knowledge of the way God made women and men) while simultaneously arguing for sex-whenever-at-least-one-spouse-feels-like-it? This seems to me the least prudent approach a couple could take. And, I propose, it seems much closer in motivation (e.g., more sex, sex whenever the urge hits) to that perceived of contracepting couples than it does to that of couples who use NFP. Because, well, abstinence. And that (i.e., that correlation between providentialists and couples who contracept) kind of weirds me out.

Not only does it weird me out, it seems intentionally ignorant of and adverse toward the kind of information about oneself and one’s spouse that I believe every man and woman has the right to know and should know (particularly now that it is knowable), especially in marriage. It’s almost like these people would rather we close our eyes to the awesome reality of who God created us to be in favor of simply following our sexual instincts.

What about the spouse that might not share the instinct at a given moment? Wait for it … wait for it … they pull out a host of “Church teachings” that indicate that spouse, too, is theologically bound to follow the instincts of the other. Which just seems so inhuman to me — nevermind inconsiderate.

The fact is, simply knowing and understanding God’s great gift of fertility on a biological level can help to increase awe and respect for His design, and help spouses know and love one another more fully. Because the information is about the person. And the relationship is about the person. And that is enough, in my book, to strongly recommend every couple — yes, every couple — at least have a cursory knowledge of NFP.

My grandparents have taught NFP for more than 30 years and to this day they encourage young couples to learn it during engagement for the simple practical reason that it is easier to learn before marriage (assuming couples are not yet sleeping together, which I know is rare today) than in the face of a “serious” or “life-threatening” reason to avoid a pregnancy during marriage.

But more importantly, they continue to promote NFP today because THEY HAVE SEEN THE FRUITS OF THE PRACTICE OF NFP FOR THEIR 55-YEAR-OLD MARRIAGE. Far from painting the practice of NFP as some convenient, delightful little jaunt through Catholic marriage, my grandfather will be the first to tell you that early on it’s tough — and for years the couple might be more likely to ask “WHY are we doing this again?” than to exclaim joyfully “Oh, we looooove NFP.” But he’s very quick to follow up with how rewarding the practice of NFP is in the long run. Why? Because it fosters ongoing conversion of heart — and conversion toward the other — THIS is the “way of life” NFP promoters are talking about, not some attempt to perfectly plan and regulate each and every birth for maximum effect on the family budget and vacation plans (while still having awesome sex, of course).

My grandparents’ relationship is enviable. They are on the other side of raising six kids of their own and are enjoying watching their 26 (+? I’ve lost count) grandchildren and three great-grandchildren grow. And they are some of the most generous, most trusting, most open-to-God’s-will people I know. So yeah, when I hear criticisms of life-of-the-marriage NFP users, I get a little riled up. And I really start to wonder whether they know what they’re talking about.

Baby

Why do some Catholics think NFP is so bad? (Photo by Simon Manuela / albumarium.com)


There are a few other issues that I feel this side ignores:

  1. The fact that some families are called to have many children and some families aren’t. Oh, they’ll say they’re aware of the sad situation of couples who are infertile or couples who face such severe obstacles that they really have to limit their family size. But what about felt interior inclinations that are so strong that they become one of those justly and seriously considered reasons that couples discern to mean that God isn’t calling them to breed abundantly?

    I feel like it’s important to point out that there are some people who absolutely love and/or feel like it’s God’s will for them to be popping out babies every other year and/or feel the warm fuzzies when holding newborns and/or feel complete when fulfilling parental duties and teaching their many children. And then there are some people who don’t feel these things at all. God gives different gifts to different people. Each person has to work with what he or she has been given, and each couple has to wrestle with this reality. YES, we are all called to stretch and grow, and YES, sometimes it is uncomfortable. But I point out these differences because it’s so critically important to understand that everyone cannot simply be lumped into the same category — especially when it comes to such a weighty topic as the procreation and education of the next generation.

  2. The fact that not every person’s libido is the same. What is the pastoral advice for situations where one or both spouses just don’t feel “the urge” that often? Just do it anyway? How often is reasonable? Should the less-endowed go out of their way to get hormone supplements or treatments to increase their libido? Why? Assuming it’s not related to a disease, shouldn’t their spouse accept them for who they are? We almost always talk about all things sex related as if everybody-wants-it-and-just-has-to-have-it-as-much-as-possible. Well, that’s not true for everyone. Yet, if you’re Catholic and married, it sometimes seems like there’s virtually no reason why, if at least one party is game, it shouldn’t happen. Once again, sex=sacred cow, and we sweep the person under the rug.

Is anyone else questioning whether a broader, more holistic approach to marital intimacy might actually benefit everyone? I know I am. I long to see an approach that both upholds the integrity and value of genital marital union while also upholding the dignity of both spouses, in all their unique personal complexity. The closest I’ve seen to such an approach is (go figure) in Church documents on the subjects.

Unfortunately, there seems to be quite the systemic breakdown when it comes to translating the teachings into widely accessible, practical advice. This desperately needs to change.

And we’ve got to stop making genital sexual union a sacred cow and start talking more broadly about what healthy intimacy looks like in marriage. We can’t fulfill God’s will for our marriage by being perpetually open to the urge and leaving the rest up to him. Why? Because we’re persons, not animals. We’re persons whose need for intimacy and love and care goes oh-so-much-further than what happens in the bedroom. We’re also persons whose worth is not first (and not really ever) in how many children we have, but in our dignity as created in the image and likeness of God. And in his infinite creativity, he has made each of us spectacularly different, which means that our relationships and our marriages and the ways we are called to give are going to be unique and different from those of other individuals and other couples around us. The task set before us is to follow God’s will — and that will is for each of us as unique and unrepeatable as each of us is.

So please, please, pleeeease stop reducing the person and the marital relationship to sex. Please. It’s not good for anybody.

In conclusion, promotion of NFP as a way of life, rightly understood, brings to the table critical information that boosts, in particular, respect for the person as person and respect for the intricate dance of the couple using their intellect and free will to cooperate with God’s plan in their lives. An anti-NFP mindset of the type I see promoted on the Internet and among “providentialists” seems to uphold impulse over intellect, which doesn’t seem very respectful toward the Providence that saw fit to give us an intellect in the first place.

Why Sherlock Holmes would use fertility awareness

A little humor for your NFP Week reading.

We all know he’s not the relationship type. (Who really has time for small-minded romance when matching minds with the likes of Moriarty?) But if the great Sherlock Holmes ever felt compelled to really understand that great mystery of woman, I’m confident the concept of fertility awareness would play a prominent role in his mind palace.

Here’s why:

    1. It’s about the facts, Watson. Fertility awareness relies on the body’s naturally occurring signs to inform and form observations of a woman’s menstrual cycle and overall health. The interplay of hormones orchestrate cyclical processes that determine what a woman’s reproductive system is doing and when. And based on the action of those hormones, she can tell where she is in her cycle or tell when something is wrong, and she and her partner and/or her doctor can use that information to help avoid or achieve pregnancy and even get to the root of and heal medical problems.

    2. Deduce this: Women hate to be told that “it must be that time of the month” by men. And frankly, most men using that line are jerks. But for women or couples in the know about fertility awareness, the knowledge of where she’s at in her cycle can be incredibly empowering. (Sherlock, of course, would mince no words. “You’re five days past peak. Your progesterone levels have started dropping. Your egg is deteriorating, hence you’re a raging maniac. Crying will commence in 3…2…1.”)

    Seriously, though, knowledge is power. Women can harness the time of the month (around ovulation) when they feel they can take on the world. And when “that other time” hits, they’ll know they aren’t crazy — the hormone flux will pass. In the meantime, pass the chocolate. I speak from experience on this one. (Just ask my husband.)

    (As a side note, charting cycles can help women better manage their hormones if they are a bit, or more than a bit, out of whack. Doctors who can read fertility charts can work with the woman to arrange hormonal supplements or other treatment to help keep extreme hormone dysfunction in check.)

    3. Can you imagine the experiments one could do? OK, so it’s nothing like the body parts in the great detective’s refrigerator, but did you know there are theories about male and female sperm and how timing sex in relation to ovulation may help couples have a boy or a girl? Not that it really matters … but I bet a fertility awareness-wise Sherlock would have at least attempted to predict the sex of John and Mary’s baby before the 18-week sono.

    Mr. Holmes would likely also have a healthy respect for physicians like Dr. Thomas Hilgers, who has made it his life’s work to study the woman’s reproductive cycle in order to unleash its power through NaPro Technology. His work and the doctors he has trained have helped numerous women overcome apparent infertility and treat PCOS and endometriosis, all without recourse to artificial means of insemination or synthetic hormones. (NaPro claims to be two to four times as effective as IVF, to boot.)

Now, whether a high-functioning sociopath such as Sherlock would personally benefit from any of the relationship-enhancing effects touted by NFP advocates is questionable (he’d be more likely to use them to manipulate feminine assets while on a case). But I’m convinced fertility awareness would be a handy little tool in the belt of the world’s only “consulting detective.”

The Pill and the Power to Manipulate Nature

A few years back, I had the unexpected opportunity to write for CNN’s In America Blog on the topic of the HHS mandate and my response as a Catholic woman. This paved the way for me to (at least virtually) meet Holly Grigg-Spall, author of Sweetening the Pill, and I’ve been watching her cause gain momentum since then.

Grigg-Spall’s blog — now also a book, and hopefully soon a documentary — articulates a discomfort with the prevalence of hormonal contraception that stems not from any religious or moral grounds, but rather her own personal experience of and subsequent study of the history and negative impacts of the Pill and other forms of hormonal contraception.

Along the way, she discovered the idea of fertility awareness, and now considers it empowering for women to embrace their bodies’ natural cycles. This is where our views converge: We both seem to believe that women should be accepted as women in society, and not feel pressured to suppress or change something so intrinsic to us as our fertility cycles in order to fit in. We also both seem to believe that every woman has a right to understand how her body works, and that that information has too long taken a back seat to pro-Pill propaganda.

Frankly, I don’t see eye-to-eye with Grigg-Spall on everything, and I’m sure I’m not going to agree with all the conclusions that the Sweetening the Pill (STP) documentary draws. Still, I strongly believe it is a conversation that needs to happen in the public square, and for that reason I have a lot of respect for Grigg-Spall and the whole Sweetening the Pill team. I encourage readers to support their Kickstarter campaign to ensure this documentary gets off the ground. (There are only 6 days left in the campaign, so please check it out as soon as possible!)

Interestingly enough, Slate DoubleX contributor Amanda Marcotte seems to hate the thought of this documentary. In her words in her post, “Ricki Lake Starts a Crusade Against Hormonal Birth Control,” “the human ability to manipulate nature and extract what we want out of it is the defining feature of our species” — and apparently Grigg-Spall, Lake, and director Abby Epstein aren’t adequately toeing the line. They are, from Marcotte’s standpoint, suggesting that hormonal contraceptives have caused harm that could be avoided by using other, more natural methods. And nature, to Marcotte, is something to be despised, manipulated and conquered.

But the point of my post isn’t whether Marcotte accurately represents the aims of the STP documentary (she doesn’t), nor how much I really want to see the STP documentary happen (I do). Rather, my point is that Marcotte offers an unsurprising but strikingly clear articulation of a worldview that I believe is behind much of today’s so-called progress:

“The human ability to manipulate nature and extract what we want out of it is the defining feature of our species.”

There is truth to her statement — even Pope Francis’s encyclical, Laudato Si, acknowledges that, “The modification of nature for useful purposes has distinguished the human family from the beginning” and applauds technological progress that has “remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings” (102).

But while humanity’s capacity for progress and modification of nature can be laudable, the Pope does not blindly stop there, as Marcotte seems to, but rather cautions that progress without respect for life and nature, without wisdom, without humility, has the capacity to create a world in which might makes right, with dire consequences.

“Creation is harmed,” he writes, quoting his predecessor, Benedict XVI, “‘where we ourselves have the final word, where everything is simply our property and we use it for ourselves alone. The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any higher instance than ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves'” (6).

I can’t help but hear the whisper of the Serpent from Genesis in Marcotte’s oversimplification of humanity’s abilities. “You will be like God,” he urges. “See what goodness and delight are at your fingertips — see what knowledge you can grasp!”

My hunch is that Marcotte, like many today, would prefer to forget that as created beings, we are subject to laws and norms that by default govern the use of our freedom (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 396). I think that’s why she reacts so strongly against Sweetening the Pill, and in particular its emphasis on the harms caused by hormonal contraception and its promotion of body and fertility awareness. Those factors are reminders that our power to change nature is in fact not without limits.

© 2024 Who Goes Her Way

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑