Tag: fertility awareness

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

July 23, 2015 / / 0 Comments

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

July 22, 2015 / / 0 Comments

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

June 26, 2015 / / 0 Comments

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.

Meta

Pages

Thank you, every woman

© 2024 Who Goes Her Way

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑