"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing." -Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
Placating terrorists, meeting with dictators, compassion for murderers... but no humanity for the unborn... incredible.
OOT
I've only read through part of it (it's lengthy), but so far I agree with aspects of both viewpoints and am sure I will have much to say later when I have the time.
Re: Is NFP mysogynistic? Runboard just ate my last post.
I had said that while I do not disagree with many of the points made by the first author, here charges of mysogyny struck me as actually veering into mysandry. This idea that only women suffer seems vile and noxious to me.
Re: Is NFP mysogynistic? The number 1 problem with NFP is that, in most cases, it is not being used according to Catholic teaching. I took an NFP class when our first child was a baby. I don't recall whoever taught the class saying anything about grave circumstances, and admittedly, that is not how we used it at first. Understanding and practicing Catholic teaching in regards to contraception was a process for me.
In Marjorie's case, she basically says it's too complicated and oppressive to the woman and the married couple. Well, at least in my experience, that's not true. Granted, every woman is different and so it may be more complicated for some than others, but it was not nearly the complication she made it out to be. I never took my temperatures. Eventually I was able to stop charting because after awhile I knew what was going on just by paying attention. My husband, as far as I recall, was never much a part of the scientific stuff and I didn't care if he was. He wasn't even there for the classes, he was in Bosnia serving in the Army at the time. So on this point I disagree with her.
However, if a couple is using NFP only as the Church intends it, that is, in certain grave circumstances, then it shouldn't be a long-term burden for the couple, and in fact should be relatively rare. I can imagine that it would be more difficult for couples who are using NFP as they would any other form of birth control, to limit and/or space their children years apart. But of course, that is the incorrect usage and a burden put upon them by disobeying Church teaching.
So I disagree with her evaluation of the burden of NFP on the woman but agree with her final point about its use, although I'm not sure we both get there by the same reasoning.
Somewhere on the other side of the debate, Kate mentioned emotional stress as a reason to use NFP. She speaks about "just reasons" for using NFP, but fails to mention how a couple should determine what constitutes a just reason. I don't think she's qualified to suggest what good reasons are. What kind of emotional stress? All parents experience stress. The question is when it would become more dangerous to add another child than to prevent it for a time, and the only qualified person to counsel a couple on the matter is a priest. (Of course, I realize that today there are probably a good number of couples who are not receiving good counseling on the matter even from a priest.)
She also said, "I believe faithful families come in all sizes. You don't have to have a crowd of kids to be obedient to the Church's teachings." Well, yes and no. Not every Catholic family obeying Church teaching will end up with a crowd of kids. But that's up to God, not NFP. You DO have to follow Church teaching and accept all of them unless there is a grave reason not to do so.
She mentions when "a couple prayerfully decides to postpone or avoid pregnancy". The couple shouldn't decide anything, however prayerfully they do it, without the counsel of a priest to be sure they are not committing sin by their actions. We're human and we can come up with all sorts of "good" reasons in our heads. But we're not exactly objective in the matter and need someone who is, a priest whose job it is to help us save our souls.
So, I have a serious problem with her premise for using NFP while I generally agree with her view of its application in the life of the woman and the married couple.
Re: Is NFP mysogynistic? Thanks, Natty. That helps me somewhat. It is not an approach which puts an undo burden on the female by its nature. It is interesting that her point was just narrowing down a general gripe about birth control which is that it boils down to the female having all the responsibility. The men have no worries. Really?
I agree with you that using NFP with a contraceptive mentality is questionable from a Catholic perspective. At least I think that is what you are saying.
Interestingly, I did not really have a problem with one of her final statements.
quote:
In its place, perhaps we all need to suck it up and admit what the theology asks of us: Have sex whenever you both want to... and expect a baby every time. Otherwise, don't copulate.
It is interesting that her point was just narrowing down a general gripe about birth control which is that it boils down to the female having all the responsibility. The men have no worries. Really?
I think it is also the idea that contraception, because of its very nature, has the burden of fear; fear of an unintended pregnancy. She started with the story of her mother and father's reaction to an unexpected pregnancy and how it left a permanent impression on her, a very negative one. Although NFP generally fosters more acceptance of a "surprise" pregnancy, the initial reaction may very well be the same as with any type of artificial contraception, and produce stress in the couple related to the idea of getting pregnant when they don't really want to. But I think she focused less on this after her introduction and more on the burden of the application of NFP itself.
In truth, the actual application of NFP is less of a worry for a man, at least in its mechanics. My husband seemed content to leave it up to me, his main concern being that it was as effective as the birth control pill. Only I could apply the methods and know the status of my fertility during the month. I think this is what she was talking about, although I didn't feel like I was unduly burdened by this fact.
From a male perspective, what other concerns do you think men would share?
quote:
I agree with you that using NFP with a contraceptive mentality is questionable from a Catholic perspective.
I think it's more than questionable. It's sinful.
quote:
Interestingly, I did not really have a problem with one of her final statements.
I agree with her statement, too. I just thought she obscured the teaching of the Church with her assertions that it placed an undue burden on the woman and the couple. But maybe her ultimate message was that it's both.
Re: Is NFP mysogynistic? Though knowledge of the mechanics will be a responsibility that falls upon only the woman, both must abstain. There is no reason to believe that is only a burden for the woman in a marriage.
And yes, a marriage that is not open to the conception of children is disordered but, as always, intent and knowledge are required for something to be considered sinful. It would be easy to cross the line if the couple embraces the idea that they really just don't want to have a baby but they don't want to give up fooling around.
Re: Is NFP mysogynistic? The Catholic Church teaches that birth control is immoral. Marriages should be open to children. The larger society is contraceptive. NFP is introduced and becomes almost a contraception-lite that is sold as being Catholic. I wonder what percentage of Catholic marriages are truly Catholic based upon the spouses' attitudes regarding birth control?
