Newsflash: Pope Francis did NOT just green-light contraception!

I feel like yelling.

Look at the second line of this headline:

NO, the Pope did NOT say birth control is OKAY. That is UNTRUE. The Drudge headline erroneously extrapolates from this distorted AP article, but let's read closer, yes? Francis says that it is not intrinsically evil to avoid pregnancy (DUH!!!), unlike abortion which is intrinsically evil. And he even references Pope Paul VI, the very person who wrote Humanae Vitae, which condemns contraception!

From the AP article itself:

Abortion "is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil at its root, no? It's a human evil," he said. "On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one (Zika), such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear."

Guess what? He just said what the Church has always said: Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. And there are ways of avoiding pregnancy, as Pope Paul VI said, that are moral. It's called Natural Family Planning.

Hello??? Is anyone ever listening?

DON'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA, people!!! Sigh....





*Please note that even the word "Zika" was inserted by the reporter, not spoken by Pope Francis.

Should Pope Francis "take on" birth control? A response

Hi folks, JoAnna here. I recently wrote the following post for Catholic Stand, 
and Leila asked if I'd mind running it on the Bubble as a guest post as well 
while she is on hiatus. 

+++++++

Robert McClory recently wrote an article for the National Catholic* Reporter, opining that Pope Francis should revisit the question of the morality of birth control. As per usual for the Reporter, this dissent from Church teaching contains many problems.

Problem #1: Terminology. This is a widespread problem, so I can't really fault McClory, but his terminology is problematic. The Church does not, in fact, teach that “birth control,” when used to refer to spacing pregnancies, is intrinsically immoral. In fact, the words “birth control” do not appear in the Catechism. The closest term is “regulation of births,” about which the CCC states, “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”

In other words, it is not intrinsically immoral to use “birth control” to space pregnancies, provided that the method of birth control used is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. The Church teaches that there are only two such methods: periodic abstinence or complete abstinence (see CCC 2370).

Contraception, however, is a form of birth control that is intrinsically immoral and is not permitted under any circumstances. As Humanae Vitae states, contraception is “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

McClory is specifically speaking about the Church’s teachings regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception when he refers to birth control. He also states that the Church “forbids any form of artificial contraception” (emphasis mine), implying that moral methods of birth regulation are some sort of natural contraception, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Problem #2: Too Many of Them, Just Enough of Him. McClory begins his article citing Pope Francis’ general audience on June 5, in which the Holy Father laments the plight of children who are starving and encourages Catholics to do what they can to remedy that issue.

McClory’s solution is not to feed the children, or donate food, money, or other resources toward that end, or work toward reforming corrupt governments that hinder adequate food distribution. No, his solution is... wait for it… contraception!

Frankly speaking, this attitude is one of eugenics smothered with a thin veneer of false compassion. “We must think of the children!” is camouflage for this sentiment: “The hungry of the world are the poor, unfit, unwashed masses, so of course there should be less of them. We wouldn't those undesirables to breed, would we?”

If McClory did his research, he'd know that the World Food Programme – the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger worldwide – states that “There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.“ The problem is access, and throwing contraception at people who'd much prefer to have nutritious food is not going to solve that issue. (Incidentally, a search for the term “contraception” on WFP's site yields no results; obviously, unlike McClory, they don't believe it's the magical panacea for solving world hunger.)

Problem #3: The Holy Spirit Got It Wrong. McClory claims that he's “not suggesting the pope announce he is rescinding the church's position as dictated by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.” No, not at all! He just wants Pope Francis to re-examine Responsible Parenthood, which was issued by the Vatican's Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth in 1966. This document encouraged Paul VI to amend the Church's current position on contraception, arguing that the Pill should be an “exception” to the contraception ban since it didn't alter the physical aspects of the marital act (unlike condoms, which placed a barrier between man and wife).

Interestingly, it was Paul's VI intention that this document was for his eyes only, but unfortunately a copy was leaked to the press and its contents became available for public dissemination. The document caused many Catholics to believe that a change in teaching regarding contraception was imminent, as it was portrayed as the “majority opinion” of the Commission. The fact that, to quote Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, “Truth is not determined by majority vote” was a concept apparently lost to many Catholics at that time (and is a concept still lost to many Catholics today, including the entire staff of the National Catholic Reporter).

Paul VI, however, knew that the Commission was largely composed of pro-contraception advocates from its inception. According to Dr. Germain Grisez, emeritus Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount St. Mary’s University, “Paul VI was aware of the ideological leanings of those he had appointed to the Commission, and had composed the Commission in this way in order to give their argument a fair hearing.”

Their arguments did not convince Paul VI, however, and two years later he issued Humanae Vitae, restating the Church's constant, unchanging teaching on artificial birth control and making several dire predictions about the negative changes that would come to pass if contraception became accepted and widespread among the populace – predictions that have all come true.

You'd think that the fact that these predictions have come true is simply evidence that Paul VI was correct in his decision, and that his words and actions in continuing to uphold the Church's ban on contraception were inspired by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you?

Not so, says McClory's article. He believes that the Commission was “ahead of its time,” and his implication is that Paul VI went against the "correct" teaching and instead taught error as doctrine. Moreover, using this logic, the Church has continued teaching error as doctrine – the ban on contraception is reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is, according to Pope John Paul II, “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion“), and JPII also reaffirmed the evil of contraception in his encyclical Evengelium Vitae.

In short, McClory believes that the Holy Spirit got it wrong when He inspired the Church to reaffirm the ban against contraception, which means that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church and Jesus was a liar. Therefore, Catholicism is a false religion. Given this logic, why does McClory bother to remain in a Church that he firmly believes teaches error as doctrine and has proven itself, by his own reasoning, to be a false church? How can he trust any of the teachings of the Church if he knows that She has taught error on one important aspect of doctrine (and if he's in favor of women's ordination, as are most of the NCR staff, that's another crucial area of doctrine the Church has allegedly gotten wrong)?

Problem #4: Pope Francis is Going to Change Church Teaching. McClory “couldn't help noting how the language of the document [Responsible Parenthood] so resembled the calm, non-argumentative, pastoral style of the current pope.”

I can't think of a single papal document issued in the last forty years or so that could be described as angry, argumentative, or non-pastoral, but his implication is that Francis' style is markedly different than that of Paul VI or JPII or Benedict XVI – yet reading any of the documents issued by any of these popes shows that they were all (or are still, in Pope Benedict's case) thoughtful, reasonable, pastoral shepherds of our Church.

I think McClory is projecting his own feelings of anger and dissent on the writings of the popes with whom he disagrees, and he's hoping that Pope Francis, whom he sees as more "liberal," will change all that by also changing Church teaching – because to accept the recommendations of Responsible Parenthood would be to do just that.

So no, Mr. McClory, Pope Francis will not “take on birth control,” because the teaching that contraception is an intrinsic evil is a teaching of the magisterium and is part of the Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis has neither the authority nor the desire to change this doctrine, and his pontificate so far has only served to emphasize that fact.

Stop fantasizing about what you hope Pope Francis will say and start listening to what he has actually said, such as in Lumen Fidei:

As a service to the unity of faith and its integral transmission, the Lord gave his Church the gift of apostolic succession. Through this means, the continuity of the Church’s memory is ensured and certain access can be had to the wellspring from which faith flows. The assurance of continuity with the origins is thus given by living persons, in a way consonant with the living faith which the Church is called to transmit. She depends on the fidelity of witnesses chosen by the Lord for this task. For this reason, the magisterium always speaks in obedience to the prior word on which faith is based; it is reliable because of its trust in the word which it hears, preserves and expounds. In Saint Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, which Saint Luke recounts for us in the Acts of the Apostles, he testifies that he had carried out the task which the Lord had entrusted to him of "declaring the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Thanks to the Church’s magisterium, this counsel can come to us in its integrity, and with it the joy of being able to follow it fully.”

*While this publication still identifies itself as Catholic, they were requested to remove that identifier from their name as early as 1968 – and the current bishop, Robert W. Finn, has also identified them as a problematic media source when it comes to authentic Catholic reporting.

+++++++

My NFP plea: Stop giving warnings, and rejoice!

Okay, so now I write something that could start a riot in some Catholic circles, but by the end of the post, you'll see why this topic is so important to me.

Two points, then I will elaborate.

1) It is impossible to use Natural Family Planning (NFP) with a "contraceptive mentality", so please let us stop using that term in conjunction with NFP.
2) Those who use NFP should be encouraged, not be scolded or have their motives questioned.

Let's start with the first point. I used to say and believe that NFP could be used with a "contraceptive mentality". I was wrong. Contraception is something very specific, and NFP is its nemesis, its antidote. Contraception is "any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means" (Humanae Vitae, 14). NFP is nothing of that, so the word "contraceptive" cannot be used in conjunction with it, period.

I believe that when well-meaning Catholics warn that "NFP can be sinful when used with a contraceptive mentality!" what they actually mean is that "NFP can be used selfishly!"

True, but both statements are regrettable. The first statement is simply erroneous, and the second statement is accurate but unhelpful.

Which brings me to my second point: Those who use NFP should be encouraged, not be scolded or have their motives questioned.

Unlike contraception, which is intrinsically evil, Natural Family Planning is not only permitted, but is promoted and taught by Mother Church, all around the world. Mother Teresa's sisters give instruction in NFP to the poorest of the poor, for example, and my own diocese requires a full course of instruction for every engaged couple.

NFP and fertility awareness (for achieving and/or postponing pregnancy) is morally licit and a positive good.

And yes, NFP can be used selfishly. But so can any good thing.

Think about it. Buying a house is licit and moral. But can a house be bought for selfish motives? Yes. Accepting a job offer is licit and moral. But can a job be taken for selfish motives? Yes. What about giving a speech, getting an education, having a child? You get the idea.

When discussing NFP, some Catholics want to jump immediately past the good of it to the dire warnings of how many ways and degrees NFP can (in their subjective opinion) be misused to our spiritual peril!

In what other area would we do this?

Let's take cohabitation, for example. If a couple living in sin for years were moved by grace to right their wrongs and get married, I pray their noble decision would never be met with, “Well, marriage is allowed by the Church of course, but if you conduct your marriage with the same ‘cohabiting mentality’ that you had when living together, then you might as well still be shacking up! Be very careful to examine your motives or you remain in grave sin!”

That response is just… wrong. Obviously. No one would say it. So, why do we say such things when it comes to NFP?

Here’s why it bothers me enough to make such a big deal out of it. I taught RCIA for about five years with my friend Kim. We laid out the case for the truth of the Christ and His Church, leading up to the “hard sayings” in the moral law, including the teaching about contraception. Among the couples we taught (usually one was Catholic and the spouse was converting) most had not previously known or followed Church teaching. As they approached the Easter sacraments, the majority wanted to do God's will but were frightened about the real-life costs of doing so. The switch from contraception to NFP felt, as one couple described it, “like jumping off a thousand-foot cliff". They believed and trusted the Church, but it was still terrifying to follow through.

So, imagine a couple, steeped in the values of a sexually confused culture, bravely doing what the Church asks of them, taking that leap of faith off a very scary cliff, only to be immediately lectured that even after giving up contraception there is every chance that they are still in the same gravely sinful place they were before, with only the tiniest sliver of hope that they are using NFP for the one or two reasons good enough to keep them out of hell!

Why do we do this to our brothers and sisters who may have just set their feet upon the path?

Why would we do it to anyone, actually? The fact that any couple is not contracepting is enough to rejoice about, and if we let grace do its work, NFP use has a funny way of changing the hearts of the fearful or the not-quite-convinced. They may start off using NFP selfishly (which is none of our business anyway, and how can we possibly know?), but they may end with wills conformed to God, souls full of grace -- and many welcomed children.

People are fragile. Let's be careful.

Thanks for hearing me out.



Related post: Natural Family Planning is not contraception!



.

Important follow-up to the Natural Family Planning post: "Isn't it the same as contraception?"

I can't believe I forgot to mention this in the Natural Family Planning post! There is one very common misunderstanding about NFP that comes in the form of a question like this:

"How is NFP different from contraception, since both of them are ways not to have a baby? I can't see a real difference, since the intention is the same: to prevent a pregnancy!"

The question assumes that avoiding pregnancy is inherently immoral according to the Catholic Church. But the Church does not teach this! In fact, it is not inherently immoral to avoid pregnancy.

The question is flawed because it forgets the distinction between the end (our intended goal) and the means (how we get to that goal).

For an act to be moral, both the end and the means must be moral.

The "end" in our particular question is "preventing pregnancy". That is the goal or intention, and it is not inherently evil. If serious reasons exist, a married couple is justified in postponing pregnancy, even indefinitely. So, in such a case, we've got a moral "end".

So far, so good!

But now what about the "means"?

Well, the means a couple uses to prevent pregnancy has to be moral, too. Like so many other things in life, we have a choice between moral and immoral ways to get to a good end. NFP is a moral means of preventing pregnancy, contraception is an immoral means of preventing pregnancy.

But why?

Well, because contraception fundamentally changes the very nature of sex. In some cases, the spouses' bodies themselves are altered through chemical or surgical means, and in other cases there is a literal, physical barrier put between husband and wife at the moment they are called to be united as "one flesh". Contraception subverts the inherent, purposeful connection between love and life (i.e., sex and procreation), and when those two dimensions of sex are artificially separated, the marital act itself becomes disordered. To deliberately sterilize the marital act is to strip it of its transcendence and meaning. Sex leaves the sacred and becomes common.

With NFP, by contrast, the spouses and the marital act remain untouched and unaltered. Husband and wife unite in love as they are designed, and fertility works within the rhythms that God (and Natural Law) intends. The integrity of the martial act is completely intact.

But wait! you might say. You are still manipulating the process by not having sex during times you might get pregnant! 

No, not manipulating. NFP users are working with the natural cycles of fertility and infertility that God Himself put in place. God could have chosen to make us fertile 100% of the time, but in fact He made us infertile the majority of the time. To prayerfully consider our situation and then avail ourselves of the naturally infertile times of a woman's cycle does not disrespect God's design or the Natural Law.

Remember, choosing to abstain from sex is not a sin. However, choosing to take the pleasure of sex while willfully disconnecting it from its full meaning is a sin.

This analogy may help:

Trixie and Pixie both want to lose weight. Losing weight is not inherently sinful, and can be a good goal.

Trixie's means to that end? She practices self-control and sacrifice by eating healthier meals and smaller portions, and even fasting for a time.

Pixie's means to that end? She eats all she wants, in any portion, heavy on the sweets and treats. Each time she is done indulging her palate, she retreats to the bathroom where she sticks her finger down her throat and vomits it all back up.

I hope we all can agree that Trixie's means of losing weight is moral and ordered, while Pixie's means of losing weight is immoral and disordered.

Bulimia contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of eating, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Contraception contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of sex, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Natural Family Planning is a good means to a good end, thus is ordered and moral.

Contraception? It's just sexual bulimia.



_______

Related Post: My NFP Plea: Stop Giving Warnings, and Rejoice!

The Natural Family Planning Post!!!

We are fearfully and wonderfully made. 

Psalm 139:14

I am so grateful to Alison at Matching Moonheads for agreeing to write a guest post about Natural Family Planning! She and her husband are certified NFP teachers for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and have been teaching a sympto-thermal method for two years.

+++++++

I couldn’t be more excited to write this article about the scientific perspective of natural family planning (NFP). Understanding the science behind NFP and how exquisitely our bodies are designed has had a huge impact on my life. I am passionate about sharing this knowledge with others.

The Basics

All natural family planning (NFP) methods have the same aim: Identify the times when a couple is fertile or infertile in order to know when to achieve or avoid pregnancy. This does not make NFP a method of contraception, since nothing is being done to prevent conception. The sex act is left undisturbed, and the spouses’ bodies are unaltered. A couple decides when to have intercourse based on their desire to postpone or achieve pregnancy.

A male is always fertile, but without the right conditions in the female body, his sperm will die within 20 minutes after completion of intercourse. A woman, on the other hand, cycles between being infertile and fertile all within an approximately month-long period.
  

Overview of a woman's cycle

(Click image to enlarge)

From the Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Sympto-thermal Method, Dr. Roetzer.

Because males are always fertile and females are only cyclically fertile, NFP methods focus on understanding when a female’s body creates an environment hospitable to sperm, making conception possible. This is done by observing one or both of two measurable and quantifiable secondary characteristics of a woman’s body that occur as a result of the hormones that control her reproductive cycle: her basal body temperature and her cervical fluid discharges. In short: 

• An increase in cervical fluid indicates cycle onset of fertility.
• A rise in basal body temperatures (which are correlated with a “drying up” of cervical mucus observations) signal a return to infertility after ovulation.  

Using these two observations together, a complete picture of the fertile window leading up to ovulation and after ovulation can be made.  

Each NFP method has the user identify her cycle peak day from her fluid observations, which is the last day that the most fertile fluid was observed. [Cervical fluid discharges closely resemble nasal mucus and come from similar crypts within the cervix. These fluids are commonly referred to as "cervical mucus," so I will use that term from here on out.] Peak day is the highest statistically likely day of ovulation. (Note that the only way to identify ovulation with 100% certainty is through ultrasound. However, since we are interested in days of fertility or the “fertile window”, not just ovulation, determining ovulation day with 100% certainty is not necessary to use NFP.)  

Identifying the onset of changing fertile mucus and peak day are the cornerstones to almost all NFP methods.  

A woman will ovulate during a 24-hour window of her cycle when follicle stimulating hormone (FSH – not shown on the chart) and luteinizing hormone (LH - green on the chart below) reach sufficient levels. A released egg has only 24 hours of viability; if it is not fertilized by a sperm during that time period, the egg will die and be absorbed back into the system. 

However, the male’s sperm can live up to 5 days, depending on sufficient, good quality cervical mucus. Because of this, the days immediately preceding and the day following ovulation are potential days of fertility. Each NFP method has rules (based on significant research) that dictate how long after peak day abstinence is required for avoiding pregnancy. 

Making Observations

All NFP methods require the woman to make routine observations about her body, in order to apply the rules to achieve or avoid pregnancy. The two main types of NFP are the mucus-only methods, which record mucus observations, and the sympto-thermal methods, which record both basal body temperature and mucus observations. While observing and charting is a highly individual task, it helps to follow standardized rules that ensure the best possible observations. Some NFP methods are more standardized than others, so it is best to pick a method that will suit your needs. Some things to remember when making your observations:

• When using basal body temperature (BBT) readings, it is important to take your temperature at the same time in the morning before getting out of bed.  BBT data is based on circadian rhythms that are affected by hormones that start flowing in your body before you get out of bed. Data is best compared at the same time every morning when your body is still as close to being asleep as possible, before it starts to “heat up.”
• It is important to use a basal body thermometer to ensure accuracy, not just any thermometer. Additionally, most thermometers have a “memory recall” button that allows you to take your temperature without needing to write it down right away. This means you barely have to wake up to take your temperature and can easily go back to sleep.
• Cervical mucus is to be observed every time you void (both before and after) and right before you go to bed. This is as simple as wiping from front to back using a flat sheet of folded toilet tissue and examining what you see. You will be looking for two things: sensation when wiping and characteristics of the mucus. Both are important. A mucus observation that includes any of the following would be considered the most fertile (for identifying peak day): a wet or lubricative feeling when wiping, mucus that is clear or stretchy (think: egg white). Other cloudy, tackier mucus (think: more like tooth paste or pudding) will be less fertile. You will record the most fertile reading of the day on your chart. The NFP method you have chosen will have different ways to classify this and different rules for how to proceed. 
• In the pre-peak phase of your cycle, it is necessary to get a good mucus reading throughout the day before you can conclude if a day is fertile or infertile. This means that for almost all NFP methods, intercourse in the morning during the pre-peak phase is not advised.
• It is important to identify true menstruation, which only follows ovulation.  Not all bleeding is menstruation, including bleeding while using the Pill. Mucus observations must be made on days of light bleeding. Couples that are going off of hormonal contraception are advised to practice abstinence during the pre-peak phase for the first few months, in order to properly practice mucus readings and identify peak day (fertile mucus will closely resemble seminal fluid). Often what women think is their period is not, because they have not been ovulating while on the Pill.

There are several other things to keep in mind when making observations, and what I’ve given here is by no means a complete description. It is absolutely necessary to consult an NFP teacher who will be able to explain the details of their method, and who will work with you one-on-one to help you understand your chart and any issues you might have.  

Understanding the Hormones

In order to use NFP, it is not necessary to understand how the careful balance of hormones creates the woman’s reproductive cycle. However, it is interesting information, and it can help identify problems when a woman has irregular cycles and/or is not conceiving when desired. Understanding the balance of these hormones and seeking to correct any imbalance is the basis for NaProTechnology with Dr. Hilgers and the Pope Paul VI Institute, whose mission is the study of reproduction (and avoiding artificial reproductive techniques). 

(Click chart to enlarge)

Note: This is an example cycle. Every woman's body will vary.

The hormones that dominate a woman’s cycle are estrogen (estradiol – blue on the chart) and progesterone (red on the chart). The pre-ovulation/pre-peak phase (also called the “follicular phase”, as this is when a follicle is developing to release an egg), is dominated by estrogen. After menstruation and in the beginning of the cycle, the pituitary gland in the brain will produce follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) that will do just that – stimulate the follicles on the ovaries to start getting ready to mature and release an egg. This developing follicle (shown in the graph) will begin to produce estrogen, which increases the uterine lining, opens the cervix to admit sperm, produces mucus that will aid in transmitting sperm, and depresses the basal body temperature.  

High enough levels of estrogen emanating from the growing follicle on the ovary will eventually signal the pituitary gland to release luteinizing hormone (LH) to trigger ovulation. Incidentally, this is the hormone measured by the Clearblue® Easy Fertility Monitor and ovulation predictor kits.  

In the post-peak phase or “luteal phase”, the burst follicle on the ovary (now called the corpus luteum or “yellow body”) will release progesterone that causes the body to get ready for pregnancy. It will signal the pituitary gland to stop producing FSH (which is why you won’t ovulate beyond a 24-hour window), the cervix will close, mucus will dry up, endometrial lining will increase in preparation for implantation, and basal body temperature will increase. However, after two weeks the corpus luteum will begin to dry up if it has not heard from a fertilized egg to keep producing progesterone. If the woman is not pregnant, progesterone levels will drop, the endometrial lining will slough off, the woman will get her period, and the cycle will start all over.

NFP Resources

This introductory article is by not meant to substitute for real, individual NFP instruction! It is offered only as a introductory resource for those inquiring into NFP. As mentioned, many doctors have been researching and working on natural family planning methods over the last several decades, so there are multiple NFP methods available. There is truly something for everyone in any circumstance. Because NFP requires users to make observations on their own bodies each month, it is a highly individualized method, unlike the rhythm method, which used rules based on the average woman’s cycle. Regular cycles are not a requirement to use NFP.

Following is a list of NFP methods and contacts: 

Billings Ovulation Method – Mucus-only  

Creighton Method (CrMS) – Mucus-only, help for infertile women  

Couple-to-Couple League (CCL) – Sympto-thermal method

Marquette Method – Sympto-thermal method, includes Clearblue Easy monitor  

CEIBA Study, study for couples wanting to learn Creighton 

Additionally, CCL has a home study course available to self-teach, which may be a good resource for those couples looking to learn on their own, or who don’t live near a teacher.  

A final note: NFP has benefits for everyone, not just Catholics. I was not Catholic when I first learned about NFP, but I had accepted that NFP was a powerful pathway to good health, to accepting my femininity, and to respecting my own body’s reproductive and life-giving potential. For me, learning the method led me to discover truths about my body that point to something higher -- namely, what true love and self-giving look like. From there, I was eventually able to understand other universal truths, which cleared up many misconceptions I had about Catholic teaching, and which eventually led to my conversion. 

Thanks again to Alison for this excellent NFP primer! And for those of you interested in hearing from real-life NFP couples, please watch this sweet video made in my own diocese. I am blessed to know several of the couples (and the doctors) in the film. Don't miss the funny outtakes at the end!

**Important follow-up to this post, here.

(Why NFP is not the same as contraception.)

.

A sad reminder that the Pill was never designed to improve a woman's health

A wonderful blogger emailed me recently, telling me of a terrible medical emergency unfolding in her extended family. She wanted to let others know about the circumstances of this upsetting situation without posting it on her own blog. I offered her this forum, and here is her story:


We got a call a few days ago from my husband's aunt. His cousin "Jane" was in the hospital with blood clots in her lungs. Jane is 21.

Jane has been on the Pill since shortly after her 16th birthday because her mother believed that sex was a natural thing for young people to want to do. Since Jane was going to sleep around, it was her mother's responsibility to ensure that her daughter was safe. She has repeatedly informed us that our standards of no sex before marriage are unrealistic and that we "need to come into the modern age."

The modern age caught up with Jane last Saturday when she began having a sharp pain in her chest. She called 911 and told them that she was sure she was having a heart attack. The ambulance responded and whisked her to the hospital. Testing revealed that the pain was not from her heart but from the blood clots in her lungs. She had 6 large clots and numerous smaller ones spread throughout both lungs. Blood thinners were started and she was sent for further testing. A full body scan showed diminished blood flow in one of her legs and almost non-existent blood flow to her uterus.   

After several days in the hospital, the clots in her lungs looked better and the blood flow to her leg was at a normal level. Circulation to her uterus is better but is still at a level that causes concern.

The doctors determined that her condition was caused by her use of the Pill.

She was such a healthy person. She didn't smoke, ran regularly, and ate a mostly vegetarian diet (she just couldn't walk away from the occasional steak). She had no risk factors for blood clots except for those birth control pills that were meant to keep her safe.

Jane will be on blood thinners for the foreseeable future. She will have to give up running. She won't graduate in May as was planned, but may get her diploma in December if she is well enough to attend class by then. There is a good possibility that she is now infertile. She is on bedrest until the clots are dissolved and she is out of immediate danger. As of tonight, there are still clots present. She could still die.

Her mother is devastated that her child is in danger, but maintains the stance that this was the right decision because she would "do it anyway."

The slick TV ads and magazine pictures show the sexual "freedom" that the Pill has come to represent in modern society. These ads always include a blurb that the Pill has been linked to blood clots and death. Young women like to think that they are immune to such things. They are not. 


The medical community will tell us that these things happen to such a small percentage as to be statistically insignificant. The problem is, there is no way of predicting which 1-2% of women will die or be affected by medical calamity. They could be fine, or they could be like our cousin, Jane. Last week she was planning her graduation party and had just accepted a new job starting in June. Her life was full of possibilities.


Tonight she just hopes that she won't die.

Contraception leads to abortion. Come and see...

For most of my teen years, I openly opposed abortion. When I was occasionally asked if I opposed contraception, too, I always responded like this: "No, I don't have a problem with contraception, because contraception prevents abortions!" Everyone always agreed with my answer, because it was common sense: Widespread acceptance and use of contraception makes abortion rare.


Right?


Well... not exactly. 


In my mid-twenties, I was forced to reexamine my ideas on a whole range of life issues. By that point, I was all about conforming my mind and life to the truth, no matter where the truth led me, and no matter how uncomfortable.


What my studies on contraception bore out was indeed humbling, and I had to eat my words. The truth is the opposite of what I had spouted for years. The truth is that, at the macro-level, contraception leads to abortion. Where contraception is widely accepted, abortion follows. 


It makes sense if you think about it, because contraception is a contract that says: "We agree to have sex but we do not agree to have a baby." However, the contract (contraception) fails so often that a fail-proof back-up plan is needed, and that fail-proof back-up plan is abortion.*


Let's look at evidence of how this all plays out in real life....


On the secular front, Margaret Sanger spearheaded the contraception movement with her founding of Planned Parenthood, originally named the American Birth Control League. Sanger did not champion abortion, she championed contraception. As natural progression would have it, Planned Parenthood went from peddling contraception to peddling abortion; today it is the largest provider of abortions in our nation. The progression from contraception to abortion was natural and easy.


Within Christianity, the acceptance of contraception began with the Anglican Church in 1930. They cracked the door to allow contraception only for married folk, and only in serious situations. Within a few decades, however, contraception had become widely accepted by the Anglicans and most other Christian churches, many of which then slid into acceptance of abortion as well. The Episcopal Church (the American branch of the Anglican Church) now officially and proudly supports abortion rights, as do many other mainline Protestant denominations -- all of which traditionally condemned contraception. For much of Protestant Christianity, the progression from contraception to abortion has been natural (if not always easy). 


Now let's look at how abortion came to us legally. 


Roe v. Wade was the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. A "right to privacy" legal argument was used as the basis for that tragic decision. However, most Americans are unaware that the "right to privacy" (words not found in the Constitution) did not originate with Roe v. Wade, but with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972. What were those cases? Griswold was the case that legalized the sale of contraception to married people, and Eisenstadt was the case that extended the same "right" to unmarried people. The "right to privacy" regarding contraception cleared the way for the "right to privacy" regarding abortion. The legal road from contraception to abortion was natural and easy. 


But contraception and abortion don't have to be connected, right?


Well... not exactly.


Even the liberals justices on the Supreme Court of the United States (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992) understood clearly that acceptance of contraception requires abortion as a back-up. That Court ruling stated that Roe v. Wade could not be overturned because 

...for two decades of economic and social developments, [people] have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.     [emphasis mine]

Did you get that? We have organized our entire society around access to abortion, which is the fail-proof back-up for contraception!


The Casey ruling also states: "In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception" [emphasis mine].  


So, the pro-abortion liberal Supreme Court justices have seen and understood the symbiotic relationship between contraception and abortion. 


Have you?


If not, would some studies convince you?


There have been several, but consider the most recent study out of Spain, published this month in the journal, Contraception. The researchers found that Spanish women's increase in contraceptive use coincides with a huge increase in the abortion rate. The authors of the study seem confused by the results, calling them "interesting and paradoxical" and suggesting "further investigation". 


There is no need for further investigation, really. The findings make sense. Contraception is a contract, the contract fails, and abortion is the back-up. Logical, natural. This always happens. Contraception leads to abortion. 


I appeal to my Christian brothers and sisters: Reconsider your support for contraception, and turn back to the wisdom of traditional Christian teaching. We've been taught that contraception will make abortion "rare" but that's a lie. Don't believe it any longer. Contraception and abortion are sisters in the Culture of Death, an unholy alliance. Reject both and choose life!


And to those pro-"choice" folks who sincerely believe that pushing contraception can be our "common ground" in working to make abortion rare, I hope you now see why that is impossible:


Because contraception leads to abortion.

+++++++

In this discussion of how contraception leads to abortion, I have not even touched upon the fact that in some cases (the Pill, IUDs), contraception is abortion. The abortifacient nature of hormonal contraception and IUDs is the subject of a future post, but the very fact of it further exposes the incestuous relationship between contraception and abortion. 

*Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. (Guttmacher)