G.K. Chesterton said of progressives, “They insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control” (“The Thing,” Chapter 6, Obstinate Orthodoxy, par. 3). Since he penned this remark, society’s addiction to artificial birth control has swelled.
Addiction is a very appropriate word as artificial contraception has become an obsession. Statistics suggest that 65% of women in the United States use contraceptives.
Paradoxically, organic and all natural products seem to be the rage. Organic cosmetics and beauty products are highly sought. Farmers and retailers garner premium prices for organic meat and vegetables. Cage free eggs, for instance, fetch a hefty price.
The mantra these days seems to be, “Do not put any hormones in my food!” But, when it comes to sex, women are lining up to put synthetic hormones in their bodies.
Current State of the World
In today’s world, many people seek out medical help to treat fertility as though it were a disease. Many in society seem to view the goal of sex as being nothing more than pleasure with the unfortunate side effect being the creation of new life.
What a reversal in convictions.
In the past, parents looked upon children as a blessing for many reasons. For instance, children helped support the family as they came of age, and then took care of their parents in their old age. Without children, a couple knew that their last days would be full of toil.
The change in attitudes we see today demands assurances that one is cared for in old age by someone other than family. And this is exactly what is happening. It seems many would rather trade the blessing of children for other earthly pleasures. Subsequently this means preferring indifferent strangers looking after them in their old age.
The Dirty Little Secret of Birth Control Pills
Specific to chemical contraceptives, there is a dirty little secret. The intent of chemical contraception is to inhibit ovulation.
If one looks closely at the disclaimers, one will find that women taking the pill “generally” do not ovulate. This means sometimes ovulation does occur. If a child is conceived, the pill continues to influence the menstrual cycle and induces the woman’s period.
This means that the pill is both an ovulation inhibitor and an abortifacient.
Birth control pills also have other rarely discussed side effects, such as changing the brain structure of the woman and shifting social choices. Peddlers of chemical contraception rarely discuss these side effects. One must question if that is intentional.
Infertility as a Status Quo
Contraception has made deliberate infertility the status quo. Many marriages begin with the choice of using artificial contraception. After taking this step, the discussion about starting a family is tabled.
Years may go by before the topic is brought up again. Even then, couples often avoid and dodge this discussion once hooked on the habit of contraception.
Catholics and Contraception
As Catholics, we understand (or at least should understand) that the purpose of sex is procreation with the pleasure it brings as an added bonus. Since this act can create new life, it is sacred and should be reserved for a man and woman committed to each other in the sacrament of marriage.
Be that as it may, many Catholics use contraception. However, statistics are vague at best with respect to the number of practicing Catholics using artificial contraception. Some claims say the number is as high as 99% among Catholics. The authors of these studies use the qualifier “who have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning” when making this claim.
The Catholic Alternative is a Monthly Decision
Natural family planning (NFP) is the all-natural alternative to contraception. This method is supported by the church because it respects God’s design for married love. Couples can use NFP to both attempt or avoid pregnancy.
NFP is centuries old. However, modern science has deepened our understanding of fertility. NFP is simply fertility awareness. One can read a woman’s signs of fertility and infertility through the Sympto-Thermal Method.
A married couple can use this knowledge to achieve or to postpone a pregnancy. One might even call this responsible parenthood.
Practicing NFP is 100% natural. No steroids, drugs, devices, or chemical needed.
NFP also includes a monthly decision. Unlike the habit of contraception, a conscious decision must be made when a woman enters her fertile period. Inherently, NFP reopens the discussion concerning starting (or growing) the family every 4 weeks.
With that said, the practice of NFP has some strict guidelines. If the current goal is pregnancy avoidance, abstaining from sexual intercourse can be challenging.
A married couple cannot allow the practice of NFP to fall solely on the woman. Husbands must be engaged and learn to read their spouse’s signs of fertility. Whether using NFP to avoid or initiate pregnancy, both the husband and wife must be actively involved.
15 thoughts on “A Cultural Paradox: All Natural Everything, Except Sex”
I agree, anyone who ingests multi-syllable chemicals into their body to have ‘safe(r)’ sex is taking a wild gamble on present and future psychological and health outcomes.
“ Subsequently this means preferring indifferent strangers looking after them in old age.”
From what I’ve observed, the overwhelming number of “strangers” who care for old people in their declining years, are NOT “indifferent”.
“Since this act can create new life, it is sacred and should be reserved for a man and woman committed to each other in the sacrament of marriage.”
And you, who sit and listen and learn from OT readings should know that in Leviticus 18:19 there is no prohibition whatsoever about having sex outside of marriage with a ‘clean’ woman. All parameters of whom you must refrain from having sex with are clearly spelled out in verses 6 thru 18.
To Ordinary Papist: I would encourage you to read Corinthians I – Chapters 6 & 7.
As I thought : someone who reads the Torah – cafeteria style.
To Ordinary Papist regarding your post on 4April24: I do not understand exactly what you mean by cafeteria style. Are you saying that the Old Testament must be followed, and the New Testament should be ignored?
I’m saying the scriptures that are read at mass should be on the same page. You shouldn’t read an (OT) indulgence prefaced by: “Thus says the Lord”, along side a prohibition on the same topic in the NT. Jesus’ reference to the woman at the well who had 5 husbands is a
direct admonition against wanton promiscuity. St Paul uses a term to insinuate that anyone who couples out of wedlock is a ‘harlot’; and would have us all chained to celibacy in his ascetic view of anything remotely sexual.
To Ordinary Papist regarding your post on 4&5April24: It seems you are trying to justify sex outside of marriage. I recommend reading some more of the Torah, Deuteronomy 22: 22-29. You will find that a woman who is not a virgin when she is married is punished, and a man who takes a virgin outside of marriage must marry her.
Do you know what they call a woman who uses NFP? Mom. It never works, and the number of men who will accept limitations on sex when they want it can be counted on one hand. NFP means that the woman will always be the helpless, hopeless, abused domestic drudge, with no time to herself, no ability to have a job, and no time or money for ANY creative pursuits. NFP is nothing but a recipe for socially-sanctioned wife-abuse.
To Karen, with your permission, I would like to pray for you. From your response, it sounds like your world is very bleak. If you know less than 5 men who accept limitations on sex, you need to surround yourself with different men.
Women are neither helpless, nor hopeless.
You said NFP never works. Do you really mean that, or do you mean that it is hard to follow?
Among the people I associate with the most, NFP is the method used to avoid and induce pregnancy. Moreover, when a couple has children, both the husband and wife give up treasure and time to raise their children. Creative pursuits for both are postponed. If it is just the woman who makes sacrifices, then again, you need to surround yourself with different men.
However, if your goal in life is to have time to yourself, have a job, and have money for creative pursuits, then you probably should not choose to be a parent.
Nothing is less “natural” than the minute and invasive monitoring required by NFP so that a couple can avoid sex during the days when the woman most desires it.
There are two ways to have sex in a way that avoids pregnancy. One is the NFP tightrope. The other is by using contraceptives so that both partners can enjoy sex as something “unitive”. This is why so few Catholics practice NFP.
To quote Mandy Patinkin’s portraying Inigo Montoya in the Princess Pride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Monitoring a woman’s fertility is not invasive. Ingesting artificial chemicals and hormones to change a woman’s chemistry, that is invasive.
You may not have considered this, but there is another way to have sex that unitive. Do it while at the height of woman’s fertility, conceive a child together, bear the child, and raise the child together until adulthood.
“Ingesting artificial chemicals and hormones to change a woman’s chemistry, that is invasive.”
Any drug can be said to do that. The Church has no problem with it. In particular it doesn’t have a problem with Clomid, a fertility drug which has a side-effect of thinning the endometrium, the same side-effect of the Pill which you consider sinful.
As for “unitive” sex, if as you seem to admit the we-must-have-sex-tonight-even-though-I’m-not-in-the-mood regimen of NFP is not “unitive”, it’s odd that the Church endorses it.
Few Catholics follow the Church’s teaching on this (and on sex generally) because it is ill-informed — not surprising, considering it’s promulgated by celibate men — and also unworkable, illogical, loveless, and ridiculous (look up the approval of sperm testing via use of a perforated condom during sex).
From an apologetic standpoint the disconnect actually predates “the Pill”. In 1952 Pius XII endorsed the “rhythm method”. Since then, the Church has created an exception to the ideas we all have about right vs. wrong. With everything else, an act being illicit depended on the intent, not the mechanics. If I kill someone (without justification), it doesn’t matter how I do it — whether by stabbing, abortion, bullet, or strangulation. But a couple having sex and avoiding pregnancy by the rhythm method or NFP is o.k., while a couple having sex and avoid pregnancy via “the Pill” or a condom, that’s not o.k.
To Catcrisis, I started to write a rebuttal to each of your points, but instead went back and reread your replies to past postings. The pattern of your responses makes me ask the question… Is there any doctrine of the Catholic Church you agree with or is it all ill-informed, unworkable, illogical, loveless, and ridiculous to you?
I was hoping to engage here, in the moment.
My opinions and objections are the majority voice of American Catholicism. I hope that they can be countered, if possible, with seasoned explanations (instead of, say, a simple “the Church says so!”
If you’re going to look at my past comments, you also know that I give praise when it’s due.
If you are looking to engage in the moment, you should look to talk to an actual human face-to-face. Discussion in this type of media with volunteer writers does not happen in the moment.
Also, just because a majority may have opinions and objections, does not make that majority right. In addition to reconsidering your delivery in these replies, I would offer that you research and argue points contrary to your opinion. St Thomas Aquinas does this quite well in his Summa Theologica.
Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION | BIG PULPIT