« Secrets | Main | Food for Thought.. »
April 27, 2006
Contraception Debate
No, not that one...another one.
Maggie Gallagher introduced the debate and the participants:
Is contraception good for society? Jennifer Roeback Morse and Cristina Page went looking for a place in the blogosphere to have this debate, and MarriageDebate.com volunteered.
So starting Monday look next week for a lively set of exchanges between two intelligent, competent women with radically divergent views on a subject that most people don't even consider debatable. Best of luck to both of them. Bios below:
Cristina Page:
Cristina Page is Author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Save America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex (Basic Books). Page is also Vice President of the Institute for Reproductive Health Access at NARAL Pro-Choice New York and a prominent reproductive rights activist. Her policy proposals have been adopted by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New Jersey State legislature. She has also worked in the editorial departments of Glamour and Ms. magazines and edited The Smart Girl's Guide to College. Page is married, has a son and lives in New York City.
Jennifer Roback Morse:
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World (Spence 2005), is a popular writer and speaker on family issues. Her work has appeared in Forbes magazine, National Catholic Register, Townhall.com, and several law reviews. She taught economics for fifteen years at Yale and George Mason. A fellow at the Acton Institute, Morse is also the author of Love & Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work (Spence 2001). She currently lives in Vista, California with her husband, an adopted child, a birth child, and two foster children.
You have to scroll down, then work your way back up to follow the discussion.
And then, on a different note, there's this. Several years ago, a young Protestant couple, Sam and Bethany Torode, wrote a book called Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception. The book made quite a splash, prompted much discussion and a little soul-searching over at Christianity Today and other places. The Torodes converted to Greek Orthodoxy a couple of years ago.
A few days back, a reader alerted me to a note Sam Torode had put on the Open Embrace Amazon page, in which he reported that he and Bethany now regretted the book and had changed his views. That note has since been removed, and they have offered a fuller explanation at this webpage:
For starters, we joined the Greek Orthodox Church and are now in closer agreement with what some Orthodox have written on this topic (see The Sacrament of Love by Paul Evdokimov and Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective by John Meyendorff). The book we recently edited, Aflame: Ancient Wisdom on Marriage, reflects this, especially in that we have no quotes on sex from Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great -- three major fathers of the Western church, in whose writings you are hard-pressed to find anything positive about sex.
Second, our personal experience in the past five years has shown that we had a lot to learn about NFP, and that there is a dark side we weren’t aware of. Though Open Embrace said that it only involves a short period of abstinence, we didn’t know that during breastfeeding cycles it often involves month-long periods of abstinence and dehabilitating stress. During such times (as well as during menopause and stressful life seasons), strict NFP reaches a point where it is more harmful for a marriage than good.
Many Christians believe that the "self" is totally depraved or fundamentally evil (thank you, Augustine and John Calvin). Shades of this influenced our perspective in Open Embrace and our attraction to NFP. We now fully believe in the power of the Resurrection and we no longer live our lives constantly on the alert for "selfishness." Yes, we are marred by sin, but God has given us new hearts with his image strongly growing in them -- which means our deepest desires are true and good (see Waking the Dead by John Eldredge). One example: wanting to make love to your spouse often is a good thing, but NFP often lays an unfair burden of guilt on men for feeling this.
We still believe in the "language of the body"--which informs our rejection of some aspects of NFP. How is it that spouses are saying "yes" to the gift of each other when they end up abstaining for much of their married lives (from the aforementioned breastfeeding cycles, pregnancy exhaustion, or energy being diverted into raising kids)? We also see honest congruity with the language of the body by saying "no" to conception with our bodies (via barrier methods or sensual massage) when our minds and hearts are also saying "no" to conception. We don’t believe this angers God, nor that it leads to the slippery slope of relativism or divorce. We strongly disagree with the Catholic Church that this is a mortal sin.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83431951753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Contraception Debate:
Comments
I hadn't before heard so positive a take on Orthodoxy. I think I need to look into this.
Posted by: Adam at Apr 27, 2006 10:42:55 AM
I'm sorry this man had such a problem dealing with the abstinence in NFP. My husband and I have 3 children and I'm pregnant with our fourth. Last year, I suffered thru 2 miscarriages after which time we had a lot of abstinence time that we had to "deal" with. Was it hard? Yes! Especially since it was at that time that we both needed the comfort that we could have received from being intimate. Did it hurt our marriage? NO! I think it definitely made it stronger b/c it forced us to talk about our feelings and what we were each experiencing following the miscarriages. Since I have breastfed each of my living children, we have also experienced the extended periods of abstinence that go along with the return of fertility. Was it hard? Yes! Did it harm our marriage? NO! Again, it provided us with a time to talk about how we were feeling and dealing with the new child and all the other related family issues or to just feel comfortable holding one another and falling asleep w/o the pressure that we "have to have sex". In my years of using/teaching NFP it seems that the couples who have problems with the abstinence are the ones who don't embrace it fully and who don't use those times as a way of getting close to their spouse outside of the "marital embrace". They are the ones who buy into society's views that since birth control is available there should be no limit on the when where and how of sex and lack the self control and self discipline to see the good that the abstinence does for their marriage and instead see the bad of not being allowed to be intimate when they want. They look at abstinence as being a half empty glass of water instead of it being a half full glass of water. Unfortunately, this new book and statement will most likely convince couples that NFP isn't even worth looking into b/c now they have living 'proof' that it isn't worth it. It doesn't matter that there are thousands of couples who practice NFP faithfully and truly see the benefits it brings to their marriages as well as to the health of their spouses. Couples who aren't afraid of the times of abstinence and who truly embrace those times as a means of strengthening the bonds of their marriage.
Posted by: Sam at Apr 27, 2006 10:44:08 AM
I don't know his history, but it seems to me that the root of many of his difficulties is that he is approaching NFP with a "contraceptive mentality." As I understand it, NFP is not "birth control for Catholics." Using it properly means 1)There are serious reasons to postpone pregnancy, 2)Its use is temporary, and 3)Both spouses agree.
I think that using NFP improperly (without these 3 criteria present) is not the best situation for happy married life, but is still much less harmful than artificial contraception.
His view of NFP seems very legalistic and doesn't mention the real Good News of God's plan for marriage. I hope this doesn't stop him from seeking the truth and real joy in what the church teaches.
Posted by: Jim at Apr 27, 2006 10:46:49 AM
I wonder if they still are taking royalties from the book.
I "like" this statement: "But it’s a theological attack on women to always require that abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) for the entire duration of her fertile life, except for the handful of times when she conceives."
Yeah, that's what it is, a theological attack. Or Sam and Beth you might see it as an opportunity to work harder at romance and intimacy during that time. I am venting. I realize how hard NFP is. I realize that it can be painful.
I don't know about this but could they perhaps use the Marquette Model during breastfeeding times to get a better read on where things are with the fertility.
There is part of me that wonders if they really have shaken off the Protestant mindset. The "I" certainly seems to be governing how they view NFP.
And how could we have union with the Orthodox when their moral teaching is so ambiguous and confusing.
Posted by: Will Barrett at Apr 27, 2006 10:48:33 AM
I tried to read the debate on contraception, but the very first post made me give up. Cristina Page, who bills herself as an expert and scholar, says NFP has a 25 percent failure rate?!?
Are you kidding me? I can't read a debate where that sort of dishonesty goes unquestioned.
Posted by: CMick at Apr 27, 2006 10:54:36 AM
Well, if *I* were a Protestant who had suddenly discovered that contraception was a bad idea, I wouldn't automatically think of converting to ORTHODOXY.
Maybe this is just a reflection of that deep anti-Catholic bias that some Protestants carry deep inside them. I know lots of otherwise very sweet and sensible people who have it. I call it the "I-Ain't-Gonna-Let-No-Pope-o'-Rome-Tell-Me-How -to-Plant-*MY*-Taters" Syndrome. The result is that they just do a detour and fail to grapple with the Papacy.
But the Papacy is the only institution in the WORLD that has really preserved this absolutely necessary insight into the ESSENTIAL depravity of contraception. Better proof of the truth of the claims the Papacy makes could hardly be imagined.
So, if you're a Protestant and you discover that contraception is wicked, come home to the obvious place! You'll be living with people who learn the joys and sorrows of marriage without pills and condoms and they will be able to support you and guide you and comfort you as you struggle. Take the Bull by the Horns and wrestle those anti-Papal-authority instincts to the ground. You'll find that, in the end, those taters come up just BEAUTIFULLY.
Posted by: Jeff at Apr 27, 2006 10:55:50 AM
Maggie Gallagher is tilting the playing field considerably if she chooses a PRO CHOICE ACTIVIST to argue the positives of contraception. Obviously if someone has no problem with legal abortion, then contraception is going to be a no-brainer for her -- what kind of serious thought would such a person give the pluses and minuses contraception?
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Apr 27, 2006 10:57:19 AM
Leaving aside NFP, what is so sad about prospects for unity with the East is the more or less front and center refrain of some Orthodox writers to whine - "Our church fathers are better than your church fathers."
You never see this from Western writers. It puts one in mind of the Canada - U.S. relationship - I like Canadians, why do they carp about us so much.
Posted by: Jack Smith at Apr 27, 2006 11:03:09 AM
The Torodes write:
Second, our personal experience in the past five years has shown that we had a lot to learn about NFP, and that there is a dark side we weren’t aware of. Though Open Embrace said that it only involves a short period of abstinence, we didn’t know that during breastfeeding cycles it often involves month-long periods of abstinence and dehabilitating stress. During such times (as well as during menopause and stressful life seasons), strict NFP reaches a point where it is more harmful for a marriage than good.
This is true. My spouse and I practice NFP because we are obedient Catholics. But we no longer believe the NFP propaganda. It's interesting to see how far you get on NFP listservs and in conversation with other NFP Catholics, if you express doubt or struggles with NFP. Nobody wants to hear it. It's like people are afraid to admit that there are big problems with it because they are afraid that something bad will happen if they do. Our last pregnancy was physically and emotionally debilitating for reasons beyond our control, and we have real and legitimate fears of another pregnancy. You can imagine how much anxiety pervades our married life because of NFP and the possibility that we might slip up and misread the chart (as we did with our last pregnancy, which came not long after we stopped nursing the previous child).
Maybe the Torodes made the wrong decision. But I am not going to judge them. I don't know what they were struggling with. If NFP is a healthy and wonderful thing for you and your marriage, God bless you. It is not that way for all of us.
Posted by: squarepeg at Apr 27, 2006 11:07:20 AM
"Or Sam and Beth you might see it as an opportunity to work harder at romance and intimacy during that time. "
now THAT sounds protestant. Nothing like a good old protestant work ethic to put romance and intimacy back into a marriage!
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Apr 27, 2006 11:09:21 AM
I'm with you squarepeg
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Apr 27, 2006 11:12:55 AM
Squarepeg, I agree that its not easy. We had a baby born because of misreading a chart. With the return of fertility we realized after the fact that we came together on the day my wife ovulated. That shook our confidence in our handle on NFP. Abstaining sucks. It is hard. NFP isn't all rosey. And I have heard the complaint about NFP list-servs before. I have my problems with the one I am on. But I have never seen anyone try to dress it up as if it is easy.
But unlike the Torodes you haven't used the difficulty as a justification to throw NFP and the Truth aside.
And I assume the Torodes are using some barrier method. Condoms break. I can imagine that if you used one right around ovulation and it broke anxiety might pervade your married life. In fact, I would think condoms would frequently cause anxiety to pervade one's married life because they aren't perfect. Or missing a pill one day. I don't see how anxiety is the special purview of those using NFP. If anything, I think it helps me realize, I ain't in control ultimately. A condom, would not, help me to have that detachment.
Posted by: Will Barrett at Apr 27, 2006 11:15:12 AM
I think the real solution for a lot of people is just to do it and forget NFP. That's what my wife and I do, and we are darn happy about it. Too often the choice is billed as NFP or contraception. If you need to use NFP, of course do so. But if not, don't do anything -- it's quite pleasant, as you might expect.
Posted by: Michael at Apr 27, 2006 11:16:58 AM
It's true NFP isn't easy. I'm a newlywed, and abstaining sucks.
But, when we don't have to abstain, we're both in agreement that we don't have to abstain. In other words: surprise pregnancies won't be *my* fault or *his* fault.
I've seen too many of my married friends who contracept sniping over this.
Posted by: CMick at Apr 27, 2006 11:18:24 AM
"But unlike the Torodes you haven't used the difficulty as a justification to throw NFP and the Truth aside."
No, but in formulating "Truth" have the church fathers sufficiently discounted the difficulties of birthing children and the harm NFP can do to a marriage? Especially when the church fathers have zero firsthand experience with NFP and childbirth?
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Apr 27, 2006 11:26:51 AM
"No, but in formulating "Truth" have the church fathers sufficiently discounted the difficulties of birthing children and the harm NFP can do to a marriage?"
Yeah, but, contraception hasn't been around for ever, especially methods now that are 98 percent effective. So, before that, did people just have horrible marriages by default?
Posted by: CMick at Apr 27, 2006 11:32:29 AM
I had a longish comment and it disappeared! Oh, well.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that contracepting couples struggle, too. David Lodge has a book (I think called "How Far Can You Go?" as well as "Souls and Bodies") about English Catholics going through the 60s and 70s and the couples in the book are convinced that with contraception, domestic nirvana would be just around the corner. However, based on my reading of the grittier sort of parenting books, mommy blogs, and lots of heart to heart talks with other mothers, I think this view is deeply mistaken. Contracepting couples with young children face nearly all the same difficulties that NFP couples face. They snap at each other, they're tired, they're overwhelmed, they're broke, they have unplanned pregnancies (more than you'd think), etc. The big difference is that this phase goes on a lot longer for the NFP couple, because NFP couples tend to have a longer reproductive career. It's not necessarily a qualitative difference. Likewise, while NFP couples have their own special difficulties with breastfeeding, breastfeeding and the first year of parenthood are no picnic for contracepting couples, either. Vicki Iovine's invaluable "The Girlfriend's Guide to Surviving the First Year of Motherhood," has an entire chapter devoted to sex, and the title is "Sex? What Sex?" So, I definitely think that most difficulties faced by (average) NFP couples and contracepting couples are more similar than different.
Posted by: Amy Pruss at Apr 27, 2006 11:34:08 AM
And by "for ever" I meant, of course "forever."
Posted by: Cmick at Apr 27, 2006 11:34:34 AM
It isn't NFP that harms marriage. It is (and I apologize for the bluntness of this) the immaturity of those using it that harms the marriage. NFP isn't a culprit. My wife and I have had difficulties with NFP (more my wife than me)and when her cycles went all "atizzie" recently we made the decision together to forego charting and just not worry about it. We went more than a year and now we are expecting child number six. Had we not had the difficulty with charting and cycles and had used anything artificial, we never would have talked about our openess to another child.
Posted by: Keith at Apr 27, 2006 11:38:25 AM
"We strongly disagree with the Catholic Church that this is a mortal sin."
Does this imply that they still think it is a sin but a less serious one, and if so that it is OK somehow to commit this sin for the good of the marriage? If they think it is not a sin but a positive good, they should come out and say so.
"How is it that spouses are saying "yes" to the gift of each other when they end up abstaining for much of their married live ..."
How can you completely give yourself as gift to the other if you are deliberately withholding a part of yourself, your fertility, through artificial conception? Not to mention trying to disinvite God, who is the third party in the sacramental marriage, from participating in the fecundity of the marriage by saying "My will be done" concerning children through use of artificial conception, instead of "not my will, but Yours be done" by leaving open in the conjugal act using NFP the possibility of conception.
The cross is foundational to our religion, and carrying it can "suck" as some have mentioned above. But does that make it less true, or more congruent with what our Master told us to expect as his disciples? And in the end when all else fails and you don't know where you will get the strength to get through, is it not Christ and his grace we rely on, and isn't that why He elevated marriage to a sacrament, in which He gives his own divine life to us to get us through these types of problems?
I'm just confused I guess; but that often happens. God bless all who struggle with these issues.
Posted by: brasco at Apr 27, 2006 11:41:21 AM
I have to say I am surprised about the candid comments about NFP. Having been married a little less than a year myself, I can certainly relate to squarepeg's honest assessment that it's not all fun and excitment.
Reading the Couple to Couple league book "The Art of Natural Family Planning" prior to marriage, my wife and I rolled our eyes numerous times at the glorified treatment of the abstinence periods (in addition to the advocacy of the family bed and ecologically breastfeeding your kid until he or she is almost old enough to read).
Being secure in our faith and having an understanding of natural law, the wisdom of NFP makes loads of sense to us. But let's face the facts: one of the top motivations for scrupulous use of NFP is PURE FEAR, because one slip-up is like playing Russian Roulette. (Except in a beautiful and miraculous way.)
Posted by: Mike at Apr 27, 2006 11:45:50 AM
Word, Mike. You got it.
Posted by: CMick at Apr 27, 2006 11:46:52 AM
Understand what I'm saying here. It's not that we don't want more children. It's that having another child could easily be medically and psychologically devastating. It is ignorant and even arrogant to assume that anyone who struggles with NFP is just a bad Catholic who can't handle abstaining. What do you do if you have to worry that one misstep could lead to a pregnancy that could permanently disable the woman? What does it do when both partners go into the intimate act scared to death of what might happen? It destroys the unitive aspect, at the very least. And the alternative -- a life lived as brother and sister -- is also destructive, especially if you and your spouse are, like us, relatively young.
I'm not asking you people to agree with me. I am asking you to take seriously the burden you are asking people who have serious medical conditions to take on.
Posted by: squarepeg at Apr 27, 2006 11:51:44 AM
I am a protestant who used nfp at one time, and found that it was a source of pride in that I was "doing it right", an attitude that I also see in many Roman Catholics. However, I find that we all struggle with "I";this is part of our propensity to sin. I no longer use anything, haven't for years,have ten children,and find that trusting God with all areas of life is a daily challenge. Many people who practice nfp still have the same contraceptive mentality, and really do not view children as a blessing to be welcomed as God's gift from the "marital embrace". Many of my closest friends are Catholic and once we get past the barriers of Catholic/protestant, start being honest with one another in our struggles, we can encourage each other to be faithful in this area of life.
Posted by: mary anne at Apr 27, 2006 11:52:43 AM
Yeah, but, contraception hasn't been around for ever, especially methods now that are 98 percent effective. So, before that, did people just have horrible marriages by default?
No, contraception really has been around forever. At least 5000 years ago in ancient Egypt there were well-documented accounts of contraception methods some of which were more effective than others but some of which were quite effective. And infanticide was an ever popular method of controlling unwanted children. As soon as humans figured out where babies came from, they began to devise ways to keep doing it and keep the babies from coming.
Posted by: Lurker at Apr 27, 2006 11:55:04 AM
