What a week for LIFE

What a week it has been for LIFE. Clearly the forces for evil are also working just as hard to destroy the sanctity of life and drag down the hopes of all of us who fight for it, but God is always stronger. I have no reason to doubt.

 

Yesterday the Church celebrated the conversion of St. Paul the Apostle. Paul started out his life as an anti-Christian. In fact, he was with his army on the road to Damascus, preparing to capture more Christians, when he had his conversion. He was knocked to the ground and Jesus said to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?—I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” (Acts 9:4,5)

 

St. Paul had a complete change of heart and was now “one of them” whom he previously hated. He had the humility to set aside his pride and not only admit that he was wrong, but to spend the rest of his life preaching the Good News. Many great books from the New Testament come from the converted heart of St. Paul himself.

 

Yesterday was also a significant day for our country because it is the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. Over half a million people were in the heart of our nation, marching as witnesses to the dignity of every human person, and remembering “that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our first right is the right to life. Without the right to life, we have no other rights, because without life we are nothing. It’s one of the legs that has held up this great country for hundreds of years, and without it, it is obvious that we are falling.

 

We must pray earnestly for the conversion of hearts, as St. Paul experienced. Jesus’ words ring loud and clear. “Saul, why are you persecuting me? I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” Jesus also said, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40) Abortion is the direct persecution of the least of all of us. Who else among all of us humans is the smallest, most vulnerable, most helpless, and most innocent? Are not our children? And not just the children, but the smallest of all children—the babies, the unborn.

 

St. Paul tells us, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). We can’t be overcome by the daunting numbers of abortions in the last 40 years, or the fact that the media refuses to accurately portray our side of the story, or the fact that we may know many pro-abortion people ourselves. It all seems so daunting, but I’m sure Goliath looked daunting to David, as well. St. Paul also tells us, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31) God is for life. The Holy Spirit is the Giver of life. God is the Fountain of all life and with Him we can have Eternal Life.

 

We may have just seen the inauguration for another term of the most pro-abortion president in our nation's history, but in the same week, we had our largest March for Life ever. We also remembered the 40th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade this week, that legalized infanticide in this country. But 40 is a powerful number. It is in the Bible, a lot. The pro-life movement is growing stronger. The Pope even joined in our prayers and solidarity for life when he tweeted: "I join all those marching for life from afar, and pray that political leaders will protect the unborn and promote a culture of life." I see God's Hands all over this. I have no reason to doubt. I have no reason to lose hope. No way.
 

 

 

How has the English language shaped "love"?

I was listening to Relevant Radio the other day, and one of my favorite programs, “Go ask your Father” was on. “Reverend Know-It-All,” as he is affectionately called, began the program with his usual “rant” (as he says). Each day begins with a different topic, and on Wednesday, January 9, his “rant” really caught my ear and made me do a lot of thinking since then. I would highly encourage you to go to the Relevant Radio archives, download the show, and give it a listen. The whole show is an hour long, beginning with this discussion point and then answering questions. Since I thought his discussion was so important, and that few people would take the time to actually download the show and listen to it, I transcribed most if it below. I left out some non-essential parts, and the emphasis is my own. At a minimum, I would encourage you just to read the emphases—essentially the cliff notes. More of my thoughts are below the transcript.

I did teach Greek for many, many years.. Ancient Greek.. and I really believe that there is a very, very precise difference between the different words for “love” in Greek and that means that in order to understand what the Bible is talking about when it says, “Love one another,” you’ve got to know those distinctions.

There are four words that were used for “love” in ancient Greek, principally. One was storge which was not that common, but it meant “familial affection.” Then there was eros which was very common from which we get the word “erotic.” It meant a love that desires to possess the beloved. It can apply usually to people and even in ancient Greek applies to things sexual, but it could be more than that. It could be a desire, a love for beauty—that sort of thing. Then there was phileo which is mutual affection. We get the words “philanthropy” and believe it or not, Philadelphia from it, the city of brotherly love. Mutual affection. And then there is agape. The translators of the Hebrew Scriptures used the word agape exclusively when they wrote the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures about 300 years after Christ which we call the Septuagint, and Christians throughout the ages until the time of Luther universally regarded the Septuagint as “The Bible,” the Old Testament, and 3/4 of all Christians still do. Then there was the 4th word which in classical Greek was a very little used word--agape. It meant to be content with, to be well-pleased with. It was a love that referred to the relationship of a parent to children. Of a father’s love for his wife and family. And we go, “Well isn’t that romantic and sexual?” Oddly enough in the ancient world it wasn’t. You know, your wife was picked for you, you did your duty, you enriched the family with children, and then you had fun away from home. A very different approach to family morality than we have. Now of course that was not universally true. I’m sure many wives and many husbands were very much in love with each other but that was not the reason for marriage. Romance, eros, was not the reason for marriage. Nor was phileo. It was nice if they happened. But, agape came to mean in Christian parlance, “sacrificial love.” And it is translated into Latin, not as amor, but as charity, caritas. And you’ll notice that in the Catechism they use caritas, not love, not amor. So that’s a very important distinction. Caritas is a Latin word that means “dearness”—something that is dear to you. Caros means “dear” or even it can mean “expensive” but all that said, I am postulating that you can almost—now I say the word “almost” underlining and in capital letters. You can ALMOST take the word love out of the Bible and put in the word “sacrifice” instead because love, agape, is sacrificial love. So when you say “God is love,” what you’re saying is, “God is sacrifice.”

Let’s look at this morning’s reading with that. [1 John 4:11-18] “Beloved, if God has sacrificed for us, we must also sacrifice for one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we sacrifice for one another, God remains in us, and His sacrifice is brought to perfection in us. This is how we know that we remain in Him and He in us, that He has given of us in His Spirit. Moreover, we have seen and have testified that the Father sent His Son as the Savior of the world. Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God. For we have come to know and to believe in the sacrifice that God has for us. God is sacrifice and whoever remains in sacrifice remains in God and God in him. In this is sacrifice brought to perfection among us that we have confidence on the Day of Judgment because as He is, so we are in the world.”

How is He in the world? Just look at the crucifix. That’s the process of being formed to Christ. Okay let me continue with the reading, “There is no fear in sacrifice.” People say there is no fear in love. I got a question about, oh I think it was last week, about some poor fella whose kids have gone to some Evangelical church and said, “We shouldn’t be afraid of God. You Catholics are afraid of God.” OH! We should be VERY afraid of God! The Bible says we should work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” in St. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians. Well, it says love casts out fear. Uh-huh-huh, there is no fear in SACRIFICE.

It is fascinating to me how you will see heroic people who will run into a burning building and people will say, “Weren’t you afraid?” And they say, “No, I didn’t have time to think. I just knew what I had to do.” A parent who is a normal parent, when they see their child in grave danger doesn’t stop to think. They run in, they rescue that kid. “Weren’t you afraid?” “No it must have been some parental hormone that kicked in, must have been mother love or fatherly protection.” In love, there’s a lot of fear. When we talk about love as that good feeling, what we really mean is that desire to be liked by people frequently. When a young man falls in love with a young woman, he stands the first date trembling and shaking and sweating with a wilted corsage in his hand and the old man comes to the door and looks him up and down—there’s a lot of fear in eros. There’s even fear in phileo as a mutual affection. “I am afraid that the people who like me might not like me. I might lose friends. I don’t want to lose friends. I’m not going to be unpleasant.” So, when we talk about love as eros, and we talk about love as phileo, well, there’s a lot of fear there. But agape—sacrificial love—it’s like the book of Esther. Esther loved her people. And she knew she had to go to the king, and if you spoke to the king without being spoken to first, you were executed unless the king relented. And she said, “I will take my life in my hands. If I perish, I perish.”—That’s love. “If I perish, I perish.” There is no fear in sacrifice but perfect sacrifice drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment. “I’ve given up my life, how can you punish me?” I remember a young man. This was years ago and I haven’t seen him in many years and I don’t know if he is right with God at this time or not, but he was in our prayer group and he had a very disreputable career as a drug dealer. This was on the west side of Chicago, and I will never forget that he walked out of the church one day and there was a gang waiting there to kill him, and they pulled a gun on him and he said, “Go ahead and shoot. All you can do is bring me closer to God.” And they put the gun away and left. Perfect love casts out fear. Fear has to do with punishment, so no one who fears is yet perfect in sacrifice.

So this is the idea. Now, we are coming up on the great pro-life…I don’t want to say celebrations, but this is the impeding anniversary of the disaster of the Roe v. Wade decisions and we need to be very cognizant of it, but I don’t want to sound dismissive in any way. But in a way, the sterile sexuality that we have indulged in in this country, which includes artificial birth control, which includes abortion, which includes tubal ligation, which oddly enough includes in-vitro fertilization, it includes the gender selection of children, it includes same-sex “marriage,” it includes abortion. These are all sterile sexualities. Well how can IVF be.. well, what’s wrong with that? Well, you’ll understand as I go along, but, it is not necessarily sacrificial love.—“How dare you say a thing like that, Father!” Well, there is a tendency among us to say to people who cannot have children because they are physically unable to do so, “Well that’s just not fair. It’s your right to have children. You won’t have the experience of a child.”—A child is not an experience, a child is a person. Now, I do not mean to be hard on people who have children by IVF, although it is seriously, morally wrong by our standards. When you brought those kids home, you realized your life was going to be sacrificial, but I have known many people who were not sacrificial in their approach to their lack of ability to conceive. That they somehow felt cheated of an experience and believe me, you weren’t. So just forebear with me, I just have to think that part of the equation out, but all the other things I am quite convinced are sterile sexuality.  And this is more serious than all of those problems put together. Now how can I say that the idea that “God is love” as distinguished from “God is sacrifice” is more important than the life of an unborn child? We in our society, I don’t mean to say exactly that, but there is an underlying, philosophical problem that has allowed all of these other barbarities and until we address that, we are not going to succeed in putting an end to legalized abortion, we are not going to put an end to any of the moral wrongs that we see in the world in these areas because the problem is in 1960 or so, we began to redefine love. Catholicism was a sacrificial religion. Catholicism revolved around the sacrifice of the mass. We easily out-fasted the Muslims. 1/3 of our life was about fasting. And if you wanted to go to Communion, you did not eat or drink from midnight on.

We translated the Scriptures, taking the word charity out and replacing it with the more relevant and modern word love, however, love is a blanket idea and it does not convey what the word agape means in our language.  So, we redefined love and in redefining love we redefined God, and I believe this is demonic. In order to redefine God we had to redefine the nature of love. And the great teachers of sacrifice are children and the poor. You’re never going to get out of the poor what you put in. Volunteers used to come in and be indignant because the poor were not ‘properly grateful’ for their philanthropy. We think that by having a good feeling to other people that we are loving them. That is not love. Love is always and only what you give away, and that is the Christian definition. It is sacrificial. That’s why we have the sacrifice in the mass in which we go to offer ourselves with Christ on the cross. On the attitude of, “Well, I don’t get much out of mass”—that is absolutely contradictory. It is blasphemous. To say mass exists so that I can have an experience. It does NOT. It exists for the honor of God. And so this process of redefinition really picked up speed in the 60s and the 70s that love was somehow this good feeling we have for one another, instead of sacrificial love. And people were denied, by the culture, the opportunity to learn to be like Christ because, you see, Christ is the sacrifice of sacrifices. Well, how do you learn sacrifice? Most people in their life learn sacrifice in their marriage and the raising of children, because let me tell you, if you have seven kids, you’re sacrificing. That the sexual act that is between a husband and wife is open to life is a sacrificial act! Sex was meant to be sacrificial! “What?” Yes! When a woman in times past, gave herself to a man, she seriously risked death. Now we have antibiotics, and I am not suggesting that antibiotics are not Christian—no. No woman should have to risk dying in child birth, praise God that things are better. But the sexual act that is open to life, between husband and wife, always takes the risk that this is going to make our life more difficult and it is worth it because we care for each other. A husband is maybe going to have to work extra hours. A wife is maybe going to have to work extra hours and cook and clean more, the way we do it now. The sexual act was sacrificial. IT WAS NOT RECREATIONAL. And artificial birth control made sex recreational. This is a disaster because it redefined the nature of love. Love is the pleasure we take with each other—no, it is not. Love is the sacrifice that, for dearness sake, we offer for one another. We risk sacrifice, we risk our lives. We do not conceive of the sexual union to be sacrificial. We conceive it to be some sort of narcissism and we call it “love.” And the demonic nature of this is that you will not have any sacrificial consequences—you can abort the child, or you can have a relationship with someone of the same sex or someone who is not going to conceive, because sex should never make your life more difficult. That’s nonsense. The danger of this is… to go to Heaven, you need to be conformed to the image of Christ. What is the image of Christ? Well we read in Galatians in the 5th chapter that the fruits of the Spirit are these: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Those are the fruits of the Holy Spirit. They are the characteristics of Christ. His ultimate personality trait was obedience and it was demonstrated on the cross. The cross sums up the image of God who is Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of Mary. That’s our religion. That’s the definition of God. Jesus on the cross is the definition of God. And so we have taken it on ourselves to redefine God and this is idolatry. And idolatrous societies do not survive very long. It’s hard to conceive of something more horrible than the slaughter of millions of children in abortion, but the redefinition of God which allows us to make that slaughter possible is even worse. It is idolatry. And we are an idolatrous society because we take it on ourselves to define God by defining sexual relationships in a way that is unnatural and sterile.

Powerful stuff, huh? Even before I heard this, I realized that we only have one word for "love" in English, which is supposed to include everything. In having just this one word, we completely lose meaning. We say, "I love you" to a spouse on our wedding day, or to a parent sick in the hospital. We hear a song on the radio and say, "I love this song!" We "love" certain foods, movies, clothes, ideas, etc etc etc. The real meaning, and all the feelings that come with the word "love" are lost on us because we only have the one word.  How cheap and unfair it is that we can say to a relative or a friend, "I love you," when we also can look at a pair of shoes or a meal and say the exact same thing. Just think about it.

I am changing the way I think about love, especially when it comes to marriage. My husband is not just someone I married for romantic reasons or because he gives me butterflies or because it was easy or convenient. I married him because it was my vocation, and through him, I can carry out God's will. We sanctify each other and someday, will have children and complete our vocation. Marriage isn't easy, and sometimes it's just plain not fun. But when you view your marriage as a vocation, living in total self-giving and sacrificial love for another person, it changes your life.

I think we all have grown up with the idea that love is some sort of happy feeling. Maybe you think of little red hearts, or flowers, or smiley faces, or wide open fields and sunshine. These are all fine and well, but what happens when all those feelings disappear? Does it mean that the love ended, or was it "love" to begin with? It's probably a fair explanation of why we have such a high divorce rate, or even so many couples who live together unmarried. These relationships start on, and are built on, those "happy, fuzzy" feelings and then we call it love. And yes, contraception has a huge hand in this because its purpose is for selfish pleasure, instead of sacrifice. The foundations of these relationships are good feelings, convenience, and "what my partner can do for me" instead of "what I can do for my partner." It's all about how the other person makes ME feel. The moment that those good feelings go away, the relationship is basically over, because the foundation has been wiped out. As soon as the other person stops making me feel happy, as soon as they make things difficult for me, then all of a sudden, we don't "love" them anymore. Feelings and pleasure are replaceable. Certainly other people can make us happy or can feed our bodily impulses, but people are not replaceable. Just look around at what this selfish kind of "love" has done for us. It's truly saddening.

Love is in the will. It is not a feeling that we personally get from other people, but what we do for others. So what are we to do now? Well, for some (or a lot) of us, this should just be something we think about at first. Just take note of how often you say the word "love," what you are talking about (as in, persons or things), and how you mean it. Then think about our close relationships. How do we treat those we love? How does our "love" for them compare to other people that we love? For example, do we treat our parents differently than we treat a boyfriend or girlfriend? Do we treat a sibling differently than a friend? Why is that? How do we feel about a person when they have hurt us? Do we have selfless, unconditional love? Or is it conditional--does it change with our feelings? We must be aware of these things if we are in the least bit interested in changing and improving ourselves and those around us.

I give you a new commandment:

love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.

 - or -

I give you a new commandment:

sacrifice for one another. As I have sacrificed for you, so you also should sacrifice for one another.

John 13:34

 

 

Am I "saved"?

Are we all “saved”? Is Heaven guaranteed to us simply from one baptism in our earthly life, or by sometimes professing the name Jesus Christ? Why are we here, and is this it? A day like today beckons such questions.

 

No one on earth really knows the “true” meaning of life or why we are all born, only God knows, but I have some ideas. We were made for Heaven. We were made by the pure, unconditional, unfathomable, bursting-at-the-seams love from God. We were not made merely to perish, but to have Eternal Life. That means our soul. Our soul was infused into our material bodies through the Giver of Life, each of us endowed with free will but stained by original sin. Our aim is for Heaven, although God fully respects our decision to choose Salvation through our free will; and to choose it daily by acknowledging that we are sinners in need of a Redeemer and to make a conscious decision each day whether to live for Heaven or Hell.

 

So, again, am I guaranteed to go to Heaven just because I was baptized? How convenient that sounds! I did one thing and suddenly I can never be found with fault, my eternal salvation is secure, and I am off scott-free! This makes no logical sense because we sinners can abuse this idea to no end. Hitler himself was “born again” and baptized. Does that mean that his life and deep, deep mortal sins are negated by this one-time birth of grace? So many baptized persons use the rest of their lives for evil, even denouncing Jesus and rejecting their Heavenly home through their own free will. Upon death, if they still do not throw themselves at the Mercy of Jesus, God cannot force salvation upon them because God does not interfere with our free will, even to the point of watching His beloved children perish.

 

“So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” Philippians 2:12

 

Work out your salvation, because it is not a one-time punch of the “cruise control” button or a guarantee. Do it with fear and trembling, because God is immense and just, but all-loving and merciful. If our salvation was a guarantee, Jesus’ work would have been a lot shorter and far less complicated. All He would have had to say is, “Be baptized in My Name and then just live your life and wait for death. I’ll see you later.” If our goal in life is to attain Heaven, we must work for it, not just have it handed to us. That is why Jesus left us with: 

 

commandments to follow every day (to name a few...)

“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me"

Luke 9:23 & Mark 8:34 & Matthew 16:24 

 

"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.'" John 6:53-56

 

“Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15

 

"By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did" Luke 13:3

 

"But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44

 

"I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another." John 13:34

 

the will of the Father

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.” John 6:40

 

and the Church

^"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'” Matthew 16:18-19

 

We can do nothing on our own. We must seek God’s help daily and offer up our struggles. We must continually focus our will and heart to Heaven, while admitting our shortcomings and purifying ourselves. Each time we sin, we incur a debt. God may forgive our sin, but we still owe back the debt. The Bible says, “[N]o unclean thing will enter [Heaven], nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies.” (Revelation 21:27) Almost none of us are “clean” upon our death. We are marred with our past sins, riddled with that debt, still full of that desire to repay God for the pain and offense we caused. If any of us can gaze upon the Face of God on our Judgment Day, just waiting for Him to spout off our sins like a grocery list and then open those Pearly Gates, then we’ve got it all wrong. We cannot look into the Face of Love, hearing all of our offenses and transgressions, and not feel such a deep sadness that we would immediately throw ourselves to the Feet of Mercy, begging God for forgiveness and some means to make it all right again. God is Just, and for that, we have Purgatory. We purge and purify our souls, making retribution for our wrongdoing and making ourselves clean again. It’s as if throughout our earthly life, with each sin, we throw another dash of paint on our “angelic robe” that we are to wear in Heaven. On our Judgment Day, we see just how dirty our robe is, and spend our time in Purgatory to make it clean and fit to enter Heaven, where all is clean, bright, and white. Our human minds, with our understanding of what is finite and the linear nature of time, cannot fully comprehend "what" Purgatory is, but by faith, we are guided to understand that it is necessary for Heaven.

 

Why do I bring any of this up? Well, three years ago today, my father passed away. Of course it’s nice just to assume that our loved ones fly right to Heaven, but we can’t just assume that. To assume that is to paint Christianity as full of roses and rainbows, all happy-like where no one ever gets their feelings hurt and we are just bystanders even though we all get a trophy in the end. I am just as sure that my father died with the love of Jesus in his heart as I am sure that he also died with sins on his soul, like many of us would if we were to fall dead right now. So, is that it?--No way. Not if we believe in salvation, Eternal Life, and our participation in the Body of Christ, connected through the Holy Spirit.

 

 "He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin." 2 Maccabees 12:43-46

 

To cease praying for someone or to cease praying with someone (for example, asking a saint to pray for you, and then joining your prayers together to Jesus with that saint) seems to be an indication that one does not believe in Eternal Life, like they just don't exist anymore. I don’t know where my father’s soul is right now, so I pray for him. I pray for mercy and forgiveness. I pray that if he is in purgatory, that his soul may become so clean and white, that I may see him again someday, the way God made him. I pray for those souls in purgatory, as they feel the agony and weight of the debt they incurred as a child of God. We are all connected in the Spirit, and each of us can have a profound effect on each other through prayer. Jesus teaches us that life does not end when our mortal bodies die. So if you could, please pray a special prayer today for my father, and for all souls in purgatory. 

 

 

 

Eternal Father,
I offer Thee the most precious Blood of Thy Divine Son,
Jesus,
in union with the Masses said throughout the world today,
for all the holy souls in Purgatory.

Amen.

Natural Family Planning: Let's Talk

I think whenever you move into a new house or apartment, there's always one or two boxes that never get fully unpacked. I was going through such a box the other day and I found a little booklet that we got during one of our marriage prep classes. It's called "Pure Intimacy" by Jason Evert and it is about Natural Family Planning, or NFP. There is something very special about NFP because just upon hearing the name, a lot of people immediately go into "negativity mode" and I can't figure out why. I have a few theories, though, based on my own experience, speaking to others, and doing some research.
 
Ignorance. People fear that which they do not understand. I'm not sure where the negative connotations to NFP come from, but I know that most people do not have a clue about what NFP truly is or why the Church teaches it. Most people think it's the archaic "rhythm method" and that the Catholic Church "just wants people to have babies." I heard the joke: "You know what you call people who practice NFP, right? Parents." That pretty much sums up the big stereotype. NFP is ineffective--or so people think.
 
What most people don't know is that when NFP techniques are used as they are taught, they can be just as (or more) effective than other means of artificial birth control. Women are actually only fertile for a very brief time (only a few days) per cycle. NFP techniques, like the Creighton Method, allow a woman to know exactly when she is fertile and when she is not, each day of her cycle. This holds true for women with irregular cycles. Many women use NFP techniques to track their fertility to get pregnant, so why is it then so "archaic" or "unreliable" to use it to avoid pregnancy (simple reasoning says if you know when you are fertile, then don't have sex on those days. Voila!)? Speaking with and asking questions to certified NFP instructors or even "normal" people who practice it can quickly and easily dispel just about every concern you may have. I know because I was that untrusting skeptic.
 
Responsibility. I recently posed the question on my Facebook as to why people view NFP as a negative thing. Surprisingly, the answer I received most was "responsibility." I'm still not quite sure what that means, though. The couple doesn't want to take responsibility for their actions? They don't want to learn NFP? I don't know.
 
I was truly saddened by this answer. It immediately brought to mind the quote, "with great power comes great responsibility." If you want to have sex without responsibility, you strip it of its power. When a couple sterilizes the act, then its purpose and beauty are lost, and its sole purpose becomes selfish epidermal arousal.
 
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, where one particular paragraph on the "Consequences of Artificial Methods" seems as though it were written as today's observation, instead of being predicted over 40 years ago:

 

 "...Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." 

 

If this is the kind of evasion of responsibility that people refer to, well, this is exactly what we have gotten.

 

The Catholic Church is the only one that teaches NFP. They need to get with the times. Well, no. Even the sola scriptura Christians can't really refute what the Bible says:

 

"I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect." Romans 12:1-2 

 

Just because the majority believes something, that doesn't make it Truth. God bless the Catholic Church for not abandoning her 2000 year old teachings!

 

Catholics are hypocrites because artificial contraception and NFP are used for the exact same reasons: to avoid pregnancy. True, NFP is often used to delay or space pregnancies; the intent may be the same, but the means to the result makes all the difference. For example, if two women wanted to avoid becoming overweight, one might go on a diet and exercise, while the other may become bulimic. They may end up with the same result--a slim body--but one woman exercised the virtue of temperance while the other committed gluttony topped with the physically-damaging practice of inducing vomiting. Similarly, two married couples may wish to delay pregnancy (same intent). One couple may simply abstain from sex during the woman's fertile period, while the other couple may have sterilized the woman with drugs and hormones (different means). Artificial contraceptives frustrate nature and God's design. God did not intend for every marital act to result in a pregnancy; if He did, a woman would be fertile every day just like a man. But women are actually mostly infertile. This is as much of a gift from God as her fertility is. Using the natural design of the human body as God created it is neither sinful nor immoral.

 

At this point I usually get the general question, "If drugs like the pill are immoral because they are not natural, then why are surgeries, blood transfusions, or [insert healing medical practice] all okay? Gosh, another Catholic hypocrisy!" Of course Catholics are not opposed to such medical advances! The big difference is that those medical practices are used to heal dysfunction and promote the proper functioning of the body as God ordained it. Contraception does the opposite: It prevents the proper and healthy functioning of one bodily system, inducing or simulating a dysfunctional state.

 

It is also extremely important to point out that contraceptives like the pill, the patch, the shot, etc, can be abortifacients. Life begins at conception and although it is not known for certain how often it occurs, conception is possible on these hormonal drugs. The drugs provide such a hostile environment (a uterine wall that is too thin for implantation) that the newly-formed baby dies and is aborted without the mother ever knowing. Playing roulette with life is just not something that we should do.

 

 

Natural Family Planning is not something that is completely unused these days. People, and even young married couples, do use these techniques. If you think you don't know a single soul who practices NFP, I'm here to prove you wrong. I am not afraid to talk about it and I would absolutely love to answer questions, talk, or even debate if you want.

 



 

 

Back to my booklet by Jason Evert. It's 42 pages of some of the best pro-NFP information and arguments I have ever read. I highly recommend it for anyone who is curious, who needs some convincing, or even for the naysayers who are looking for an argument. You can probably find it at many Catholic churches as part of the NFP marriage prep classes, or you can get it online for a whopping $2.95. Here's some food for thought (emphasis and [comments] are my own):

"Studies have shown that, unlike couples using other forms of contraception, couples who practice NFP have a divorce rate under 3 percent...First, NFP deepens intimacy between spouses...Because NFP removes the 'barriers' of contraceptive sex, the couple is given an increased sense of closeness--both physically and psychologically...Because NFP involves planned times of abstention from the marital act, it helps couples to find other ways of expressing affection to one another. As a result, the intimacy between them deepens...Second, the necessity of practicing self-control keeps spouses from taking each other for granted. Since the spouses are not constantly sexually 'available' to the other, the relationship is given space to breathe. In the words of one husband, 'It's wonderful because it almost creates the honeymoon over and over again.' Such anticipation of the marital act intensifies its joy. Contraception does not offer this benefit, but instead weakens restraint and promotes self-indulgence, which is the opposite of self-giving love...Third, NFP encourages communication and understanding between spouses. Unlike other forms of family planning, NFP requires the man and woman to share responsibility for this aspect of married life. [I guess there is that word "responsibility" again] In turn, this offers the couple opportunities to discuss their plans and hopes for the size of their family. [COMMUNICATION! The beginning of divorce often begins with the couple not communicating. NFP makes communication a priority.] Because NFP requires a mutual effort, the man gains new appreciation about how his wife's body functions. Instead of suppressing her fertility in order to conform to his desires, the husband who uses NFP conforms his sexual desires out of reverence for the way his bride has been created. Finally, when a couple is practicing chastity within marriage and obeying the Church's teaching on sexuality, they avoid any guilt or anxiety associated with the opposite lifestyle. The union of their wills with the will of God allows them to deepen their spiritual lives and love each other more perfectly." (page 3-5)

"I'm not sure my spouse will go along with this...Understandably, the idea of abstaining from sex at times may not sit well at first...Abstaining from sex for a time is a normal part of married life, due to travel, illness, childbirth, or even simple consideration of an exhausted spouse. Healthy marriages survive these times and grow stronger, and NFP couples know from experience that the times apart serve to draw them closer together. However, research shows that NFP couples do not have intercourse less often than other couples. They just time it differently. [About ~60% of your days are "available" with NFP] Despite what some spouses may fear, endorsements of NFP are resounding from husbands as well as wives. One man explained to me that NFP 'keeps the passion alive!' Another described it as 'the best kept secret.' In many cases, husbands find that their wives are actually more responsive after switching to NFP. I once received a letter from a wife who said that while she and her first husband were using contraception, she felt like a 'toy or a recreational vehicle.' [Contraception allows the woman to be "used" because she is expected to be "available" at all times and it is her responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. Artificial contraception does make women more into some sort of toy instead of the complex and beautiful creation that she is.]" (page 5-6)

"The Church will never force any couple to use NFP. Rather, the Church gently and firmly invites us to virtue. To understand the moral problem of contraception, it helps to have an understanding of its history. Many assume that birth control was invented in the 1960s, but the practice is nothing new. Various methods of artificial birth control have been used for more than four thousand years. In ancient times, people would swallow potions to cause temporary sterility. Others would use linens, wool, crocodile dung, or animal skins as barrier methods; or they would fumigate a woman's uterus to keep her from bearing life...In the early 1930s, women's magazines even recommended using Lysol or athlete's foot medicine as a spermicide! However, Christians always stood out from such cultures because they refused to use contraception. It was part of the Christian faith. All Christian denominations condemned the use of contraception until 1930, when the Anglican Church decided to allow it in some circumstances. Their move was followed up by a similar endorsement by The United States' Federal Council of Churches. At the time, even the secular media was shocked by the idea that Christian churches would endorse contraception. The Washington Post predicted that such a switch 'would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous.'...Many Protestants agreed, such as Lutherans and Southern Baptists who called contraception 'a twentieth-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy,' that would 'prove seriously detrimental to the morals of our nation.'...Unfortunately, these protestations were short-lived, as Protestantism as a whole caved in on the issue." (page 7-9)

"What authority does the Church have to tell us what to do in our marriage? Veiled behind this question is a much deeper one: 'What authority does the Church have in my life at all?'...To obey God when it comes to our sexuality is a true sign that we love and trust him more than we love and trust ourselves. Since some of God's commandments involve sex, and Christ ordered His Church to teach all that He commands (Matt 28:20), the Church has the duty and authority to pass on to us what God has revealed about sexual morality...In commissioning individuals to go and preach His message, Jesus emphasized: 'He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me" (Luke 10:16). Christ invested the Church with His own teaching authority because He knew that He would not be with the apostles on earth forever. He established a Church with bishops who "give instruction in sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9). The faithful are to submit to these spiritual leaders and defer to their authority (Heb. 13:17) [Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you], so that they might not be led away by strange and diverse teachings. The authority of the apostles was passed on to the bishops down through the ages as it had been to Joshua from Moses: through the imposition of hands (cf. Deut. 34:9). The gates of hell would not prevail against this one Church (cf. Matt. 1:18), which is to be the pillar and foundation of truth (cf. John 14:26) so that she teaches what God entrusted to her. The Church guards His children as a mother watches over her young ones. The children may not always understand the mother's reasons for her rules, but they would do well to trust that her commandments come from a loving heart and not a dictator's whims." (page 19-20) 

"Does the Bible say anything about contraception? Although the word 'contraception' is never mentioned in Scripture [One of many examples why the Bible can't be the "final authority" on everything, because the Bible does not include explicit rules for everything that would ever come up throughout history. Hence Jesus established the Church. Scripture as we know it was an afterthought that came later.], the act itself is condemned. For example, sterilization is condemned in Deuteronomy 23:1, and withdrawal is condemned in Genesis 38, in the story of Onan. This story provides the clearest Scriptural case against contraception. In keeping with the custom of the time, Onan took his brother's widow as his own wife, to raise children in his dead brother's name. However, 'whenever he had relations with [her], he wasted his seed on the ground' (Gen. 38:9) to ensure that pregnancy did not take place. The next verse tells us that God was 'greatly offended' by Onan's actions, and struck him dead. Despite what the text plainly says, some argue that God killed him for failing to fulfill the levirate law (to give his brother's widow children). But Scripture indicates that the punishment for violating this law was public humiliation (cf. Deut 25:5-10), not the death penalty. What if Onan had not wasted his seed but simply chose not to have intercourse? Would God have taken his life? Scripture says no." (page 21-22)

"Our doctor told us that birth control is safe. Why should we think otherwise? Consider the following possible side-effects of contraception, and then ask yourself if you would consider these methods 'safe': (1)Birth control pills: According to the journal of the Mayo Clinic, 21 of 23 studies of women who took the Pill prior to having their first baby showed that such women increased their risk of developing breast cancer...The Pill also increases a woman's risk of cervical cancer, liver cancer, and potentially fatal blood clots. A common complaint of Pill users is a decrease in one's sex drive. Part of this is because the Pill increases a woman's level of SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin), which decreases the amount of testosterone available in her body. It has been thought that this undesirable side-effect would be reversible. However, research published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine showed that the levels of SHBG were still twice as high in women a year after going off the Pill... (2)Condom: According to The Journal of the American Medical Association, women who use barrier methods of birth control are more than twice as likely to suffer preeclampsia during childbirth. Here's why: During intercourse, the woman's immune system develops a tolerance to the man's sperm and seminal fluid. For several hours after intercourse, a woman's immune cells will collect and transfer a man's foreign proteins and entire sperm cells from her cervix to her lymph nodes, where her immune system learns to recognize his genes. However, if the couple decides to use a barrier method of birth control for an extended period of time before having children, the womb will not be accustomed to the sperm, and the woman's immune system may treat them as foreign bodies. This can disrupt the delicate balance of hormones and cause the woman's blood vessels to constrict, leading to higher blood pressure in the expectant mother. This condition (preeclampsia) is the third leading cause of women dying during childbirth. However, a man's semen offers a protective effect against preeclampsia, because the woman's immune system is more likely to recognize his baby. (3)The Shot: Women have sued the makers of the shot for 700 million dollars...because the shot thins out a woman's bones. After years of receiving birth control injections, a young woman could have the bones of a 50 to 60 year old. For this reason, the FDA has attached a "Black Box Warning" on the shot, which is the most serious warning that can be attached to a prescription drug." Children born to women on the shot are more likely to have webbed toes and fingers, and chromosomal anomalies. The boys are twice as likely to have genital deformities, and the baby girls are more likely to suffer masculinizing effects of the drug's chemicals, causing genital abnormalities. Because of its link to breast cancer, veterinarians stopped prescribing Depo-Provera for dogs. However, it's still being given to women, and is often injected into child molesters as a punishment that kills their sex drive! (4)The Patch: The Associated Press reported in 2005 that they petitioned the FDA for a database containing 16,00 different reports of adverse reactions to the patch. Within the reports were 23 deaths associated with the patch, 17 of them blood clot related. (5)Sterilization: Following a vasectomy, a man's testes will continue to produce millions of sperm each day. However, because the vasa deferetia have been severed for blocked, the sperm have no natural way to be released. If the tubes are blocked, the pressure of sperm being backed up often causes a blowout of the epididymis." (page 28-32) 

Thoughts from a few notable people throughout history:

Clement of Alexandria (b. 150 A.D.): "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

St. Augustine (b. 354 A.D.): "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility...Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning, they come together not joined in matrimony, but in seduction."

Martin Luther (b. 1483): "The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches...is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomistic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime...Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

Gandhi (b. 1869): "Man has sufficiently degraded women for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps ore of men than of women."