Through the darkness shines the Light

Christ is eternal. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. At those times in life where we committed especially our worst sins, we kicked Him out of our life. But later, after seeking His forgiveness and reconciliation, He went back to those times in our life. He lovingly took us by the hand and removed us from those situations as He wiped away our sins in the confessional. He is eternal.

 

So then, for Him and for us, the past 24 hours must have seemed like the Passion all over again.

 

Last night, Christ was with us in the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the faithful begged God to help us. To change the future. To let peace reign. To let our religious freedoms be defended. To let marriage be defended. To let innocent unborn babies be defended. We were with Christ last night in the Garden; He was with us, begging to the Father to let these evils pass from us, but in the end, to accept whatever cup He gives us.

 

Last night, the mobs gathered to scream bloody hell with demonic passion. To those late-term babies in Texas, those ugly mobs yelled, “CRUCIFY THEM! CRUCIFY THEM!” Them, being the most innocent and helpless among us. Jesus was the most innocent among us when the Jews cried out for His death. The mobs screamed and hollered for the shedding of innocent blood.

 

Today, Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and 5 Supreme Court Justices took turns scourging Jesus at the pillar. Jesus is no friend of Caesar’s (the government’s); He is a voice that must be silenced. Nancy Pelosi denied the body of Christ, and by publicly scourging Him, denied her place in the Body of Christ. Five Justices denounced the God-given Truth about marriage. Each had a heavy hand today in ripping apart His Body.

 

But American citizens are not innocent either. Those who supported that Texas filibuster were there at the scourging, spitting in His face. They caused His tears to fall—not the pain from the whips—but the pain of being mocked and hated by those that He loves. They slapped Him, kicked Him, and knocked Him down. Every American (especially Catholics, who know better) who is celebrating the redefinition of marriage abused Him all the way up to Calvary. They, too, spit in His face, saying, "We don't need you!" They pushed Him over as He carried the weight of the world in that Cross. They mocked Him as He hung by the nails through His flesh, dying a criminal’s death.

 

My God, how can You endure it?

 

Just because Jesus’ Passion is eternal, and became very pronounced today, we can’t stop reading before we get to the end of the story! The bloodied cross is followed by the empty tomb! Jesus conquers sin and death right when the world seems darkest!

 

“I have told you this so that you might have peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” John 16:33

 

Indeed He has. And He is working right now. There is light shining in the darkness (John 1:5) for those who open their eyes. “But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” Romans 5:20

 

“Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.” 1 Peter 3:15

 

My hope is in Jesus’ Resurrection. He conquered sin. He conquered death. As dark as things look sometimes, I have no reason to despair, ever. My hope is eternal because Jesus is eternal.

 

Jesus, have mercy on us! I trust in you!

 

 

Is there Biblical support for NFP?

I think that most people would agree that it’s just “a Catholic thing” to teach Natural Family Planning (NFP—that is, a married sex life without any artificial contraceptives). But why is that? Why have other Christian denominations fallen away from a practice that is both reason-able and Biblical? Why do many Catholics even deny this teaching, despite the fact that it is reasonable, Biblical, and Church teaching?

 

First, let’s use a little bit of reason and common sense before we dive into the Bible. Most people, especially couples who have or want children, will agree that male and female fertility is a gift from God. I mean, really! What an amazing gift! The ability to essentially make something out of nothing, and that something happens to be a completely new, unique human infused with the God-given soul. Gift! But if those fertile days in a woman’s cycle are a gift from God, then those infertile days are a gift, too. God is the Author of creation and the Author of the laws of nature. Therefore, God Himself wrote the laws of female fertility: providing around 100 hours a month of fertility, with the rest being infertile. Phew, thank goodness! Imagine how many MORE people would be on this planet if men and women were both fertile 24/7! Yes, these infertile days are a gift indeed.

 

So when a married couple uses NFP, they are following the manual that God wrote. “To avoid conception, use these days. To achieve conception, use these days.” It’s that simple. It’s in complete cooperation both with the laws of nature by the Great Author, and with God’s will because He may just decide to give you a baby at that moment anyways. A bowed head in submission is always an open vessel to grace (think: Mary).

 

So why do people shy away from NFP? One reason is a true lack of faith, not willing to put one’s future in God’s Hands. Instead, the contracepting couple wants control. They don’t fully trust in God’s grace to always provide for whatever situation He gives. A second reason is the selfishness of the flesh. NFP requires daily communication between husband and wife, as well as a little self-control on those fertile days. Instead of practicing self-control and prudence, the contracepting couple just wants what they want when they want it. This is a selfish desire of the flesh, to make it so that each is available to each other every day without any apparent consequences, submission, or communication.

 

Regarding the selfishness of the flesh, St. Paul says:

"For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace. For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”  Romans 8:5-8

I think that explains well what I just said, regarding living for the flesh, lack of faith in God (and yes I have seen the NFP push turn to hostility), not submitting to the law [of nature] that God wrote, and of course in the end, going against nature is not pleasing to God.
 

St. Paul also said:

“Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural.” Romans 1:24-26

Contraceptive sex is unnatural, especially when the pill (or some other hormone) is involved, because it takes a natural bodily function (which we already said is a gift from God) and turns it backwards and mutilates it. The truth is that we are not meant to have as many babies as humanly possible, but the lie that many have come to believe is that we must go against the laws of nature to avoid it. That we must sterilize ourselves, bowing down to contraception and its power instead of the Creator of fertility/infertility and His power.

"They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him." 2 Peter 2:19

People make themselves slaves to their contraception. Women set alarm clocks to take their pills right on time, make sure to never leave the house without them, order their lives around them, and thus become slaves to them. Men blame the woman for an “unexpected pregnancy” when she has not fully submitted herself to the laws of the pill. A contracepting couple’s sex life revolves around that which promises them a supposed freedom [from children, responsibility, lack of control], but the contraception itself becomes a burden and a corruption to marriage as the couple revolves their entire intimate life around it.
 
We can see that there are Bible verses that can be applied to speak against contraception, but sometimes that’s not good enough for some people. While reading through 1 Corinthians the other week, I stumbled upon one single verse which seemed to light up the page, and one I re-read constantly. This verse seems in full support of NFP, especially the Creighton Model (okay, I’m biased!) because it not only teaches you how to use NFP (how to find ‘good’ or ‘bad’ days depending on your goal), but it also teaches S.P.I.C.E. That is, it teaches you to explore, love, and nurture the Spiritual, Physical, Intellectual, Communicative/Creative, and Emotional side to your spouse and marriage. In other words, your married life isn’t just about your sex life, and NFP (Creighton Model!) teaches you to foster, all of the dimensions of your partner and vocation.
 

“Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:5

 

 

1. Do not deprive each other – The Catholic Church is not prudish. The marital act, according to the Church, is beautiful, proper, and necessary. In each act, the couple consummates their marriage again and renews their vows to each other.
2. except perhaps by mutual consent for a time – mutual consent implies that essential communication about those fertile days, which may be the days that you want to “deprive each other…for a time.”
3. to be free for prayer – here’s part of that S.P.I.C.E. again. Avoiding sex doesn’t mean that the couple should sit on opposite sides of the room or watch TV until each falls asleep. Avoiding sex doesn’t mean avoiding each other. That time can be best spent by focusing on your partner or spending time for prayer and spiritual growth with your spouse.
4. but then return to one another – Again, the Church isn’t against sex. Why do people think that?
5. so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control – not having any self-control in your sex life is the by-product of the Prince of Lies. We are not the sum of our “animal instincts,” but we are human, made in the image and likeness of God, and thus with our will and His grace, we rise above to a higher level from self-denial (“..he must deny himself..”) and thus a more perfect [spiritual] union with God.

 
 
Questions? Curious about NFP? Are you trying your best to ignore God’s tugging at you to turn to NFP? I was in your shoes. Contact me. I want to help.

Marriage

I realize that this blog is very lengthy, so for the sake of my intended audience, I clearly labeled the two different points of view. For those who are non-believers or who have no interest in religious arguments for traditional marriage, the "secular argument" section is for you. For those of you who call yourselves Christian, whether supportive of same-sex marriage or not, please read the "religious argument" section below. It goes further than just quoting from Genesis or providing odd statements like, "The Bible says Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve."

Also know that there are more arguments and points to be made that I did not include as an attempt to keep this from being 100 pages long. For whatever reason, I felt compelled to limit myself to the points I made below.

Finally, I respect you as a person and your opinions, and I would ask that you please show the same respect. If your thoughts are different than mine, I would urge you simply to consider these ideas:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them... The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

When you call out a woman in a crowd or to her face by calling her a "murderer" because she had an abortion or supports abortion, does that change her mind? When you try to scare, shame, or bully someone into being "politically correct" and to see your side by calling them a bigot, intolerant, sick, homophobic, mean, hateful, or uneducated, does that change minds? People only seem to be tolerant of other people as long as they share the same opinion; and when someone else has a different opinion, suddenly they are intolerant or discriminatory. Don't be hypocritical by being intolerant of people that you think are intolerant.

The Religious Argument

 

Marriage is self-giving love to another person. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.” What did He do for the Church? Sacrificed Himself. He gave Himself completely. Through His Resurrection, He gave us Eternal Life. He is the Giver of Life. He gave life to His Church, His spouse. Marriage is self-giving and life-giving.

 

Family and marriage have always been under attack. They are sacred and Satan hates the sacred. He hates that which brings joy, brings sacrifice, brings love that is directed to good and not to evil. Now let’s use our common sense to make another point. Satan is a fallen angel—an angel. These are special entities in Heaven, but God gave His humans something that angels do not have. Something that we can do that angels can’t. We can procreate. Through God’s will, we can reproduce and bring more life into existence. This is a gift that even His faithful angels do not have! Satan is jealous and he has been working forever not only to destroy life, but prevent it. The best and most fruitful place to make new life is in a family—and look especially in recent history, the attack on marriage and family! Divorce, cohabitation, pre-marital sex, infidelity, selfishness, and the complete sterilization of the marriage act. Abortion, contraception, voluntary sterilization—what a threat to families! Following our own will instead of God’s! Isn’t that Satan’s purpose? Satan continues to create a society where self-giving love and life are eliminated. Even heterosexual marriages have become selfish and sterile. Next are “marriages” that are sterile from the beginning. Total self-giving, reproduction, and the consummation of marriage are physically impossible with same-sex couples.

 

Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, a child who is not raised in a stable family environment, in a Domestic Church, will have a hard time grasping and accepting God. The mother-father marriage yields “fertile soil” that Jesus spoke of in order to understand God. To understand the love of an earthly father is to understand how our Father loves us. To understand the gentle nature of an earthly mother is to know how the Blessed Mother loves us. When you distort parenthood and make mothers and fathers interchangeable and obsolete, then you make God obsolete. You make His will obsolete. You make the Domestic Church obsolete: 1.Christ (husband), 2. Church (wife), and 3. us (children). Can you say that Jesus is obsolete? Can you say that the Church that He died for, that we even refer to as our Mother Church, which teaches us and guides us, can you say that she is obsolete? Can you say that we, God’s children, are obsolete?

 

Finally, to my gay Christian brothers and sisters, I oppose same-sex marriage because I love you. I can’t condone the sin of sexual abuse (sterile, self-gratification) outside of the true meaning of marriage any more than I would want you to condone my sins. I want you to love my soul and not my feelings, which is how I feel about you. We are brothers and sisters who have been called to hold each other accountable (“Am I my brother’s keeper?”) to help each other attain Heaven, instead of misguiding each other to thorny, dark roads.

 

Please, I urge you to read these two blogs from the perspective of a young, gay Christian. There is more to life than sex and there is a greater joy than a marriage can provide.

 

"An Open Letter to the Church from a Lesbian"

"To those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all...You are willing to compromise the word of God to be politically correct. We are not deceived. If we accept your willingness to compromise, then we must also compromise. We must therefore accept your lying, your adultery, your lust, your idolatry, your addictions, YOUR sins...We do not ask for your acceptance of our sins any more than we accept yours. We simply ask for the same support, love, guidance, and most of all hope that is given to the rest of your congregation. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not what we shall be, but thank God, we are not what we were. Let us work together to see that we all arrive safely home...." Read the rest here

"Gay, Catholic, and Doing Fine"

"Is it hard to be gay and Catholic? Yes, because like everybody, I sometimes want things that are not good for me. The Church doesn’t let me have those things, not because she’s mean, but because she’s a good mother....So, yes, it’s hard to be gay and Catholic — it’s hard to be anything and Catholic — because I don’t always get to do what I want. Show me a religion where you always get to do what you want and I’ll show you a pretty shabby, lazy religion. Something not worth living or dying for, or even getting up in the morning for." Read the rest here

The Secular Argument

Does everyone have the right to get married? Is it truly a “right” that when denied for certain reasons, is unjust discrimination? Are all of our “rights” the same, even when nature, genetics, or logic disqualify us to things we may want? Do we all have the "right" to get what we want, when we want it, and how we want it? For example, do we all have the right to play in the NFL, even if we may be a female or we have no athletic abilities? Do we all have the right to receive Native American scholarships for college, even if we are not Native American? When we are excluded from such things, is it true discrimination, or is it just reality? And must we be so all-inclusive for the sake of being “politically correct” that nature, rules, history, and guidelines mean nothing? When we seek to be so politically correct that, for instance, anyone can receive a Native American scholarship, doesn’t that degrade the original meaning and intent of the scholarship? Isn’t the scholarship now meaningless if I can receive it, even with no Native American blood in my body?

 

What is marriage? If we can't even agree about what marriage is, then how can we have a meaningful debate about "marriage equality?" In all this time, I haven’t heard any real answers from same-sex marriage supporters. Although, one answer that I did hear was, “Whatever they want it to be!” (Sad.) I have also heard of marriage defined as “a legal institution with legal rights and legal responsibilities.” So, the postal service is a marriage? A business is a marriage? That definition doesn't hold up. Finally, I have also heard of it simply described as “a bond between two people.” So, I have a bond with my parents. Does that make us married? I have a bond with many people. Does that make us all married? The government is not in the business of signing off on romantic or emotional feelings of two people. When will it become more than two people? And when will it become a "legal bond" between close family members? Who is to assume that it will remain solely between people? When you can’t face the true definition of marriage, then marriage truly does become “anything you want it to be!”

 

Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Marriage creates the stable and self-giving bond of two adults for the rearing of children. Marriage is about the children. But when I say that marriage is about the children, it is for them and them only, and not for the adults to have some sort of "experience" or using children to fill some sort of void in their life. That is the selfish raising of children. Saying that two men or two women can marry and raise children is not right. As a sperm from a man and an egg from a woman are needed to make a child, it follows that every child has a mother and a father, and biologically they need both.  Just like the strange argument for abortion comes from people who have already been born, so too do I see so many people support gay marriage who grew up with a mother and a father. Could you look to either of your parents and tell them you didn’t need them? That you didn’t learn anything from them? That you learned nothing specifically masculine or feminine from your father or mother? That nothing in your life would be lacking if you had only two of your mom or two of your dad?

 

In a world that is so hell-bent on “gender equality,” perhaps we have lost sight that what makes men and women different is beautiful and necessary! Men and women generally think differently, love differently, act differently, and teach differently, but in the end, together, they are balanced. A true marriage is one where the husband and wife look at each other and say, “You complete me.” Each knows that the other makes up for what lacks or what is flawed. This makes for the right environment to raise children. Marriage is for the children, not the adults.

 

Are there a lot of parentless children out there? Yes, unfortunately. But we know that because the parents gave life to the children instead of resorting to abortion, that they want good for their children. They want their children to be raised in a normal and happy life that they can’t provide themselves. They want each child to be with a mother and a father. And an orphan child will also tell you that they dream of having a “mommy and a daddy”--that is their right and it trumps anyone's right to be selfish. Unfortunately, even many heterosexuals don't get this, but still, two wrongs don’t make a right. 

 

Why are children the afterthought? Does it not dawn on folks that the government’s primary interest in the “romantic relationship between a husband and wife” is because of children? Because of the prolongation of a nation? Because of the benefit of society? Because of the economic benefit from ever-replacing the workforce? The government does have a vested interest in a marriage because of its procreative and economic benefit, because a family is an essential cell of society, best-suited for raising children that will be good, contributing citizens. When you purposely change the cells, then you change society. The government is not interested in acknowledging purely romantic relationships between any persons because in the eyes of the government, for example, a boyfriend-girlfriend romantic relationship in junior high does not benefit society. The romantic relationship of a cheating husband and his mistress do not benefit society. The romantic relationship of man-boy love does not benefit society. Our capitalist government is interested, primarily, in one thing: money. Economic benefit. We are already running into the problem in America where people are not having enough children (you heard me, overpopulation theorists). Think about it. When families have limited themselves to zero or just one or two children, there is not enough replacement in the workforce, and not enough man-power and taxpayer money to support the aging population. (No wonder so many support euthanasia.. you’ve killed off or prevented so many of the young that there’s no one to take care of the old, so just get rid of them too..). Children are the primary concern in a marriage.

 

As I stated at the beginning, there are many more points that I did not address, but this blog covers a few of those points. In particular, and I will quote it here for those who always cry "hypocrisy!" over sterile same-sex relationships and infertile heterosexual couples:

Some say that infertile couples are an exception to the rule just as same-sex couples are. False. Infertile couples prove the point of natural marriage. An infertile couple is naturally oriented toward procreation and something is medically wrong. The reason a same-sex couple cannot procreate is because nature is working correctly.

God love you.

 

What kind of spouse do you want?

I once was in a conversation with a group of young women who were talking about their "ideal man." They acknowledged the fact that finding a guy at a bar was pretty tacky, and probably would result in a guy who didn't meet their standards. They said that it was better to meet someone in a place like a coffee shop or church. But what came next shocked and upset me. They agreed that it would be great to meet a guy at a church, but not one who was "too hardcore" about being Catholic. "You know, like the kind who walk with 'prayer hands' up to Communion and kneel to receive it."

This conversation has stuck with me now for a few years.

Is it so bad to find a spouse who is truly God-fearing?
One who actually has a personal and strong relationship with Jesus?
One who believes to his core that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?
One who lets faith lead their life, instead of letting life lead their faith?
What is a marriage, if not a Sacrament and covenant centered on God?
Is it just an acknowledgement of a romantic relationship?
One that is only physical, probably emotional, but not at all spiritual?

Do you know that the purpose, especially of a Christian marriage, is to help your spouse (and children) get to Heaven?



Both photos from the Made in His Image Facebook page

I love these two photos because they speak to the essence of what a marriage is (aside from procreation), and what the goal is in the courtship time before marriage:  bringing one another closer to God. A relationship centered on God can never fail, for "what God as joined together, no human being must separate." (Mark 10:9)

Now, my husband and I certainly were not "hardcore Catholics" when we met. Aside from going to Mass, we never even prayed together while we were dating and engaged. But after a while, you truly start to realize the hole in your relationship when together you do not bring God to that hole. You try and fill that whole with loud, busy things, always looking for a new thrill, but of course one that is better than before. We were even married for one whole year before we ever prayed together and brought our faith--which was lukewarm and still "our own"--to each other, to share it and grow it. But once you, as a couple, turn your faces to God even just a little, He runs to you. The Holy Spirit rushes to you to help make it easier, to guide you, and make it "less awkward." Our relationship has grown exponentially ever since then, and I deeply wish we had done this sooner. I wish we had started dating in this way.

One of the most memorable days in our marriage was a seemingly normal day, when I told him, "I love you more than anything!"--a typical spouse phrase. But what set this apart from all the other times I said it before was that he looked at me and said, "Except...?" and I said, "God," with a smile. That's when I knew we were on the right path.

That's when I understood my purpose as a wife.

I want my husband to love God more than he loves me.

 

It's a grace to come to this realization. It's something to pray for, and a goal to achieve.

 

So what kind of spouse do you want? Do you want someone who will not challenge your heart? Who will keep your faith at a stand-still or worse, instead of raising you up to be better, stronger, with more joy, and more grace? Do you want a marriage that is only physical and emotional? Always looking for something bigger and better to come next to keep life "exciting" and ever trying to fill the hole that is meant for God? Or do you want someone who cares about you, body and soul? One know knows that we are destined for Eternal Life, and that what we do here on earth will determine our fate. One who knows that the only way to true happiness is not through his or her own self, but through God. One who will lead your children to God, and to an authentic relationship with Him--because children will imitate their parents, and children will not magically build that relationship if they are not taught how to do so. It is the parents, in the Domestic Church that is the family, (mom, dad, and children), where Christ is known. Where the soul is known. Where the map is laid out for Heaven.

 

I pray deeply that you may know the love of God through your spouse or future spouse. I pray deeply that you become what you desire, and I pray that you desire a holy spouse, and that you desire to be a holy spouse. You deserve it, and so does your spouse.

 

Made in His Image

 

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

 

 

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."