Mar 15, 2022·edited Mar 15, 2022Liked by Chris Damian
I feel like missing in a lot of NFP discussions and hardships related to parenting is two things:
1. The role of the husband. I'm in a large facebook group centered around NFP, and one of the biggest issues is differences in sex drives. In several cases, the woman might have a higher drive than the man, and would like to have children while the man does not.. but in many cases, where the woman is more hesitant to have more children (particularly due to health issues, post partum, etc.), the husband has a higher drive and the wife can feel pressured. Navigating NFP post partum is tricky to begin with, but it's near impossible for the woman to get her bearings straight if the man is constantly wanting sex. I wonder to what extent the cases you heard from women who had several pregnancies in a row were due to sexual pressure, and I know of women who lost their faith after situations like these.
I became aware of these realities through my own personal experience as a married woman using NFP. Oddly enough, I have found more solace in traditional formulations of the end of sex being primarily about children, and secondarily about the bonding of the couple, rather than it having two ends without any hierarchy between them, because it takes into account the stakes involved, especially for us women. The popular ToB takes that emphasize the bonding may be in response to a Manichaean view of sex, but I wonder to what extent it overcorrects.
2. Atomization and evolutionary mismatch: Everywhere you read in the bible, children are seen as automatic blessings, but discourse today views children as a high risk danger. Rewarding? Sure, but something the couple have to prepare for to ridiculous lengths. In earlier days, kids easily became a part of the home economy, but today kids are seen as expenses up through their early twenties. Back then, infant mortality was also very high, but today in the first world, thanks to modern medicine, it's very rare for a kid to die once he is born. It seems like our drives are adapted to having many children, but many children were both a necessity and to beat the odds of mortality while being of lesser cost and far more easily integratable into family life. We also lived in thicker community, so it's not like the responsibility of the children only fell to the two parents. Even assuming a sexual heteronormativity, this heteronormativity tends today to be a childless one; Our societies are not geared towards this sexual reality all that well.
When the emphasis on sexual morality is primarily on NFP as a way of life, particularly for women, when things go bad, we start looking for answers as if the problem is with individual dynamics. Both "you weren't using the method correctly" and "you need to embrace the suffering," but also to certain extent the conclusion that the Church is just wrong on sexual ethics, follow from this limited scope. And this is a problem because it assumes our atomized way of living is normal. I wonder to what extent a partial correction would involve integrating the Church's historic sexual teaching with her social teaching. Maybe contraception is wrong, and we must recourse to NFP if we avoid children for just reasons... ok. But isn't it bad that we are structured socially in a way that is very badly adapted to kids? With few people we could really call true friends, split from family, etc? With work that barely provides living wage, and most homes being centers for consumption rather than production? A lot of my thoughts on this came from the takes from the Spiritual Friendship crowd.
I loved the way you included St. Gianna. I am a hard working Catholic mom and her story of running her own practice and being a lifelong learner are so important to me and all you ever hear about is her DEATH. She had three children and a job and a husband and a life. I also teach in a Catholic school and our religion book erroneously claims she refused all medical procedures. My understanding is she did everything available to save both herself and the baby, which seems a more prolife stance than passively dying when you could fight for both. Thanks for this article and the online conversation that sparked it.
Thank you for highlighting this, Chris. As a single Catholic woman, I get very frustrated with the ideas around birth control and NFP. It's very complicated, and I wish more people would be open to discussing the good and bad, even if it varies from official Church teaching. People's experiences matter, and it's too simplistic to have one or two size fits all.
On another note, it's essential to talk about artificial birth control truthfully, in the health/medical sense. The Pill is not harmful for women to take, period. Yes, it may not be the correct option for many women, depending on their hormones. But many of the anti-birth control takes are not factual -- it doesn't cause cancer, it's not a sizeable environmental pollutant, etc. It's not "masking" anything -- sometimes it is the best solution, and there may not be any others that are as effective. It improves women's lives dramatically.
Thank you for writing this, Chris. I have watched your growth as a writer and as a man with pride. This particular subject hit me in a personal way. I had written one comment here, but somehow lost it, so I am writing again. I hope this isn’t redundant. One of the main reasons I am no longer going to church, or even consider myself religious, is because of the Church’s attitude on women’s health and NFP. At the end of my reproductive life, I had to have a procedure done to save me from such heavy periods, they could only be called monthly hemorrhages. I was nearly 50. In doing so, I also had to have a tubal ligation. If I had not done so, and subsequently gotten pregnant, I would have minimally had to have a hysterectomy. The procedure went well and my health returned. But since my insurance was through the Archdiocese of Austin, none of the medical bills were covered. The tubal ligation voided all coverage because it was against Catholic teaching. It took me over two years to get an honest answer about why Blue Cross Blue Shield denied coverage. I had to deal with the Catholic hospital, my OB/GYN, and the anesthesiologist. The latter two had to write off their costs, but the Catholic hospital said they would sue me for the $30,000 I owed. I write to the Texas Insurance Commission to file a complaint. It was then that I learned that the underwriters, the Archdiocese, had this policy nothing could be done. I finally wrote the Bishop of Austin, telling him all these personal medical details as to why I had to have this surgery. The bill was paid in two days. The anguish we went through to get to this resolution, however, was infuriating, heartbreaking, and just plain enraging. On top of that, my husband, who also worked for the church, was shamed because his wife was “no longer a real woman, and he would need to see me differently, but try to love me just the same.”
At this point, I am happy to share this story if it helps other women who are dealing with the shame and misinformation that we receive through the church’s teachings on issues of human sexuality and reproductive health. It doesn’t have to be this way, but so many many people are misinformed and misguided in this area. Thank you again Chris.
Thank you, Chris, for writing this. The unwillingness of the Church to honestly explore ways to lift the burden laid on married couples and the glorification of the suffering and death of women has been infuriating. I am glad to see you express so well the things I have been thinking but not knowing quite how to say. I can appreciate the statements by a couple of women who said something like their husband’s vasectomy was an “act of love” and “life giving.”
Yeah, the conversation about the difficulties of NFP can be difficult specially because some of these things can be so subjective. For example, in this article you quote a woman who says she wishes the Church had warned how difficult it would be because “sex during pregnancy sucks”. Not only has that not been my experience AT ALL but I’ve heard it so often from other women (Britney Spears included) that sex in the second trimester is amazing, that I really thought that was the case for many women. So people are different and you can’t anticipate all the million differences. I did have one unplanned pregnancy (I can’t blame the method though- I’m the laziest charter ever) and because of health issues could not risk being pregnant soon after so we did have to go without sex for like 7 months, mostly because my libido was 0 while breastfeeding, so again, can’t blame NFP entirely. Then I charted for another 2 years and conceived again. Honestly, if my husband wasn’t super chill (most of the time) and hadn’t been in seminary for a few years, where he really figured out the chastity thing, I guess it could be very difficult. If a guy enters marriage thinking he’s owed something then that’s difficult.
So I guess I'm just wondering what the follow up is. Honestly just to continue the conversation and understand the context of this essay. Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong about her stance on birth control? I'm truly not trying to spin your words but I don't really see many other underlying messages. I 100% absolutely agree that NFP needs to be talked about with more honesty and I think that has been happening, way before this essay was written. Obviously not in all circles or from all voices. But aside from being more honest about the real hardships and suffering, what are we to do if we want/need to space pregnancies? It feels like when you suggest that this is not an inescapable suffering that what is being proposed is that we should be "allowed" to escape the suffering of family planning by using birth control, no?
Quick question re: "pagan death cults"... Which ones? Without further context or definition, that feels like a throwaway line. Is there a specific pagan group that is a good corrollary? Or is this just an easy out?
Overall, I seriously appreciate the article. It really resonates. I just feel that calling out pagans specifically without drawing a specific line from Specific Group A to Specific Group B could be considered sloppy anthropology.
I feel like missing in a lot of NFP discussions and hardships related to parenting is two things:
1. The role of the husband. I'm in a large facebook group centered around NFP, and one of the biggest issues is differences in sex drives. In several cases, the woman might have a higher drive than the man, and would like to have children while the man does not.. but in many cases, where the woman is more hesitant to have more children (particularly due to health issues, post partum, etc.), the husband has a higher drive and the wife can feel pressured. Navigating NFP post partum is tricky to begin with, but it's near impossible for the woman to get her bearings straight if the man is constantly wanting sex. I wonder to what extent the cases you heard from women who had several pregnancies in a row were due to sexual pressure, and I know of women who lost their faith after situations like these.
I became aware of these realities through my own personal experience as a married woman using NFP. Oddly enough, I have found more solace in traditional formulations of the end of sex being primarily about children, and secondarily about the bonding of the couple, rather than it having two ends without any hierarchy between them, because it takes into account the stakes involved, especially for us women. The popular ToB takes that emphasize the bonding may be in response to a Manichaean view of sex, but I wonder to what extent it overcorrects.
2. Atomization and evolutionary mismatch: Everywhere you read in the bible, children are seen as automatic blessings, but discourse today views children as a high risk danger. Rewarding? Sure, but something the couple have to prepare for to ridiculous lengths. In earlier days, kids easily became a part of the home economy, but today kids are seen as expenses up through their early twenties. Back then, infant mortality was also very high, but today in the first world, thanks to modern medicine, it's very rare for a kid to die once he is born. It seems like our drives are adapted to having many children, but many children were both a necessity and to beat the odds of mortality while being of lesser cost and far more easily integratable into family life. We also lived in thicker community, so it's not like the responsibility of the children only fell to the two parents. Even assuming a sexual heteronormativity, this heteronormativity tends today to be a childless one; Our societies are not geared towards this sexual reality all that well.
When the emphasis on sexual morality is primarily on NFP as a way of life, particularly for women, when things go bad, we start looking for answers as if the problem is with individual dynamics. Both "you weren't using the method correctly" and "you need to embrace the suffering," but also to certain extent the conclusion that the Church is just wrong on sexual ethics, follow from this limited scope. And this is a problem because it assumes our atomized way of living is normal. I wonder to what extent a partial correction would involve integrating the Church's historic sexual teaching with her social teaching. Maybe contraception is wrong, and we must recourse to NFP if we avoid children for just reasons... ok. But isn't it bad that we are structured socially in a way that is very badly adapted to kids? With few people we could really call true friends, split from family, etc? With work that barely provides living wage, and most homes being centers for consumption rather than production? A lot of my thoughts on this came from the takes from the Spiritual Friendship crowd.
I loved the way you included St. Gianna. I am a hard working Catholic mom and her story of running her own practice and being a lifelong learner are so important to me and all you ever hear about is her DEATH. She had three children and a job and a husband and a life. I also teach in a Catholic school and our religion book erroneously claims she refused all medical procedures. My understanding is she did everything available to save both herself and the baby, which seems a more prolife stance than passively dying when you could fight for both. Thanks for this article and the online conversation that sparked it.
Thank you for highlighting this, Chris. As a single Catholic woman, I get very frustrated with the ideas around birth control and NFP. It's very complicated, and I wish more people would be open to discussing the good and bad, even if it varies from official Church teaching. People's experiences matter, and it's too simplistic to have one or two size fits all.
On another note, it's essential to talk about artificial birth control truthfully, in the health/medical sense. The Pill is not harmful for women to take, period. Yes, it may not be the correct option for many women, depending on their hormones. But many of the anti-birth control takes are not factual -- it doesn't cause cancer, it's not a sizeable environmental pollutant, etc. It's not "masking" anything -- sometimes it is the best solution, and there may not be any others that are as effective. It improves women's lives dramatically.
Thank you for writing this, Chris. I have watched your growth as a writer and as a man with pride. This particular subject hit me in a personal way. I had written one comment here, but somehow lost it, so I am writing again. I hope this isn’t redundant. One of the main reasons I am no longer going to church, or even consider myself religious, is because of the Church’s attitude on women’s health and NFP. At the end of my reproductive life, I had to have a procedure done to save me from such heavy periods, they could only be called monthly hemorrhages. I was nearly 50. In doing so, I also had to have a tubal ligation. If I had not done so, and subsequently gotten pregnant, I would have minimally had to have a hysterectomy. The procedure went well and my health returned. But since my insurance was through the Archdiocese of Austin, none of the medical bills were covered. The tubal ligation voided all coverage because it was against Catholic teaching. It took me over two years to get an honest answer about why Blue Cross Blue Shield denied coverage. I had to deal with the Catholic hospital, my OB/GYN, and the anesthesiologist. The latter two had to write off their costs, but the Catholic hospital said they would sue me for the $30,000 I owed. I write to the Texas Insurance Commission to file a complaint. It was then that I learned that the underwriters, the Archdiocese, had this policy nothing could be done. I finally wrote the Bishop of Austin, telling him all these personal medical details as to why I had to have this surgery. The bill was paid in two days. The anguish we went through to get to this resolution, however, was infuriating, heartbreaking, and just plain enraging. On top of that, my husband, who also worked for the church, was shamed because his wife was “no longer a real woman, and he would need to see me differently, but try to love me just the same.”
At this point, I am happy to share this story if it helps other women who are dealing with the shame and misinformation that we receive through the church’s teachings on issues of human sexuality and reproductive health. It doesn’t have to be this way, but so many many people are misinformed and misguided in this area. Thank you again Chris.
This column hits it out of the ballpark, Chris! The NFP program makes life for women much more difficult than it needs to be.
Thank you, Chris, for writing this. The unwillingness of the Church to honestly explore ways to lift the burden laid on married couples and the glorification of the suffering and death of women has been infuriating. I am glad to see you express so well the things I have been thinking but not knowing quite how to say. I can appreciate the statements by a couple of women who said something like their husband’s vasectomy was an “act of love” and “life giving.”
Yeah, the conversation about the difficulties of NFP can be difficult specially because some of these things can be so subjective. For example, in this article you quote a woman who says she wishes the Church had warned how difficult it would be because “sex during pregnancy sucks”. Not only has that not been my experience AT ALL but I’ve heard it so often from other women (Britney Spears included) that sex in the second trimester is amazing, that I really thought that was the case for many women. So people are different and you can’t anticipate all the million differences. I did have one unplanned pregnancy (I can’t blame the method though- I’m the laziest charter ever) and because of health issues could not risk being pregnant soon after so we did have to go without sex for like 7 months, mostly because my libido was 0 while breastfeeding, so again, can’t blame NFP entirely. Then I charted for another 2 years and conceived again. Honestly, if my husband wasn’t super chill (most of the time) and hadn’t been in seminary for a few years, where he really figured out the chastity thing, I guess it could be very difficult. If a guy enters marriage thinking he’s owed something then that’s difficult.
So I guess I'm just wondering what the follow up is. Honestly just to continue the conversation and understand the context of this essay. Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong about her stance on birth control? I'm truly not trying to spin your words but I don't really see many other underlying messages. I 100% absolutely agree that NFP needs to be talked about with more honesty and I think that has been happening, way before this essay was written. Obviously not in all circles or from all voices. But aside from being more honest about the real hardships and suffering, what are we to do if we want/need to space pregnancies? It feels like when you suggest that this is not an inescapable suffering that what is being proposed is that we should be "allowed" to escape the suffering of family planning by using birth control, no?
Quick question re: "pagan death cults"... Which ones? Without further context or definition, that feels like a throwaway line. Is there a specific pagan group that is a good corrollary? Or is this just an easy out?
Overall, I seriously appreciate the article. It really resonates. I just feel that calling out pagans specifically without drawing a specific line from Specific Group A to Specific Group B could be considered sloppy anthropology.