And not always to defend. So in response to this post by the recognized authority on the subject, Janet Smith:
I abandoned hormonal contraceptives long before converting to Catholicism because it just didn't feel right to be doing such unnatural things to my body. There are several points here that should be addressed, because while I agree with most of the points made about the pill, there *are* hormonal contraceptives (depo-provera) that can increase sex drive, though that one has several unpleasant possible side effects in addition to making your uterus "like a desert," as my OB said. Also, while some pregnant women certainly experience decreased libido, I believe there are almost as many who experience a heightened desire--not for any evolutionary purpose, but certainly for bonding with the father of their child(ren), a closeness that prepares for birth.
I do agree that there are many career decisions that interfere with couple intimacy, but to set up the dichotomy of career woman and earthy, holy, domestic mother-type is to commit an error that is perpetuated in a lot of the literature geared toward Catholic women, and to potentially alienate those of us who are doing our best to fulfill our vocation as mothers and wives while using the other talents God has given us to pursue careers--sometimes careers we chose before conversion. There doesn't have to be a contradiction, though of course our dignity as women does not depend on work, and there may be some confusion about that on an unconscious level because of the messages that society sends to women. I take comfort in something that was told to me in RCIA and echoes other things I've read: That God only wants us to be, to the fully extent possible, the people that we are meant to be. And for some, our trials might involve navigating multiple difficult pursuits simultaneously.
I resemble the "fifth couple" of Smith's anecdote in my marriage, except for only having 3 children, but I disagree that the reproductive capability that we share is a source of joy for my husband and I, who are navigating a difficult sibling dynamic with very strong personalities in our current parenting. I *have* felt that thrill in being a parent with my husband, but usually when I was newly pregnant, when the awe of it all was fresh. I take issue with the "baby-making power of the sexual act" as energizing, etc. When one is already a parent, x1, x2, x3, etc., there are times when the sexual act is a refuge for the parents--an affirmation that, for the moment, does not include children, which is why humans, unlike other animals, do engage in intercourse when they are not fertile, or when the woman has already conceived. Theology of the Body allows that sexual act, performed during infertile periods, does not necessarily mark an exclusion of God from the relationship.
This statement in Smith's article is also deeply flawed in how it is articulated, though it may be theologically sound on some levels: "While couples who use contraception may in fact love one another deeply, contracepted sex expresses a willingness only to engage in a momentary physical pleasure and thus expresses neither love nor commitment." And yet, this is a given, an important element of persuasion, a rallying cry, in most discussions of NFP. However that may be, the argument denies the potential of humans to cultivate an emotional bond in spite of physiology. By the same rationale that informs this statement, barren couples should not be able to affirm commitment to one another in the sexual act because their bodies are not joined in a potentially fruitful act during intercourse. While it is true that the psychology and physiology of contracepted sex is different, it is possible to overstate this in a way that diminishes the dignity of the individuals involved.
I still struggle with NFP--failing more often than not to be faithful to the spirit of Church teaching--and I think I always will. Discourses on NFP do not satisfy, because however sophisticated my understanding of theology, there are elements that seem to me to be expressed without understanding, and that certainly do not fit with my experience. I will never return to artificial contraception, and I think that the culture of contraception is a dangerous thing, but I think generalizing about couples who contracept is ungenerous. And sometimes, restating how the couple that is willing to conceive is superior in their lovemaking because it is so much more meaningful is off-putting.
4 comments:
I agree. I think the article echoes many of the facile NFP cheerleading mantras without admitting many of the harder things about NFP. Which I've argued before elsewhere does NFP a great disservice. Granted there are space limitations in an article and a need for focus; but still one or two caveats wouldn't kill the piece.
Aside: Speaking of which, have you caught Darwin Catholic's NFP and Contraceptive Mentality series whose final installment appeared this weekend? Much more balanced than the usual. I think we should all agree to admit that, like so many things that are good for you, NFP is hard... but still better than the alternative.
The career woman domestic mother dichotomy bugs me too. I just finished reading a couple of biographies of St Gianna Molla and one thing I appreciated about her life was how she balanced her career and family and spiritual life. Of course, like you say, I do think we need to acknowledge the trials and difficulties of navigating both paths simultaneously-- I do think some careers are probably more conducive to finding such a balance and some downright prohibitive-- but the idea that working and raising a family are at root incompatible is silly.
I also agree with your critique of the tendency to overstate the ways in which contraceptives interfere with emotional bonding. While I do think there will always be some harm done to a relationship that uses contraception, I also think that harm is not always readily apparent and is not necessarily going to destroy a relationship either. I do think that many comments along those lines are ungenerous. And not exactly helpful. To tell people who are contracepting that they don't really love each other isn't really going to win many converts for the cause now is it? Nor do I think it true. I also think that many couple who use NFP can still have flaws in their relationships that are as bad or worse than the contracepting couples. Many of us come to marriage with great piles of emotional baggage from prior relationships, after conversion, etc and those issues can wound just as much as contraception.
I think from the many conversations I've had with various Catholic women (and men too, but mostly women) that there really needs to be a "second wave" of NFP thinking and teaching that is more subtle and does a better job of taking into account how hard NFP can be. Speaking of which, can we put to bed the 7-10 days of abstinence a month story, please? That's sort of an ideal situation and not the lived reality for many couples.
Heh. Well, it's not uncommon for partisans to overstate their case, and Dr. Smith gets it from all sides at times. You should write her (politely of course), she's usually good for some dialogue. As I read it though, the sentence you pulled out referred to the childless couples in her anecdote - and there I think her statement carries some validity, that there is a shallowness in wanting all the 'goods' of marriage but not babies. I don't, however, in my daily life meet many contracepting couples that want to remain childless; most already have one or two children and are trying to plan and be responsible, just like my husband and I are now as we use NFP to TTA. Which is where Dr. Smith goes next, but without the space to really tackle the difference in essence between the couple using contraceptives to space children and the couple using NFP to do so.
You know, it might just be that Dr. Smith is really not best in the confines of a short column. :-)
I am not that interested in sex and it has nothing to do with contraception or co-parenting or anything else. I stopped taking the pill years and years ago. I did not have sex before marriage and I have three children. My traditionalist catholic friend and mother of four, who also doesn't take the pill, hasn't had sex in a year, she tells me. She doesn't want to get pregnant because she had a difficult birth and major ppd after her fourth.
So, you know, for me this doesn't wash even anecdotally. In which case, she wonders why no one has made the connection to contraception in public discourse before. Perhaps because it doesn't exist?
And as for why I'm not that interested in sex, I have a relatively low sex drive. I always have. It's partly psychological and it's partly the way I'm wired. Does it really need to be about anything more than that?
I feel sometimes like it's only the cultural expectation that I ought to have greater interest in sex that I do that creates this "problem," just as a person with a greater desire for sex would struggle if the expectation were reversed. Say, a person with a high need for sex living in Victorian England.
I actually find it kind of amusing that we're trying to combat an era of "women aren't that interested in sex" with a narrative (a la Sex and the City) that tells us "women are just as interested in sex as men are!" and then we wring our hands because a lot of women appear to be not that interested.
People are different...? Could we just go there...?
@ Kate - I think, to be fair, that the sentence I extracted is a generalization that is based on to a degree, and to a degree commentary on, the anecdote (and other similar contraception anecdotes) that Dr. Smith presents in the article. I've read a lot of the literature on NFP, and much of it commits the same errors.
@ Melanie - Having been out of blog reading for a while, I missed the Darwin NFP posts. I need to go back and look. There really does need to be a new wave of writers about NFP. The Art of Natural Family Planning is informative, but not helpful in so many ways. It really represents its generation.
@ Anastasia - I agree that people are different. Very different. A very good family friend told me that she felt very much like you about sex. I do think that sometimes career and artificial hormones interfere, and that is where dissatisfaction may appear. But where there is no dissatisfaction--you're right; it's not a problem that needs fixing!
Post a Comment