Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5
November, 22,1979
Family Planning
BY DAN AND EILEEN MORRIS
While divorce rates, “open marriage,”
living together, and casual sexual
relationships make the headlines, a profound
trend is growing quietly which has as much
potential impact on the future of family life
in this country as the headline-making
developments.
In the face of what appear to be
staggering odds against successful marriage in
a do-it-if-it-feels-good society, thousands of
young couples are digging in their heels.
Unlike their parents and even some of their
friends, they are not entering marriage with
a simplistic trust that everything will be O.K.
Less than a generation ago, that attitude
toward marriage was perhaps realistic.
Today, it is not. A fluid notion of woman’s
role in society and family has wobbled more
than one marriage. Fidelity is questioned.
Child rearing is often entrusted to day-care
centers. Childbearing in some circles is a
social sin.
“Let’s take a hard look at what we’re
getting into and try to prepare for it,” many
young couples are saying. (Some bishops are
demanding that couples apply at least six
months in advance if they wish to be
married in church. Sufficient time for
instruction, understanding and preparation is
their concern.)
Couples are seeking to answer important
questions. Many of the most critical involve
children. Do both husband and wife have
career plans? If so, does this preclude
children? For how long? If and when they
want children, will the mother quit work
temporarily, or a few years, or indefinitely?
Is it fair for a mn to demand that his wife
throw years of schooling out the window to
stay home with their children?
We have friends who have launched a
lifestyle which would have been laughed at
not too long ago. Both skilled professionals,
each works part-time and spends
approximately equal time raising their young
son. Problems they are answering, however,
include fair distribution of household
chores, consistency in discipline, and
remaining in a comfortable routine.
One of their secrets, however, is that they
knew before their marriage they would be
facing these kinds of problems. They also
knew that opening their relationship to new
life would be an integral part of their life
together. And in her wisdom, the church
underscores the sacramental importance of
receptivity toward children in marriage.
(Either partner’s private decision before
marriage not to ever have children
invalidates a marriage).
What place do children play in a
marriage?
Almost any parent will say that children
“teach” you patience, test your ability to
live without sleep, and give you the courage
to ask for a raise.
Fortunately, children do much more than
that. For one thing, they provide
unbelievable insights into the nature of God
and his love for us.
We agree with a friend who said, “I
understood that God loved me before my
daughter was born. But after she was born I
couldn’t believe how much I could love
someone. I’d throw down my life in a
second for her. and now when someone says
God loves me, I realize that he loved me
enough to give his only Son for me, and it
makes sense. Awesome sense. That’s a lot of
love.”
No author can articulate what depth of
love a child’s entrance into a married
couple’s life opens. Now parents as well as
lovers and friends, a man and wife relate to
one another in an even more special way.
And you soon learn that your children relate
to one another in an even more special way,
and that your children relate to you as a
couple as well as individuals. You are not
only Mom and Dad, but Mom-and-Dad — the
essential stuff security is made of.
This reality thrusts upon us the
opportunity and obligation to take a good
look at our lifestyles. Will children — or
more than one, two, three — force us to
change a lifestyle we cherish? If so, is this a
change we should make?
If we are reluctant to change our lifestyle
for the sake of children, is this a selfish
stance or a realistic and fair one? For
example, would a change in lifestyle hurt
others who depend on us?
On the other hand, does "this mean giving
up a third television set or a new boat or a
vacation to Europe?
Commenting on parental lifestyles,
Franciscan Father Bruce Ritter, director of
Covenant House residences in New York
City for runaways, once tod us: “Sometimes
a child’s only hope is a change of family
lifestyle. Maybe the mother will have to give
up a job. Maybe they’ll have to give up a
place at the lake . . . but if they won’t make
the effort to see that a child gets the
support, love and direct supervision that he
or she needs, then all the money in the
world isn’t going to make any difference.”
He’s right. Obviously, every couple must
be the final arbiter of what kind of life they
lead and provide for their children. But
Father Ritter underlines things crucial to
nearly every couple’s planning for their
future as family: their willingness and ability
to provide love, support and supervision for
their children.
Discussion Points And Questions
1. Why should couples discuss their attitudes toward having children
before they marry? Discuss.
2. How do you feel about the church making preparation for
marriage more extensive? Discuss.
3. Ask this question in a group, then discuss the answers: “If we are
reluctant to change our lifestyle for the sake of children, is this a selfish
stance or a realistic and fair one?” When is it a selfish stance? When is it
a realistic and fair one?
4. What was Pope Paul Vi’s moral reasoning on contraception?
5. What is natural family planning?
6. When is natural family planning immoral?
7. Discuss this statement: “The Bible is not a compendium of moral
theology, a handbook of ethics.”
8. What do we know from the Bible with regard to children? Discuss.
BY FATHER JOHN J. CASTELOT
Many sincere people believe that the
Bible furnishes answers for every conceivable
human problem. All one has to do is find
the right passage and the path one should
follow becomes unmistakably clear. The fact
is that the Bible was never intended to
provide this service and, in many ways, it’s a
good thing that it doesn’t. We would be
reduced to mindless robots, never having to
grapple with life’s problems intelligently,
freely, responsibly.
* The Bible is not a compendium of moral
theology, a handbook of ethics. There are a
few books, like Proverbs and Sirach, which
give all sorts of specific advice on a wide
range of subjects touching upon human
conduct. But this advice is culturally
conditioned; it covers many situations which
were very real in biblical times but which
strike us today as rather quaint, to say the
least. Cultures and customs change with
time, and in our own day we have
experienced a veritable cultural explosion
which has left us with problems of which the
biblical writers could not even have
dreamed. What did they know of the
disposal of nuclear waste, of industrial
pollution, of genetic engineering, of
population control, to mention just a few?
■,We created these problems; we have to find
the answers.
However, even though we would search in
vain for cut-and-dried solutions to specific
questions, we do find certain constants
which are valid in any culture, in the
solution of even the most modem problems.
We find general principles, attitudes, a
pertain mystique which we call the
Judeo-Christian ethic. While all of these
guidelines are clear enough in themselves,
their application to individual situations is
not always simple. One of these principles,
these attitudes, is certainly respect for life,
for the dignity of the human person. And
yet. . .
Take the problem of family planning. Do
people have any right to plan in an area
which might seem to be exclusively the
province of the Creator? And if they do have
that right, what practical steps will they
make to plan (limit) the size of their
families? Are there means which are licit and
others which are illicit? Which are which?
And if one means is licit, why should
another be illicit, since both produce the
same effect?
The people of biblical times simply did
not consider the question at all. In fact, the
very idea of family planning would have
struck them as utterly ridiculous. The only
plan they made was to have as many
children as possible — not because it was
God’s will or because it would have been
against that will to limit their families, but
because they wanted numerous offspring. In
fact, children were accounted a blessing, a
sign of divine favor, while childlessness was
considered a curse.
To Live By
In the culture of the day, this view made
sense. When everything had to be done by
hand, the more hands there were, the more
work was done, and the more easily. Long
before Social Security was introduced,
children were an insurance against the
loneliness and abandonment of old age. At
bottom, the begetting of a numerous
progeny could have been as selfishly
motivated, consciously or unconsciously, as
the refusal to have children is in many cases
today. But this refusal is not by any means
always a sign of egocentric pleasure-seeking.
It is just as much culturally conditioned as
the desire for big families in biblical days.
Many principles come into play in the
solution of this question, but the basic one is
the fundamental biblical principal of love,
coupled with respect for human dignity. The
FATHER DONALD McCARTHY
writes, “Many contemporary couples
are struggling with the agonizing
question of how to control births with
due respect for the moral law.
Catholic teaching has historically
Bible tells many sad stories of human
selfishness and greed and hatred and
violence, but over all this tragic drama is the
God who is love, constantly calling his
children to imitate him, untiringly reminding
them that the only antiodote to their ills is
unselfish love. This should be the
determining factor in the crucial matter of
family planning: love - love of God, of
course, but more immediately, mutual love
of husband and wife, deep concern for each
other’s interests, love for the prospective
children, reasonable assurance that they will
receive loving care in a world which makes it
increasingly difficult to feed, clothe,
educate, and protect one’s offspring. The
resolution of this issue will not always be
easy, but it must be sought, and with love
and genuine concern, it will be attained.
forbidden . . . tampering with the act
of conjugal love. It respects this act of
love almost as much as the new
human life that may be conceived in
it.” (NC Sketch) |
MANY YOUNG COUPLES
entering marriage are taking a long
hard look at what (hey are getting
into, Dan and Eileen Morris write.
“These couples are seeking to answer
some important questions. Do both
husband and wife have career plans? If
so, does this preclude children? If so.
for how long? If and when they do
want children, does this mean the
mother will quit work temporarily,
for a few years, indefinitely to provide
direct love-contact in the raising of
their children?” (NC Photo by Paul
Tucker)
How Much Do We Care?
BY FATHER DONALD McCARTHY
The Catholic Church favors birth control.
Does that sound startling?
Even though Pope Paul VI in his
encyclical, Humanae Vitae, renewed the
church’s ancient, continuous condemnation
of contraception, he spoke in favor of
“responsible parenthood,” which implies
“birth control.”
He wrote, “Responsible parenthood is
exercised, either by the deliberate and
generous decision to raise a numerous
family, or by the decision, made for grave
motives and with due respect for the moral
law, to avoid for the time being, or even for
an indeterminate period, a new birth.”
Many contemporary couples are
struggling with the agonizing question of
how to control births “with due respect for
the moral law” in their method of family
planning.
Twentieth century scientific and medical
ingenuity has continually improved the
chemical and mechanical contraceptive
methods which attempt to prevent the act of
marital intercourse from leading to the
conception of a new human being.
But Catholic teaching has historically
forbidden such tampering with the act of
conjugal love. It respects this act of love
almost as much as the new human life that
may be conceived in it.
Popd Paul VI based his moral reasoning
against contraception on the inseparable
connection between the two meanings of the
conjugal act, the meanings of unitive love
and procreative love. Hence a couple may
not deliberately eliminate the procreative
meaning of their conjugal act even though
they are anxious to express their unitive
love.
Church teaching, as repeated by Pope
Paul, insists that such an anti-procreative
intervention into conjugal acts violates the
integrity those acts are meant to have in the
divine design and corrupts them in a moral
sense. Medical science is now uncovering
mounting evidence that contraceptive pills
“corrupt” the marital act in a physical sense
as well, doing great harm through dangerous
side effects.
Logically, then, Catholic moral teaching
can only admit of family planning efforts
which leave the marital act intact and
“uncorrupted.” However, couples who have
sufficient reasons to delay or avoid
parenthood are free to choose to avoid
expressing their love in conjugal intercourse
during the relatively infrequent times that
such acts are naturally fertile. This is natural
family planning. Such couples respect the
marital act and manifest this respect by
foregoing it rather than frustrate it.
However, even this natural family
planning would still be immoral if
undertaken for an immoral reason, namely, a
selfish exclusion of the responsibility and
privilege of parenthood. Pope Paul cited in
his statement above the need for “grave
reasons” to avoid procreation. These may be
economic, physical, psychological, or even
genetic reasons.
Many couples have sufficient reasons for
at least a temporary practice of natural
family planning but are beset by two kinds
of fear, each of which may be more
imaginary than real:
1. The fear that natural family planning
will weaken their marriage relationship. But
couples who mutually agree to use this
method can actually enrich their marital love
— somehow their sacrifices of physical
pleasure bear spiritual fruit. In a recent
study at Catholic University in Washington,
three-fourths of the couples practicing
natural family planning perceived positive
effects of fertility awareness upon
themselves and their spouses and fewer than
two percent would not recommend this
method to others. A new book by Mary
Shivanandan, “Natural Sex,” likewise
documents this marital enrichment.
2. The fear that natural family planning
will be unreliable. But during the same
recent years in which medical research
produced the contraceptive pill, it has
tremendously improved the reliability of
natural methods of family planning The fact
that many Planned Parenthood agencies
teach natural family planning indicates
increased confidence in this method.
Couples who are properly instructed and
mutually committed to the natural method
need have no fears about its reliability.
Hence the ministry of teaching natural
family planning and the effort to learn it
both manifest a profound care for marriage
and family life. A rapidly expanding
organization of couples professionally
trained to teach natural family planning, the
Couple to Couple League, now has 250
teaching couples in 42 states. The second
edition of their handbook, “The Art of
Natural Family Planning,” appeared this fall.
For information, write: Couple to Couple
League, P. O. Box 11084, Cincinnati, Ohio
45211.
While the Couple to Couple League
teaches natural family planning based on all
available indications of fertility, the
ovulation method, also called the Billings
method, relies uniquely on one "indication,
the female mucous discharge . . For
information on the ovulation method
contact: World Organization of Ovulation
Method, Billings, 1400 W. Ninth St., Los
Angeles, Cal. 90015.
Both organizations are fulfilling a critical
plea of Pope Paul VI for the ministry of
family planning. “This is assuredly,” he
wrote wisely, “among so many forms of
apostolate, one of those which seem most
opportune today.”
KNOW
YOUR
FAITH
(All Articles On This Page
Copyrighted 1979 By N. C. News Service)
L.