More Crocker Reaction

20 thoughts on “More Crocker Reaction”

1. Dr. Popcak says:
   “In other words, A COUPLE IS USING NFP WHETHER THEY ARE TRYING TO CONCEIVE OR NOT. And without NFP a couple who has been asked by God to conceive is just shooting in the dark–so to speak, and that is no way to effectively cooperate with his grace and be the responsible co-creators of life that we, as Christian married couples, are called by the Church to be.”
   [Emphasis added]
   Is he serious? Or am I maybe reading this wrong? Because it looks to me like he’s saying my wife and I aren’t fully cooperating with God’s grace because we don’t bring a thermometer, a pen and some paper and a couple of resource books to bed with us. That is rubbish. Or else it’s too bad that for two thousand years Christians couldn’t fully cooperate with God’s grace until science taught us about cervical mucus.
   That is the attitude which frustrates people like me (and Crocker, though I don’t agree entirely with his piece).
   Shouldn’t the default position always be “YES, let’s make a baby!” unless there is a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy?
   Is it sinful for a Christian to couple to make love to eah other whenever their mutual love inspires them to (provided they dont have a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy) and trust in God’s Providence to provide them with children? I understand why Crocker teed a lot of people off, but some of the criticism has revealed many (and I’m not accusing our blog host here) of the flaws in the way NFP has been taught and received.

2. NFP (in its non conceptive dimension) can be likened to capital punishment. There are times when it can be licit, but the use of it is not to be taken lightly, and it must be for serious reasons.

3. Christ,
   I think, in general, they would avail themselves of the sacramental gift whenever they were inspired to do so; assuming they already have a child, they are probably not going to actively seek another one right away, so they wouldn’t have to worry about bringing a pad and a pen with them every time. Thus, when they avail themselves, they are leaving the decision up to God (assuming they have the means for another child), and when they feel they have settled in with the previous child, they can begin to actively use NFP methods to create a new life.

4. *Chris, not Christ.

5. I actually found Croker’s piece to be quite humorous, and actually truthful!
   The whole “NFP-mysticism” that we hear from the EWTN sexperts simply sounds bogus, and makes my Catholic “spidey-sense” tingle.
   And lets face it, Crocker’s absolutely correct about the reliability of NFP. I don’t care what the studies show; I can’t think of a single, solitary couple who has used NFP and come out with a 99% effectiveness rate.
   It fails, folks. More so than a good condom, anyway.
   Anywho, I don’t see why everyone’s getting their panties in a twist over this essay. Crocker’s a satirist, so get over it. He’s entitled to his opinion; and quite frankly, his opinions are actually rooted in fact and reason: there’s a point to them. The same can hardly be said for his critics, who instead seem to instinctively balk at anything that even appears to challenge and critique what they beleive to be so sacrosanct.

6. That’s a mighty broad brush in your hand, Eric.

7. 
   I posted on the previous thread (which is now probably abandoned) which in summary amounted to:
   Isn’t Crocker effectively being a reactionary?
   Not that his position isn’t a valid one to take. That should be the general attitude. But since there is no aberation of natural law in NFP it never fails the morality test…right?
   

8. +J.M.J+
   >>>Or else it’s too bad that for two thousand years Christians couldn’t fully cooperate with God’s grace until science taught us about cervical mucus.
   Before the development of NFP, the Church recognized that (temporary) total abstinence from conjugal relations was a morally legitimate way for married couples to postpone conception if necessary. You could say that that was the “Natural Family Planning” of the first two millenia of Christian history. So I suppose a couple back then could hypothetically have prayed “Should we have relations this month, Lord?”
   Though the Holy Office ruled as far back as the mid 19th C. that it was okay for couples to make use of (what was believed at the time to be) infertile periods. Yes, the Church’s approval of the use of infertile times goes that far back – not just to Vatican II or Humanae Vitae! See Fr. Brian Harrison’s recent article in _This Rock Magazine_ for more info on that.
   In Jesu et Maria,

9. A lot of the criticism I’m seeing (I haven’t read Mr. Peters’ yet) seems to arguing against what wasn’t ever stated. No where in the article does the author claim that NFP is even really wrong. Nor does he mock infertile couples. What he does seem to mock is the feminine nature of some of the pro-NFP arguments (better communication) and the idea that child prevention should be held up so high. In some respects, pregnancy is being treated as a disease that needs to be prevented.
   This is a far cry from condemning NFP itself. No one could tell the difference when he wrote it, and I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference with my mere musing.

10. Abstinance can be traced pretty early in the church. I understand that wives of deacons would have to agree not to have relations with their husband before the husband could become a deacon.

11. I am not arguing that the use of the infertile times for a just reason is wrong (nor, by the way, do I set myself up at all as judge of what are and are not just reasons), rather, I wonder if my reading of Popcak is correct in that I am somehow falling short in my Christian duty by not practicing NFP. If my reading is correct, I am sorely disappointed that a man as respected in Catholic circles as he is is teaching such a thing.
    Can anybody produce any evidence of Church teaching preferential to NFP when the couple does not have a serious reason to abstain?
    Parenthetically, does nobody else think that his description of those who don’t use NFP as “shooting in the dark” is offensive and even bordering on vulgar?
    I want to make clear, that I in no way object to making use of Natural Family Planning when a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy is present. My wife and I have in fact had to use it, and I was not ashamed. Still, I do believe that it is silly to believe that NFP is in some way a higher road than relying completely on Providence, and is a slap in the face to those couples who express their love fully and completely without the use of charts, thermometers, and newsletters.

12. Chris,
    You’re right; Catholic couples are not *required* or obliged to use NFP to conceive or avoid pregnancy. It is merely a licit tool, and in fact a blessing to many. However, a Catholic couple may “use” nothing and simply have loving relations with each other without worrying about fertile/infertile times, and there is nothing immoral or less virtuous about that sacramental expression of their love.
    NFP simply serves as the only licit and moral means of avoiding conception, if there is grave/just reason. I think those who jump to its defense so strongly do so out of thankfulness that they have an option to apply to their personal situation. That’s certainly how we felt when we discovered it. (…turns out we have hardly used it to postpone pregnancy after all).

13. “What he does seem to mock is the feminine nature of some of the pro-NFP arguments (better communication) . . .”
    He also mocked marriage, wives, children, his wife, and his children.
    And this is the second time I’ve seen somebody who is defending Crocker in the context of this discussion refer to the “feminine” nature of arguments. Both times, we’ve apparently been given to understand that there’s something wrong with, or inferior about, arguments that have a “feminine” nature. How, um, quaint.

14. +J.M.J+
    >>>Can anybody produce any evidence of Church teaching preferential to NFP when the couple does not have a serious reason to abstain?
    AFAIK, the Church does not teach that all Catholic couples must use NFP all the time.
    There was a period in our marriage when we didn’t bother with it because we wanted a child but didn’t know when the child would come along because I was (temporarily) infertile due to an endocrine imbalance. We certainly weren’t going to chart temps for months, maybe years on end, while no ovulations were occurring, so we just let the chips fall where they may until our second child finally arrived. This “providentialist” period 😉 didn’t hurt our marriage at all.
    I think those NFP promoters who give the impression that NFP is necessary for everyone are simply overstating the case for NFP in the face of claims that it is an “unChristian” practice. They are saying “Not only is it compatible with Christianity, but look at how it benefits Christian marriage!”
    However, they are correct in stating the NFP is not just for postponing pregnancy, but can also be used to cause a pregnancy as well since the couple knows exactly when the wife is most fertile. This is one thing that sets it apart from contraception, which can only be used to prevent a pregnancy.
    In Jesu et Maria,

15. Popcak says:
    “…without NFP a couple who has been asked by God to conceive is just shooting in the dark–so to speak, and that is no way to effectively cooperate with his grace and be the responsible co-creators of life that we, as Christian married couples, are called by the Church to be.”
    Oh yea. The “trusting God alone with your fertility is irresponsible” teaching. I forget, what encyclical/catechism/saint teaches that catholics must use NFP in order to be considered “responsible?” I must have missed that day in catechism class.
    Popcak is off his rocker. Perhaps a beer (or three) would help?

16. +J.M.J+
    Above I wrote:
    >>>I think those NFP promoters who give the impression that NFP is necessary for everyone are simply overstating the case for NFP in the face of claims that it is an “unChristian” practice. They are saying “Not only is it compatible with Christianity, but look at how it benefits Christian marriage!”
    I just wanted to add that they are also arguing for the benefits of NFP over contraception, saying that the latter does not promote communication while the former does. If they are trying to also turn that around on the providentialists by saying “NFP promotes communication while providentialism does not,” then perhaps they are taking things a bit too far.
    Providentialism is certainly permissible, and if a couple can afford to have fourteen kids (or more) then more power to them. Yet providentialism should not be held up as the only legitimate Catholic practice for married couples when the Church has repeatedly said that use of the infertile time is okay, even as far back as 1853.
    Jared writes:
    >>>And this is the second time I’ve seen somebody who is defending Crocker in the context of this discussion refer to the “feminine” nature of arguments. Both times, we’ve apparently been given to understand that there’s something wrong with, or inferior about, arguments that have a “feminine” nature. How, um, quaint.
    Yeah, that bothers me, too. What’s wrong with the feminine? Didn’t God create it as well? The Blessed Virgin is the ultimate expression of the feminine in creation – should we diss her?
    (Yes, I know that those complaining about the alleged “feminine” nature of NFP arguments do not at all intend to diss Our Lady, and most likely love her very much. I’m just taking distain for the “feminine” to its logical conclusion.)
    For that matter, why is communication perceived as “feminine”? God communicates Himself to us in many ways; indeed, God the Son is the Eternal Word spoken by the Father, through Whom He reveals Himself to us: “He that seeth Me seeth the Father also” (St. John 14:9). Does the eternal begetting of the Word “feminize” God? Since when is speaking and communication not “masculine”? Did God not give men the power of speech?
    Even if one argues that women are better at verbal communication than men, perhaps God paired man and woman in marriage precisely because he intends for men to thereby develop their communication skills. If the sexes complement each other, perhaps they can also benefit from each other’s companionship.
    In Jesu et Maria,

17. Jared,
    What you call disparaging, others call humorous. Only recently has marital success been defined as having wonderful communication and yes that is feminine. Try getting a guy including myself out on any week night for a gathering with the boys and you’ll see what I mean. What I’m saying isn’t meant to demean having your wife at your hip. Do realize that it is a recent phenomena.
    Traditionally, men’s clubs (don’t think the current “gentlemen’s clubs”) were vibrant. Women had many social organizations of their own. In the over 70 crowd, you will hear a lot of women say that when their husbands retired, their husbands drove them crazy for half a year, because they were around the house so much.
    Maybe a sign of our progress is that the greatest concern for marriages is the orgasm. In early times a happy marriage was defined as being able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, and be able to buy a nice Sunday dress on occaison. Marriage back then was more identified with a joint struggle and perserverence than communication and orgasms. If you said you’d rather have a wife bring you a beer than talk with her that was not the sign of failing marriage, but a sign of comfort. With men especially, the best sign of a healthy relationship isn’t how often two guys chat on the phone, but how much they can communicate with a series of grunts.

18. My reaction? Get a sense of humor! It’s a very funny piece.

19. Never been married but I wonder, for the gents, if maybe its a matter of personality? I can see some men really getting into the process of NFP while others may just be more of the silent types and not capable of that kind of communication. Does it mean they can’t be holy spouses (because that is the goal right?)?
    I am late to the marriage vocation question and may be perpetually late to it, but I admit this whole NFP thing has raised a lot of questions in my mind. Maybe it is the way it is portrayed but I get the impression that:
    1. God wants us to plan our children’s birth. Almost like he gave us brains and science and so we use it to manage our lives including births. All naturally and open to life, etc.
    2. It is a way of placating a culture that is terrified of large families or very comfortable/materialistic.
    I just have not been able to reconcile myself to it except for serious need.

20. I didn’t say “disparaging.” I said “mocked.”

Comments are closed.