This just in from the comment section of “What If I’m WrongAbout NFP?” (my emphasis)
My husband and I are NFP
teachers, and we do the "sex talk" at the marriage prep our cluster
hosts every spring. We work hard to put forth the essence of the Church's
teaching in the 45 minutes given to us. We also think carefully about how we
present ourselves verbally and physically in an attempt to make Catholic Large
Family life attractive. (we have 7 children so far).This is what it looks like in the trenches (at least in the Northeast). One or 2 couples out of 30 in these prep classes have an understanding of Church teaching. Most are openly living together and contracepting. Even those who go to Mass every weekend are often introduced to the reasons behind the teaching against contraception for the first time at our session!...
There are some good points here.
For one thing, there is the fact
that most couples – even Catholics – live together and/or are having sex before
marriage, and often they are using some kind of illicit contraception. Bishops,
priests, and the laity are all quite aware of this, I believe.
And why are people living this way?
As I have opined elsewhere[1]:
Historically, right around the
time of Humanae Vitae and Roe v.
Wade, Catholics had also been introduced to the Novus Ordo, and they were being
shown that it was acceptable to tamper with the liturgy, to make it “more
relevant”, to not follow the rubrics.
What would this tell them about the Church? It would suggest that if we may interpret
the “source and summit” the way we want to, then surely we may interpret other
Church teaching that way, too. And it would suggest that surely we should be
living contemporary lives; maybe the Church is just behind the times on this
contraception thing. We’ve got to help her along and make the change ourselves
so that the Church will be more relevant to others.
Now, if we are free to re-write
liturgical rules for the Mass, why should we not be free to form our
consciences according to moral relativism? And this is what happened.
Dissident theologians and priests,
aided and abetted by silent bishops (and some vocal ones, as well), led the
faithful astray by blatantly asserting that disobedience was the order of the
day when it came to Humanae Vitae’s affirmation
of the Church’s ban on contraception.
The changes in the Mass took away
some of the mystery that had been there previously, including the mystery of
the Eucharist. Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has
declined outrageously since Vatican II. Reverence at the typical Novus Ordo
Mass has declined compared to what it was (and still is) in the extraordinary
form. The number of religious vocations has declined. The number of children
born to Catholic families has declined. I don’t think all these things are
unrelated.
The liturgy has suffered in its
redefinition and revision; and our faith has suffered because of that: lex orandi, lex credendi.
The
innovations and modifications that resulted in a weakening of the sense of
reverence that was previously shown for the Eucharist include: receiving Holy
Communion in the hand instead of on the tongue (which diminishes the sense of
the Real Presence of Christ); allowing lay “ministers” to handle the Eucharist
(creating a false sense of our “equality” with priests and therefore with
Jesus); renovations that lower the sanctuary to the level of the people; removing
“barriers” (like communion rails) between the people and the sanctuary; having
the priest face the people as if he is a talk-show host; de-emphasizing the
altar as a place of sacrifice and over-emphasizing the concept of Mass as a
shared meal; introducing popular music as a replacement for Gregorian chant and
sacred polyphony.
Likewise, our sense of the
mystery, beauty, and inherent dignity of life – from conception to natural end,
and even of life that has not yet been conceived – has been compromised by the
innovations, modifications, and revelations of science. While scientific
advances themselves have the potential to increase our sense of reverence for
life, they can also be used for evil: the capability of creating a new human
being outside the womb; the advances in fertility treatment that result in
“extra” babies being aborted; the use of human embryos to harvest stem cells
for research. All of these things give us the sense that we mere creatures have
become Creators, able to “create” (and destroy) life at our own whim; able to
regulate the health and genetic soundness of that life; and able to “create” or
“not create” that life as we see fit – as if life is just another commodity or
resource we must learn to exploit to our advantage.
To recap:
After Vatican II, the liturgy
changed…dramatically: Less reverence…less respect…fewer “absolutes”…
After Vatican II, Humanae Vitae confirmed the Church’s
perennial teaching against contraception, but dissident theologians and clergy
encouraged dissent and rebellion against that teaching: Less reverence for life…less
respect for large families…fewer “absolutes”…
People saw that the Church could
change the liturgy; why couldn’t the Church change the teaching on
contraception? And why didn’t She?!
If the stodgy old men in Rome won’t make the Church more “contemporary”, the
faithful must do it themselves…right?!
So the Catholic faithful were
taught to follow their consciences with regard to birth control, and a whole
bunch of them chose illicit contraception. Family size decreased. The vocations
“crisis” ensued. Etc.
Interestingly, if you find a group
of people who attend the EF Mass regularly, you will often find large families.
While correlation does not imply causation, it’s worth a try: if we return to
the reverence and mystery and awe of the EF Mass, perhaps we can recover the
sense of reverence and mystery and awe of life
that leads couples to embrace the concept of not limiting the number of children they will accept from God.
Save the liturgy, save the large
family.
But instead, for now, NFP has been
called in to save the day. The commenter mentioned above added:
But
in defense of NFP teachers, we need to meet people where they are before we hit
them with the deeper issues behind Catholic teaching. "Hmmm, NFP might
work for us..." is a more possible step than "I need to get off
contraception and be open to life!" Though I have seen this happen too,
happily!
There is some truth to this
statement, too: Our bishops and priests have neglected to talk about the evil
of contraception for over 40 years now. To counteract contraceptive use, the
USCCB calls for NFP programs in every diocese; NFP teachers have to deal with
the contraceptive mentality of today’s culture, which has infected an
overwhelming proportion of Catholics.
And why does the USCCB call for
NFP programs? It’s not because
NFP is a good thing. It’s because unrestrained use of NFP is a lesser sin than the
use of illicit contraception. The teaching of NFP is promoted because “if we
don’t teach them NFP, they’ll use contraception.”
That may well be true. The illicit
use of NFP is to be preferred over the use of illicit contraception (it is
permitted to choose a lesser evil over a greater evil)…but only if there is no other option.
There is another option in this case, though: Teach the evil
of contraception. Teach the need for “serious reasons” to avoid procreation. Teach
the sanctity and value of life – the blessings and joys – and yes, the
sacrifices – of large families.
Teach the Truth.
And follow the thread back to the
source: restore to the liturgy the dignity, reverence, and devotion that is
proper to the worship of God – who is, after all, the Author of Life.
Click on the NFP tab at the top of the page for a list of other NFP posts on this blog.
Click on the NFP tab at the top of the page for a list of other NFP posts on this blog.
[1] In
my article “Abortion, Contraception, and the Liturgy”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, October, 2009.
