Author: Pia de Solenni

Genocide. The Price of Leading from Behind.

Iraq. It’s not looking good. Earlier today, I posted: “Iraq. Genocide. ‘Never Again’ Should Cue Something More Than A James Bond Movie.” At that point, the WSJ was reporting that…

Source: www.news.va

Source: www.news.va

Iraq. It’s not looking good.

Earlier today, I posted: “Iraq. Genocide. ‘Never Again’ Should Cue Something More Than A James Bond Movie.”

At that point, the WSJ was reporting that the US Military might start to get involved, particularly with dropping supplies to the Christians and other religious minorities who are being forced out of their homes as the Islamic State advances.

Pope Francis made an urgent appeal today. Some bullet points –

  • The attacks are being waged upon “defenseless populations.”
  • He urges the international community to protect all those affected or threatened by the violence
  • And to guarantee all necessary assistance – especially the most urgently needed aid – to the great multitude of people who have been driven from their homes, whose fate depends entirely on the solidarity of others.

Meanwhile, very serious and detailed news from Iraq indicated ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIVITY on behalf of these persecuted people, even though various countries and the international community have the resources to mobilize quickly. After all, it’s not like they’re not in the area or nearby already…

“Daash is testing our defenses,” said Rosg Nuri Shawess, a top Kurdish military commander, pointing to two towns that had fallen to the Islamic State, Qaraqosh and Bartella, that were visible in the distance. “And if we don’t show them we are strong here, then we have lost Irbil.”

Shawess, who also is a member of the Iraqi government’s national security council, called the situation “extremely critical” as he examined the foremost strong point along the highway. He described the Kurdish military plight as “too much distance to protect, with too few men and not enough weapons.”

“The Americans keep saying they will help us,” he added as surveillance planes or drones, likely American, circled far above the clouds. “Well, if they plan to help they had better do it now.”

It was unclear if the United States planned to do anything to help fend off an Islamic State thrust at Irbil, where the U.S. also has recently expanded its CIA station and set up a Joint Operations Center to coordinate military activities with the Kurdish and Iraqi governments.

And here’s a very troubling piece of information –

Kurdish officials repeatedly have claimed that the United States and the Iraqi government in Baghdad have refused to send military aid and that they have only Saddam Hussein-era weapons and limited ammunition to counter Islamic State forces that are armed with advanced American weaponry.

“Armed with advanced American weaponry”? Now that should definitely demand some investigation from the U.S. and others.

But the biggest lesson so far should be that leading from behind doesn’t work. Iraq was invaded for the purpose of “democracy building.” What about military involvement when innocent people are being slaughtered and exiled simply because they have different religious beliefs than those in control? It’s fundamental human rights violation. It’s genocide.

I’m certain that I don’t have all the information. I can only go by what’s reported in the media. But we do know that a genocide is under way. In my previous post, I quoted Dan Hodges from The Telegraph. And I can’t think of a more appropriate way to close this piece:

For once, just for once, can we actually do something? The UN, Nato, the US and the UK. It doesn’t really matter whose umbrella its under. For once let’s demonstrate that the billions of pounds we spend on the most powerful military forces in human history can actually stand up to a bunch of petty hoodlums with machetes, or AK47s, or Toyota 4x4s.

Just this once let’s not wait. For the book. And then the film. And then the hand-wringing and empty pledges that “we will ensure this never happens again”.

Just this once let’s actually stop them being killed with their families.

Just this once. Stop leading from behind.

UPDATE:

DOHUK, Iraq

American military forces bombed at least two targets in northern Iraq on Thursday night to rout Islamist insurgents who have trapped tens of thousands of religious minorities in Kurdish areas, Kurdish officials said.
Word of the bombings, reported on Kurdish television from the city of Erbil, came as President Obama was preparing to make a statement in Washington.

ANOTHER UPDATE. Yes. No. Maybe so.

From HotAir, looks like supplies have been dropped. Military action is being disputed.

No Comments on Genocide. The Price of Leading from Behind.

Iraq. Genocide. “Never Again” Should Cue Something More Than A James Bond Movie.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the U.S. military is considering airstrikes and emergency relief supplies to the religious minorities in Iraq who are being forced out by the…

never-say-never-again-original

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the U.S. military is considering airstrikes and emergency relief supplies to the religious minorities in Iraq who are being forced out by the Islamic State (aka ISIS).

Finally.

Patheos bloggers have been covering the story consistently. I wrote about it early on, including an email from a Dominican priest who was near Mosul and described the activities of then ISIS.

The situation in Iraq is very, very bad. Read Deacon Greg’s piece describing the exile of Christians as a via crucis (way of the cross). Imagine getting up and leaving your house in the middle of the night, with your family members, and only the goods that you can carry. If you have small children, you’d be carrying them instead of supplies. Imagine. But that’s reality for them.

Joan Desmond at The National Catholic Register has an excellent piece detailing the lack of U.S. response so far. Kurdistan has at least one million Iraqi Christian refugees, even to their own detriment since they do not know how long they can keep IS forces at best. But the Kurds also know what it’s like to experience genocide.

Some suggestions from Desmond’s article:

With IS amassing power, [Nina] Shea noted that the ongoing protection of Iraq’s vulnerable minority groups — those forced from their neighborhoods and those still in their homes — is a major concern. She proposed that the U.S., with its superior intelligence capabilities, should provide an “early warning system” that would alert Christians and others when IS militants pose an immediate threat.

Thomas Farr, the director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University, went a step further than Shea and called for the White House to “propose an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council in order to consider a resolution, to be offered by the U.S., authorizing the use of force in Iraq and Syria to mitigate the humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place and to prevent genocide.”

Speaking of genocide, Dan Hodges at The Telegraph discusses the IS persecution of the Yazidis, another religious minority in Iraq.
He writes:
The Yazidi wish to inform you that tomorrow they will be killed with their families. Actually, it may not be tomorrow. The 40,000 members of Iraq’s most ancient sect, who are currently huddling on the side of Mount Sinjar, might have a bit longer. If they stay there it will apparently take a few days, maybe a few weeks, before they die of thirst, malnutrition and sickness. If they don’t, their deaths at the hands of the butchers of Isis who have surrounded them will be quicker. Though not that quick.
His passionate conclusion should do more than make us think, it should lead to action:

For once, just for once, can we actually do something? The UN, Nato, the US and the UK. It doesn’t really matter whose umbrella its under. For once let’s demonstrate that the billions of pounds we spend on the most powerful military forces in human history can actually stand up to a bunch of petty hoodlums with machetes, or AK47s, or Toyota 4x4s.

Just this once let’s not wait. For the book. And then the film. And then the hand-wringing and empty pledges that “we will ensure this never happens again”.

Just this once let’s actually stop them being killed with their families.

Just this once.

Yes, the Bond movie is titled Never Say Never Again. And the grammar is ambiguous. But I think my point still stands. “Never Again” should really start to mean something, especially when it comes to genocide. If it doesn’t, I just may skip the movie Hodges predicts and watch the old Bond movie even if its depiction of women will probably make my skin crawl.

 

No Comments on Iraq. Genocide. “Never Again” Should Cue Something More Than A James Bond Movie.

Pope Francis on the Middle East Conflicts – Children “Who Cannot Smile Anymore.”

The Boston Globe’s Inés San Martín has a summary piece of Pope Francis’ involvement in the various Middle East conflicts. She quotes Pope Francis: “I think especially about the kids,…

The Boston Globe’s Inés San Martín has a summary piece of Pope Francis’ involvement in the various Middle East conflicts. She quotes Pope Francis:

“I think especially about the kids, who have been robbed of a hope for a better life, a future: kids being killed, wounded, mutilated and orphaned. Kids who as toys have the debris of war, who cannot smile anymore.”

Reminds me of my brother’s description of the average 5-year-old he would see in Kabul, Afghanistan in 2008. He said that you wouldn’t recognize it as a child’s face because of all the suffering the child had endured. The faces reminded him of a 40-year-old who’s had a really, really tough life. Only for these children that intense suffering has been crammed into a short five years, half of which probably wasn’t able to be remembered. But that suffering has left it’s mark.

We need to get back to that space in June when he and Presidents of Israel and Palestine gathered to pray for peace, not physically. But spiritually.

IMG_2301

Olive tree from the Pope’s prayer gathering with the President’s of Israel and Palestine. I took this picture in mid June while at the Vatican for a conference.

No Comments on Pope Francis on the Middle East Conflicts – Children “Who Cannot Smile Anymore.”

The “War On Women” Is So…Yesterday

The other day, I wrote about a significant milestone at Heartbeat International’s Option Line, the world’s first and largest pregnancy help call center. Option Line has been open nonstop for…

The other day, I wrote about a significant milestone at Heartbeat International’s Option Line, the world’s first and largest pregnancy help call center. Option Line has been open nonstop for 100,000 hours since it’s inception in 2003. Over 2 million people, mostly women, have reached out to Option Line for help. Option Line connects callers to local resources for pregnant girls and women who might otherwise feel as if they have no choice but abortion.

A few days later, the National Journal published a piece explaining why the Democrats are ditching “the war on women”:

Democrats want to talk about “personhood” and reproductive freedom…. But what they don’t want to do is talk about a “war on women.”

Indeed, the party that so effectively deployed the “war” rhetoric to help defeat Mitt Romney in 2012 has now sworn off its catch phrase, dropping it almost completely from a campaign strategy that, in so many other ways, is still very much about women’s issues.

“[Saying] ‘Republicans are waging a war on women’ actually doesn’t test very well,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “Women find it divisive, political—they don’t like it.”

Here are some other thoughts on why the whole “war on women” angle doesn’t work.

1. It doesn’t resonate with women in the US. “War on women” works when we’re talking about something like this:

 

time-magazine-afghan-girl-nosejpg-353a12e38f89803a_large

 

Regardless of what you think about the foreign policy issues that Time was addressing, this looks a lot more like a war on women than, say, this highly paid and accomplished actress –

ashley-judd-democratic-national-convention-2012

Ashley Judd

Or yet another highly paid and accomplished actress –

Eva Longoria

Eva Longoria

Or this Georgetown Law graduate –

Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke

All of whom have either earned or have the earning potential to more than offset the costs of any contraceptive device or abortion service they might choose to utilize.

2. When organizations like the thousands of pregnancy help centers around the country meet women in need, ask how can we help, and then deliver the services hassle free and free of charge, well that looks like a group of people helping women, not waging a “war on women.”

As I mentioned before, Option Line has had more than 2 million people reach them, 24/7, over the past 10+ years. That’s just contacts in the form of calls, emails, texts, and messaging. That doesn’t begin to take into account the women and girls who are served by pregnancy help centers affiliated with Heartbeat International or any of the other pregnancy networks.

The Daily Signal reports today on this very topic today:

Nationwide, there are at least 2,000 pregnancy resource centers. And that’s just counting the centers affiliated with the major U.S. networks—Care Net, Heartbeat International and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. The Family Research Center reports that, in 2010, these centers served more than 2.3 million women. This took the efforts of 71,000 volunteers, working for 5,705,000 uncompensated hours.

Again, so much for the “war on women.”

Ironically and tragically, it’s the push for abortion, one of the biggest battle fronts of the “war on women” that puts some girls and women in a situation where they are left without support and resources:

“We do not force our opinions on anyone,” says Durig, Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center’s director. “If they ask, we do tell them that we’re a faith-based organization, we do believe in life, but whatever their choices are, we just want to make sure they make an informed, educated decision.”

Some of their clients are teens whose mothers have thrown them out of the house for not having an abortion. “That happens more times than you can imagine,” Durig says, in between running up and down the stairs to answer the phone and direct clients to her staff.

The entire article highlights four women who have been helped by pregnancy help centers including, Borromeo House, a home which helps the women not only to have their babies, but to advance their education, work, and plan for a stable life. If you want to read about something that’s anything but a war on women, then do read the whole piece.

3. Abortion judges and shames women.

Women don’t feel supported when a major political party is sending a message that implicitly suggests they shouldn’t be supported in what is a very natural fertility outcome. Their circumstances may not be the greatest, but no one wants to be judged when they’re struggling. Abortion does exactly that – it judges the woman: “This should have never happened.” “Why weren’t you smarter about your life?” “Didn’t you know he was a jerk and would never be there for you?” And so on.

Abortion shames women. And those who advocate abortion as a solution end up sending a similar message. That’s why “the war on women” didn’t work. Too many women feel shamed by the very goal of those who claim to lobby on their behalf.

I’m not saying that the issues are going away. As the National Journal notes, only the language is changing.

The ongoing witness of the pregnancy centers will continue to spread the truth, in a quieter way. Namely, people who are pro-woman are those who help women in their choices, not those who make them feel as if they have no choice but the one they don’t want – abortion. And the millions of girls and women who have been helped by these centers also know the truth about who is or isn’t waging a war. They’ve experienced treatment in the field hospitals first hand.

 

No Comments on The “War On Women” Is So…Yesterday

Understanding Pope Francis, From A Jesuit Perspective

With all that’s been written about understanding Pope Francis, fellow Patheos blogger and newly ordained Fr. Sam Sawyer, SJ, may have one of the best responses I’ve seen so far….

With all that’s been written about understanding Pope Francis, fellow Patheos blogger and newly ordained Fr. Sam Sawyer, SJ, may have one of the best responses I’ve seen so far.

He starts with St. Ignatius, whose feast day we celebrate today:

“There are very few people who realize what God would make of them if they abandoned themselves entirely into his hands, and let themselves be formed by his grace.”

Fr. Sawyer goes on to lay out a pretty convincing argument as to how Pope Francis has worked this into his ministry and he addresses head on one of the most controversial quotes from Francis:

Perhaps you hear an echo of this approach in Francis’s first and most famous off-the-cuff remark: “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” This is not dangerous moral relativism; this is not even lazy moral equivalence. This is profound confidence that God is at work with people who are seeking him. It’s the insight of the 15th annotation, applied to the present situation of the Church and the world.

 
The reason Francis is so “uncareful” in interviews… might not be some grand master plan; it might not involve a prediction of how this will all turn out. Francis’s hope — and I’ve said this before — is to get us to pay attention to God and to seek him out. Beyond that is God’s business. That doesn’t mean that anything goes; it doesn’t mean that the teachings of the Church get tossed out the window and truth becomes subjective.

Back in March, I wrote about a related facet of this, taking my cue from one of John Allen’s talks at Religious Ed Congress.

Allen noted that this is a “missionary moment” with the whole world looking at the Catholic Church. The question is, what do we want the world to see?

Here are his suggestions [and my comments]:

  1. Stop using the Pope as club to beat up on other members of the Church. Give it up for Lent.
  2. Despite the age of social media, we don’t have to have an opinion on something the Pope says or does minutes after it happens. Give it up for Lent. Instead, sit with it, meditate on it, pray with it. Try it for Lent.

The whole world is looking at the Church. We need to be a Church that the rest of the world wants to be part of, not a Church that they just want to watch for entertainment or scandal. Almost every lapsed Catholic (or other person who’s decided not to become a Catholic) can point to an experience where they saw, even encountered, a Catholic behaving badly.

As much as Pope Francis’ mode of communication might trouble some people, I think Fr. Sawyer’s perspective, based on Ignatian spirituality, helps to close the loop on this.

Look, either we believe that Pope Francis was elected by the cardinals under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Or we don’t.

Either we believe that teaching – as he sees fit, not as we see fit – is a part of his divine office. Or we don’t.

As Fr. Sawyer notes, the Pope has

[A] radical confidence that God is at work among his people, and that God’s master plan, even when we don’t understand it, is far better than anything we would come up with on our own.

I for one, despite all my various opinions, find that Fr. Sawyer’s perspective really does make sense. And there’s just no way that most of us who are very removed from the Pope are even in a position to begin to understand, much less criticize his communications. At least, that’s my opinion.

And, you know what? The confusion that ensues may indicate that we all need to do a better job of informing and forming ourselves. If something doesn’t make sense to us, why do we quickly assume that we’re right and the Pope is wrong? I just don’t get it. Even after careful consideration, if we are still struggling, I think we have to step back and assume that radical confidence in God that Francis demonstrates.

Happy feast!

No Comments on Understanding Pope Francis, From A Jesuit Perspective

Is Francis a Liberal or a Conservative?

Ideologues of all kinds have been trying to figure out Pope Francis for over a year now. Many, if not most, are still trying to fit him into their own…

Ideologues of all kinds have been trying to figure out Pope Francis for over a year now. Many, if not most, are still trying to fit him into their own boxes. But try as they might, he can’t be stuffed into a box.

Archbishop Chaput gave a recent talk for the Napa Institute in which he explains quite clearly how Pope Francis is simply Catholic. He’s not a liberal. He’s not a conservative. And if you consider him only through the lens of one of these categories (which are not two, but a vast multitude, depending on a variety of social and cultural factors), you won’t understand him.

In order to understand Pope Francis, it helps to first understand the saint whose name he took. Contrary to some popular beliefs, St. Francis was not a 13th century hippie. Archbishop Chaput begins his talk with this clarification:

I’m a Capuchin Franciscan, and I’ve often found that people think of Francis of Assisi as a kind of 13th-century flower child. St. Francis was certainly “countercultural,” but only in his radical obedience to the Church and his radical insistence on living the Gospel fully — including poverty and all of its other uncomfortable demands. Jesus, speaking to him from the cross of San Damiano, said, “Repair my house.”  I think Pope Francis believes God has called him to do that as pope, as God calls every pope.  And he plans to do it in the way St. Francis did it.

Pope Francis took the name of the saint of Christian simplicity and poverty. As he has said, he wants “a Church that is poor and for the poor.” In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, he grounded this goal in Jesus Christ, “who became poor and was always close to the poor and the outcast” (186). That’s a very Franciscan idea.

Just to clarify, the Church may in fact handle large sums of money. But it’s not for the purpose of growing her coffers. It pours the money into services for people of all backgrounds and situations. It’s sort of a pouring out of the Church herself.
The Archbishop notes:

What concretely does Francis believe about economic justice? He has never offered his systematic thoughts about it or the policies that promote it.  And, frankly, we can sense some ambiguity in his thinking. When he calls for a better distribution of wealth among social classes, he doesn’t say how this should be done and what a proper distribution would look like or who will decide who gets what. But he’d probably say that he’s giving us the principles of a rightly ordered social and economic life as the Catholic Church understands them, and that the Church gives to laypeople, and especially those called to public service, the job of best applying those principles in each nation. [Emphasis mine.]

Did you read that carefully? It’s not the job of Church leadership to come up with economic policies. That’s the role of the laity. Because of our various roles in the world, we are better suited to that work.

It’s one thing if we as individual lay Catholics subscribe to specific political, social, and economic theories. In fact, we probably should have some ideas about our beliefs in these areas. But simply because we as individuals happen to believe in something doesn’t mean that it is necessarily Catholic or that it fits with the Pope’s thinking. He may have even left it us, as Catholic lay people to come up with the answers.

To that end, I refer you to my fellow blogger Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry’s interesting post on whether Catholic social doctrine is a set of guidelines.

And do be sure to read the entirety of Archbishop Chaput’s talk as I haven’t come close to doing it justice in this short post.

 

 

 

 

No Comments on Is Francis a Liberal or a Conservative?

War on Women? Try 2 Million Contacts. 100,000 Hours. Countless Lives Transformed.

Heartbeat International, a global network of pregnancy centers, has been able to confirm that it received its 2 millionth caller to its 24/7 help center, OptionLine. For eleven years, Heartbeat…

Image courtesy of Heartbeat International.

Heartbeat International, a global network of pregnancy centers, has been able to confirm that it received its 2 millionth caller to its 24/7 help center, OptionLine.

For eleven years, Heartbeat has worked round the clock, literally. OptionLine is always open; there is always someone there to answer a call, text, email, or IM. Always.

Full disclosure – I’m on the board of Heartbeat. I’m honored to have been asked to serve.

You see, I’m fully committed to women’s rights and the advancement of women. In my experience abortion doesn’t do much for women. Maybe it’s a band-aid solution to a particular crisis, but most women who have abortions feel as if they have no choice. Many go on to feel that their lives were not necessarily improved.

Now there are lots of ways to fight abortion. We absolutely need legal and legislative efforts. But we also need efforts to meet women who are faced with a crisis pregnancy right here. Right now. And that’s the work of Heartbeat, through OptionLine, through its network of about 1800 affiliates in 50 countries around the world and its service to over 2400 pregnancy help ministries.

Heartbeat’s efforts mean that a time when pro-abortion advocates are declaring that anyone disagreeing with them is waging a war on women there’s actually someone who has sidestepped the chaos of political theater to actually be there for real women.

Is there a war on women? I think so. Look at the currently proposed Senate Bill (S196), often called the Blumenthal Bill for the senator who sponsored it.

S1696, if passed, would, for example:

  • Do away with states laws banning abortions before 20 weeks.
  • Protect discriminatory abortions that are carried out on the basis of sex/gender or disability. (Tell me, how does that protect girl children? Or any child.)
  • Make it more difficult for states to stop telemedicine abortions and require a doctor to be physically present for any type of an abortion, including a medical abortion. In other words, a young girl, say 14, would be able to be diagnosed and advised by a doctor who’s 3000 miles away. Any woman could be. I don’t know about you, but especially when it comes to a significant medical procedure, I prefer a doctor who’s there in person. But women who are disadvantaged or in crisis might have to settle for a doctor 3000 miles away if S196 makes it all the easier for medicine to be practiced remotely.
  • Likely affect ultrasound requirements. Hmmmm…sounds rather paternalistic to me. It suggests that a woman is not capable of knowing what’s going on in her own body much less that she is able to make an informed decision. Oh, yes, because when women have full information, many of them choose to not have an abortion.

The bill would adversely impact women’s health in many other ways. These are just a few.

But the point remains. Where are the supporters of S196 when it comes to a woman who’s overwhelmed by her pregnancy because she lacks the resources – economic, emotional, medical, etc? They can’t be reached.

But Option Line, privately funded and responding to about 15,000 contacts a month, is there. Always.

Early a week ago Wednesday, just after midnight, at 12.08 a.m., an OptionLine consultant was there to take a call from a young woman facing the challenges and difficulties of an unplanned pregnancy. At a time when most of us are asleep, there was someone to listen and to help. That consultant was able to connect the young woman to a local pregnancy help center, a Heartbeat affiliate. We don’t yet know the outcome of this client’s visit; but someone was there for her.

Which makes me ask, just who is fighting the war on women?

 

No Comments on War on Women? Try 2 Million Contacts. 100,000 Hours. Countless Lives Transformed.

The Real Problem(s) With NFP

Yesterday, fellow blogger Greg Popcak posted a provocative piece, “There’s No Such Thing As NFP.” As a philosopher, I might quibble with some of his terminology. But I think he’s…

Yesterday, fellow blogger Greg Popcak posted a provocative piece, “There’s No Such Thing As NFP.” As a philosopher, I might quibble with some of his terminology. But I think he’s spot on:

NFP is simply information that allows couples to communicate and pray about how marital intimacy can help them grow in holiness and receptivity to God’s will.

And:

Incidentally,  I don’t mean to suggest that couples who don’t use NFP have no process in place for communicating and praying about how their marital intimacy can help them grow in holiness and receptivity to God’s will, but I think any couple who isn’t using NFP needs to ask themselves some hard questions about what that process actually is.  And, just to be clear, singing, Que sera, sera” is not an acceptable process.  It’s not an OK way to be a godly steward of your money.  It’s not an OK way to be a godly steward of your home.  And it is surely not an OK way to be a godly steward of your marriage and sexuality.

For quite some time, I’ve been making the case that NFP is pedagogical. In fact, I wrote about this in response to the responses of a piece by Simcha Fisher a few years ago. “Catholics Who Use Contraception Aren’t The Only Cafeteria Catholics“:

Archbishop Karol Wojtyla (the man who became Pope John Paul II) explained that people who say NFP doesn’t work are people who don’t know how to use it. The overwhelming majority of cases where people insist that NFP “didn’t work” are cases in which the couple failed to use the method to avoid a pregnancy. In other words, they used it at a time when the wife was fertile and the method, which is more properly called fertility awareness, worked; they simply chose not to abstain or not to observe accurately. NFP is only a method of observation. A couple has a choice as to whether or not to utilize the wife’s fertile period.

And:

NFP, when a couple learns it together, provides a much needed basis for learning how to communicate about vulnerable and deeply private/sensitive topics. What happens in some cases, unfortunately, is that the wife learns and implements it by herself and then her husband sees her as the gatekeeper. She’s keeping him from having sex. If it weren’t for that d****d NFP, they’d be having sex, right? (I remain convinced that many couples who use fertility monitoring devices are in fact looking for a referee in the bedroom. It’s no longer the wife who’s saying that she’s fertile and that it’s not a good time to conceive a child – she’s worn out with that pressure and responsibility which properly belongs to both of them together; it’s now this device that becomes the arbitrator in the bedroom. I’m not opposed to such devices, but I do think it’s important to look at how and why they are used.) This suggests that the couple has deeper issues than NFP. They need to learn how to communicate with each other, how to listen to and hear each other. That can be difficult work and, unfortunately, the Catholic community doesn’t offer a whole lot of resources for this. But the issue isn’t NFP and it isn’t even whether or not the couple should have another child. At issue is the state of the marriage.

 

No Comments on The Real Problem(s) With NFP

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search