Recently in Marriage and Family Category

Satisfaction with life goes up as family size increases, study finds.

A new study found that having children boosts happiness. And the more, literally, the merrier.

But unmarried couples shouldn't expect to find greater happiness through child-raising. The study, published in the Oct. 14 online edition of the Journal of Happiness Studies, suggests that having children has little or no effect on boosting happiness among couples who aren't hitched.

The findings contradict previous research that suggested that having more offspring doesn't lead to greater happiness and might even make people less satisfied with their lives.

Chalk up another one for Catholic moral theology.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/06/30/sweden/index.html

(Hattip: Mark Shea).

In Part 1 I discussed Pope Paul VI's condemnation of contraception in his encyclical Humanae Vitae. Because this document is an exercise of the Catholic Church's magisterium, its doctrines are binding on Catholics—it is something they are required to believe. However, we in the Wesleyan Church have no absolute teaching authority so are left to figure out most matters of doctrine and morality on our own. The General Conference does meet every four years to decide matters of doctrine and discipline, but their decisions can be changed by the next General Conference, which quite frankly is unnerving. For example, though the Wesleyan Discipline currently holds that homosexuality is immoral, a future General Conference could change the Discipline to endorse homosexual "marriage." The 2008 General Conference voted to loosen restrictions on which membership requirements must be adhered to in order for one to be allowed to vote or serve in positions in the local church. While it is highly improbable that the next Conference in 2012 would endorse gay marriage, they could loosen further membership requirements or other doctrines. Only God knows what future Conferences will decide. But I digress.

One issue that the Wesleyan Church General Conference has never voted on is contraception—is it morally acceptable for Christian couples to prevent the creation of life? It seems that we, along with the rest of the Protestant community, tacitly accepted contraception both when the Anglicans voted to accept it at their 1930 Lambeth Conference and when the pill was introduced in the 1960s. The WC has issued a Position Paper on Reproductive Technology which declares that any methods of contraception used must not cause abortions, but the paper presupposes that at least some methods of contraception are licit. However, it does not specify what those licit methods might be, nor does it examine any theological or philosophical arguments for or against contraception in general. Thus, once again, Wesleyan couples are left to decide for themselves. So, here we go....

According to the WC's position paper, a "so-called contraceptive which acts after conception is more correctly termed an abortifacient and violates the sanctity of human life." Because whatever licit methods of contraception there might be must not act as abortifacients, the pill, patches, and IUDs are right out. Both Mircette (pill) and Ortho Evra (patch) "reduce the likelihood of implantation" of a newly-conceived life by altering the endometrium, the lining of the uterus to which a baby attaches himself in order to receive nutrients from his mother (see the "Clinical Pharmacology" sections in both of the above linked documents). Preventing implantation and therefore causing the newly-conceived life to exit the womb in order to avoid having a baby is, by definition, an abortion. Hormonal contraceptives act as abortifacients and are therefore illicit. Intra-uterine devices (IUDs) such as Mirena are designed specifically to cause "alteration of the endometrium" in order to prevent implantation (p. 3) so are also illicit.

So the pill is out. But what about barrier methods such as condoms or diaphragms? Or, perhaps the often-joked-about coitus interruptus, that is to say early withdrawl? Though different in execution, c.i. and barriers perform the same general function which is preventing a man's sperm from entering a woman's uterus, so I will consider them together. While a successful argument from science can be made against hormonal contraceptives, It is much more difficult to make the argument from science against barriers and c.i. because these methods act before conception and not after. In my opinion, Paul VI makes an excellent argument from the natural law against contraception in general, but Wesleyans typically identify themselves as "bible-believing Christians," so arguments from philosophy don't often work so well with us. Since we are, in general, bible thumpers, I will argue against barriers and c.i. directly from the Scriptures.

Because we spend so much time in Romans, Wesleyans often overlook passages like Genesis 38:6–10:

And Juda took a wife for Her, his first born, whose name was Thamar. And Her, the first born of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him. Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing (KJV, my emphasis).

Onan being slain by God for spilling his seed should definitely serve as a strong warning for Christians against pulling out early. Now, I have heard it argued that the "detestable thing" for which Onan was slain was deliberately not giving his dead brother children and that therefore the passage does not directly condemn the spilling of the seed. However, this reading of the passage is a non sequitor. In order to avoid giving his dead brother children, Onan could simply have said no. After all, Juda had another son called Sela who could have fulfilled the brotherly duty when he came of age (see the rest of Gen. 38). The issue, then, is not with whether Onan fulfilled his brotherly duty but rather with the method by which he did not fulfill his duty. And not only did he spill his seed, but he deliberately used his sister-in-law for sexual pleasure, adding to the detestability of his actions (cf. H.V., 13). The whole incident could have been avoided if Onan had taken Nancy Reagan's advice and just said no. Had Onan not spilled his seed, he might never have been mentioned in the Bible.

We have ruled out hormonal contraception and, by Onan's example, barrier methods and good ol' coitus interruptus. So, we Christians are left with basically one morally licit method of spacing children—abstaining from intercourse during the fertile period of a woman's cycle, a.k.a. Natural Family Planning (NFP) and, to the medical community, periodic abstinence.

"But how effective is NFP?" you may ask.

Well, according to Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., makers of Ortho Evra, NFP is almost as effective at postponing pregnancy as the pill and more effective than the diaphragm and early withdrawal. When used consistently and correctly (a.k.a. "perfect use"), periodic abstinence (P.A.) on average is 96.25% effective, compared to the diaphragm which is only 94% effective. The sympto-thermal method of P.A. is the most popular these days and is 98% effective which beats the 96% effectiveness of early withdrawal. Even in a "typical use" scenario (not used consistently or correctly) P.A. is comparable to the methods of artificial contraception mentioned above though slightly less effective (Ortho Evra Prescribing Information, p. 2, Table 4).

NFP is as effective as artificial methods of contraception yet fits neatly into God's design for human sexuality. Sounds like Paul VI might be right after all. Chalk another one up for the Catholics.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI reiterated the Catholic Church's centuries-old teaching on the purpose of marriage and the sexual relationship between husband and wife, and specifically on the use of various birth control methods. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae (On Human Life) he condemned "the direct interruption of the generative process already begun," "direct abortion" and "any action which... is specifically intended to prevent procreation" (14). Paul VI's reasons for upholding this doctrine do not include a desire to keep married couples from having fun. Rather:

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life.... And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called (H.V., 12).

He also notes that we

must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life (H.V., 13).

Paul VI might one day be considered a prophet. Consider his insights into the consequences of contraception:

Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings--and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation--need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone (H.V., 17).

Here are a few examples of such consequences which have followed the release of his encyclical:

• Marital infidelity/low moral standards: Growth of the porn industry; an approximately 50% divorce rate among those who are married (CDC), marital infidelity being one of the leading causes.
• Temptation of the young: Increase in teen pregnancy rates (CNN).
• Women as instruments: Again, the porn industry; hip-hop music videos.
• Contraception in the hands of the authorities: Single-child limit resulting in coerced abortions and forced sterilization in China (CNN); on-demand abortion for all women in any stage of pregnancy (admittedly, with some restrictions) made available by the U.S. Supreme Court (Roe v. Wade, XI).

Paul VI does offer recourse for couples who have "well-grounded reasons for spacing births." They may "take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained" (H.V., 16). Abstaining from sex during the fertile period is commonly called Natural Family Planning (NFP) or, in medical circles, periodic abstinence. The Pope recognizes that although NFP requires couples to "control their natural drives" and makes clear "the need for self-denial," he offers hope that "it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace" and "fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another" in a way that artificial means of birth control cannot (H.V., 21).

The teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae is binding on Catholics—it is something which they are required to believe (whether individual Catholics actually follow their Church's teaching is another matter). My own Wesleyan Church has no official teaching on contraception, so as to whether contraception in general is morally licit, we are left to figure it out for ourselves, as we are with most theological and moral questions. The only guidelines the Wesleyan Church provides is that contraception must not cause abortions (Position Paper on Reproductive Technology). That guideline might severely limit a woman's choice for hormonal contraception as many pills and patches can cause abortions. So, these questions remain: What kind of birth control is licit? How effective are the licit methods? Those answers in part 2....

As a new father, I need all the parenting advice I can get. Luckily, people much smarter than I have come up with a comprehensive yet easy-to-use visual guide: http://www.c00lstuff.com/1133/Do_s_and_don_ts_with_babies/.

Our first child Maggie was born just over two weeks ago. Even when she was in the womb, I knew that I loved her, intellectually at least. Now that I have met her face to face I understand that love on a much deeper, intuitive level. The depth of that love became clearer in the instant I saw her come out of her mother. For the longest time I could only see the top of her head. After thirty or forty minutes of her mother pushing, her whole head was out. Then the doctor turned her face around and I could see her eyes, nose, ears, mouth. That was the moment when it became real that there had been a unique human person living inside Angie for the last nine months. And I knew immediately what self-sacrificial love really means.

The practical application of fatherly love currently involves giving up a continuous eight hours of sleep to feed the child at 2am and again at 5, rocking her to sleep, holding her when she has a tummy ache, getting covered with milk and other fluids when she spits up after lunch, and wiping poo from her bottom when changing diapers. At this point, fatherly love is still pretty easy to practice. Over time, this list will grow to include many more frustrating things, including tolerating her sudden discovery at the age of 13 that neither of her parents knows anything at all. Even then, I will do everything in my power to safeguard her physical, emotional, and spiritual well being. I will not give her a stone if she asks for bread.

If I, a very imperfect human, can love his daughter whom met in person only two weeks ago this much, how much more does God love us, whom he knew before we were conceived? The all-powerful ever-living God loves us so much that he committed himself to the care of a young Jewish virgin and her husband. He completely depended on them for his survival. He had no way to ask for anything except to cry and hope that his parents would figure out what he wanted. Joseph changed diapers, wiped poo, and got covered with spit-up. I can imagine the Blessed Virgin Mary in tears because breast feeding isn't nearly as easy as it should be. Because he loved us, his children, Almighty God "made himself nothing" to be "made in human likeness" (Philippians 2:7, NIV) to then suffer and die for the sins of the world. I hope that, given the opportunity and the ability, I would do the same thing for my daughter.

My language to describe the recent California Supreme Court decision, which somehow found a right to same-sex marriage in the state's constitution, would be more pragmatic than pious, probably bordering on the coarse and vulgar. So, I have been waiting for a response to the Court's decision from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus who is far more eloquent than I. He has posted it on his First Things "On the Square" blog.