NFP or NFA?!

I have read quite a bit of information about Natural Family Planning; some helpful, some not so much. My wife and I never actually practiced NFP since our philosophy was, "just let God give us as many children as He wants to, and trust Him in all of it". I have met a few other Catholic couples who have the same perspective, and it is quite refreshing to see (especially since it was pretty much the only position until the last century!). While the Church is working hard to teach the evils of any form of artificial contraception, and seeking to promote natural family planning, it seems to me that something has gone awry.

Someone once said to me, after I had given an explanation of NFP, that it seemed that the only difference it had with artificial contraception was that it was natural. "So the Church just wants us using natural contraception?" At first I saw it merely as a naive misunderstanding of things. Then, after a time, I began to find out that vast numbers of married couples were using NFP as a "Church approved contraception". They were still contracepting, just doing so in the way the Church approved of. They were not using NFP to put "space between" children's births, but to avoid more than their predetermined number of children. Rather than "Natural Family Planning" this should be called "Natural Family Avoiding".

We have become so convinced that children should only come when we want them, and when we decide to have them, that "some form" of contraception is being practiced by most. I am sure that there are couples who have 8, 9, or 10 children that practiced NFP (and not "NFA") but all the ones I met with large families had the "other" perspective I mentioned above: just trust God. Natural Family Planning should not be used to avoid more than two children, but that does seem to be the case in a number of instances.

In fact, much of the material that I have read, and many (not all) of those who teach NFP describe it in these exact terms. Although they never actually say "Church approved contraception", that is the way that it comes across in their talks (I speak from first hand experience). Quite often, the manner that NFP is explained sounds more like "here is the way the Church allows you to trust yourself in contraception"; as though we all know that you certainly cannot trust God in something like that (let Him give you a couple children and the next thing you know you will have 5 or 6!).

NFP is considered a godly practice of spacing out the births of children. One question has not been asked in this subject matter: in this day of modern advancements, great conveniences, and better living conditions, why do we need to "space out the births of children"? I am not saying that there are no advantages to having a certain amount of time between children being born (two of ours were born just a year apart--I know what it is like). I am asking when that became a proper motivation, and what is it that we are trying to achieve? I personally know a woman who had great difficulty after each of her children were born, and I can see a good reason for her to use NFP. Outside of circumstances like that, it seems many are still using NFP for entirely selfish reasons.

Yes, I am probably making a few new "unfriends" in saying this. My goal is not to harm anyone or cause strife and stress, but we each need to look at our motivations in what we do. NFP is supposed to be for promoting godliness, but it is hard to deny that it is used often to support an ungodly attitude, and becomes the very thing that it was developed to avoid: contraception. I even overheard one person encouraging another that "you have to use NFP since the Church does not allow artificial contraception". It was presumed that everyone wants to limit the number of children they have, so this is the holy way to do it.

My dear wife and I have only 5 children. Although we wanted more, that was not how things worked out for us. We rejoice in what God has given us, and are always thankful. Five children is not really that many though (I met an older woman the other day who is number 7 of 14 children, and knew someone years ago who had 19 children). It was not long ago that 8 or 9 was considered a normal Catholic family; nowadays it is almost unheard of. Do we really still believe that children are a blessing of the Lord? Do we really give Him our whole trust; especially in the area of children? What has happened to our hearts?

Bad Leaders

While driving to one of my parishes to say Mass the other day, I passed a truck going the other direction and could not help but notice the driver. She was a woman of about 25 or 30 years old and had two children with her. At least those were the ones I saw, there may have been more in the back seat. I was able to see the two quite well because they were in the front seat with her. Let me be even more specific. They were physically, in the same front seat with the woman who was driving. The one child was about a year old and she was holding that one with her left arm. The other child was about two years old and she was apparently standing on the center console with her arms around the woman's neck.

I suppose it is possible that there is a valid explanation as to why this was necessary, but I have yet to be able to come up with one. I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and presume that she believed that she was keeping her children safe and that her actions were protecting them. What a vivid picture that is of what leadership has become today (clergy, parents, politicians, etc.). For someone who believed the same as what I am presuming of that woman, seat belts might seem to "too restrictive" and an "overreaction".

As Catholics, we all understand the importance and the need for leaders -- good leaders, that is. The problem, of course, is that there are so few good leaders and a large percentage of those in leadership positions today are not just "bad leaders" they are "horrible leaders". I am not as familiar with other countries, but political leaders in America are...well...ummmm...embarrassing. Yes, I know, that is a bit too vague. Maybe the phrase, "astronomically incompetent and childish" would be more clear (both liberals and conservatives)? I know that a lot of attention gets thrown at bad leadership in the Catholic Church these days (and we certainly do have a large collection of bad leaders), but it is not just in one area that this has occurred.

Examples of good leaders in any field are few and far between. This is why leaders are generally not trusted today. In the Church (especially here in America) we seem to have deepened that lack of trust so far that it seems impossible to restore it. It is possible, but not if we continue to practice the same kind of leadership that got us into this problem. Leaders have to change, and that means that their hearts have to change.

The horrendous moral compromise that took place over the span of the 20th century was not created "ex nihilo". It was the result mostly of the (so-called) Enlightenment of the 18th century (which was itself the necessary result of the Protestant apostasy of the 16th century). The more that people rebelled against authority and sought to recreate it in their own image, the more authority became corrupted. We went from the medieval concept of authority (under God, and for the sake of the people, not the leader himself) to a modern concept of authority (under no one, for the sake of getting what I want). This is true of vast numbers of politicians, clergy, and parents today.

Going back to my original illustration at the beginning, leaders are racing down the highway with the presumption that they are doing what is good and right for their people, yet all the while they are putting those who are under their care at great risk. Leading people is much more than just knowing what is supposed to happen and then making it happen. The motivation behind leadership is crucial. It is certainly difficult to maintain a godly attitude in any leadership position (especially when those under one's care are malcontents). The Lord, however, calls us to holiness and service. For leaders that means that they are supposed to be doing their job for the glory of God and for the sake of the people. Selfishness and personal pride should never come into the picture.

I once heard someone say that if a leader likes being a leader, then he is doing it only for himself. That may be a bit exaggerated, but only a bit. As a leader in the Church and in my home, there are many days when I do not like being a leader -- helping those who are hurting, guiding the confused, juggling difficult schedules; it all can weigh down on you. If I were to imagine that I am called to lead for my own sake, and I come to find that I do not enjoy what I am doing, then I will manipulate things until the circumstances are pleasing to me. If, however, I know that I am called to lead for the sake of others, then my personal comfort is not going to be the primary factor in the decisions I make. In fact, I should be willing to surrender my personal comfort regularly for the sake of others.

Does it take longer to lead rightly? Yes, it often does. Do we have to have a greater knowledge and experience in order to lead rightly? Yes, we do. Is there a personal and spiritual dimension to godly leadership? Absolutely. Those who approach leadership humbly and with a servant's heart, will find that the Lord can easily assist them by guiding their daily actions. Those who approach leadership for their own good (especially those who try to claim it is for the good of others when it is not) are blocking out the Lord and preventing the Holy Spirit from granting them wisdom. Governmental leader, business leader, Church leader, or home leader; let us pray for them all, and ask the Lord to inspire penitence and restoration so that leaders can once again be trusted.

"Train the young women..."

What if I said that married women have to love their husbands and children? Would anyone of my readers disagree with me? What if I said that married women are required to have wisdom and self-control in sexuality? Probably fairly safe there as well. How about if I told them that they had to make the home their primary duty and responsibility in life? I suspect that I might get a few grumblers who say that I have "crossed a line". Yet, what if I went all out and said that they have to be in joyful submission to their husbands? I suspect that most of my regular readers would be on the same page, but some "passers-by" might very well be planning my demise at this point. What if I told you that this is exactly what St. Paul said in today's first reading at Mass?

train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands

The Church has not cut out this passage and removed it from our Lectionary. We are still supposed to read it, hear it, and follow it. I am not making this stuff up; it comes from the word of God. In fact, the Church traditionally teaches this exact thing. Look at what is written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent (part 2, chapter 8, question 27):

It should also be a principal study of [wives] to train up their children in the practice of religion, and to take particular care of their domestic concerns. Unless compelled by necessity to go abroad, they should willingly keep themselves at home; and should never venture to leave home without the permission of their husbands. Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let them always remember that, next to God, they are to love no one more than their husband, to esteem no one more highly, yielding to him in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, the most willing and cheerful obedience.

This is something many today do not want to talk about. It appears that they have been frightened by feminists to the point of where they neglect (or outright deny) the truth. We have come a long way when you realize that just one hundred years ago, I could have spoken this without a pause, and today eyebrows go up just at the mere mention of women's submission to their husbands. It is not, however, just a matter of "controlling women" (as a feminist once told me), it for the sake of a much larger good. The rest of passage from today's first reading is as follows:

that the word of God may not be discredited

You see, the Apostle is arguing that if our homes are not ordered rightly, then the world will have reason to distrust God and what He says. We are always giving an example to the world; either a good example (of exactly what God says) or a bad example (contradicting what God has said). In fact, in the same passage when the Apostle is encouraging faithfulness among young men (which is just as important!), he says there that the reason why the family is to be ordered according to God's rules is,

so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us

This is not merely an issue for the first century that no longer applies. Disorder in the home can be seen by everyone. If the world is disordered, and our families are equally disordered, then we merely look just like them and have no grounds to encourage repentance. If, however, our families are ordered rightly while the world is messed up, then they will look at us and see that God must be doing something in us for us to be able to stand faithful in these difficult times. What example are you giving in your home?

Ladies, I know you have been told by the world to pursue feminist ideals, and reject the Church's historic positions regarding the distinctive roles of male and female in the world. Stop listening to them; I plead with you, stop now. Seek to learn what the Church has always held to, and seek to see the beauty in it. Parents, teach this to your children, boys and girls both. Help them to see that the order that God lays out for us is a wonderful grace that should not be forgotten. We must live as God's holy people in a dark and foolish world. As St. Paul said at the end of the reading, we are,

to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

How to Criticize (and still be holy!)

Criticism; no one likes to receive it, but we all know we need it at times. When you receive a criticism, how do you respond to it? Do you get upset and find ways to defend yourself (even if the criticism is accurate?)? Or, do you respond with humility and acknowledge that we can always learn from a criticism? Much of what makes us respond in a certain way is how the criticism is given. Even an accurate criticism can be delivered in a way that prevents it from being properly received (and thus completely wasting the criticism).

We should all consider what the right way is to criticize, as well as when we should criticize. Many today want to criticize the Bishops who have failed to bring proper discipline and/or have genuinely covered up grave sins. If, however, we proceed to criticize in a manner that is unhelpful (or even downright sinful), then we will be wasting the effort. It is comparable to serving a wonderful meal on dirty dishes; no one wants to eat it no matter how nice the meal itself happens to be.

Let us, then, ask the first question. When should you criticize a clergyman, and when should you not do so? It all depends on the particular circumstances. Some things are just "fishy" and it is obvious that a gentle criticism is needed; other things are a matter of personal preference (regardless of how passionate you are about it) and should be left alone. For example: you should criticize any priest's desire to be alone with your teen son; you should not criticize his choice of time for the Easter Mass. Another: you should criticize a priest who rejects Church dogma; but you should not criticize when a priest explains the Church's teaching just because it causes you personal inconvenience.

The real issue at hand is, what exactly is the subject matter that you are criticizing about? Many have told me that they could never criticize a priest -- by which, they mean, in regard to an issue of Church dogma or liturgy. This is generally a good thing, but what if the priest does something that all can tell is a grave disobedience (like, for example, allowing a woman to preach the homily in Mass)? Should you "just let it go" and leave it between him and God? No. If the Church has said "no" then the answer is "no" even if the priest does not like it. If you are unsure of the Church's position, then ask (you can ask the priest himself, or find another whom you know will be honest with you).

Then we have to ask the next question: how does one properly criticize a clergyman? It is not something that is easy to explain, but the simple principle of "always with humility" is essential. The manner of the criticism is key; anger or pride, should never be part of a criticism (to anyone). You must always show respect for the clergyman's position before God; any other manner of criticism is unacceptable and is like an attack on the Church itself. Deacons, Priests, and Bishops all sin, and at times need to be corrected, but that does not mean that you can do so with a domineering pride. Sometimes a simple question that asks for an explanation of a behavior or decision is all that is necessary.

So then, it is possible to criticize and correct, if done in the right way and for the right reasons. If the subject matter is of a nature that a criticism is necessary, then be sure to approach it in the right manner. Ask someone else about his opinion of things before you jump into it (at least in most matters; do not wait even a second if the priest is aiming at abusing someone). Never be presumptuous or prideful, and always recognize that you too may fall (even in the midst of your criticism). This is the only way that we can help one another on the path of holiness.

God's People are Hurting

A few months back, when all the ugly stuff about sexually immoral clergymen started hitting the news, I had a few ideas about how this would all turn out. Then Archbishop Vigano's letter became public and that ratcheted things up a bit more. When Abp. Vigano's second letter came out, it was beginning to look like little was going to be done. Now that he has released a third letter (and basically says, "time to fish or cut bait") it is getting even more surreal. I will admit that I never thought that Pope Francis would basically just ignore the entire problem (he has clearly failed in his ministry as Shepherd). I also must admit that I never really thought that the vast majority of Bishops (even in America) would just stand by and say almost nothing about it.

Then, I went back and read some more history. Did you know that in the vast majority of the times when genuine renewal and restoration happened in the Church that it was not the Bishops or Priests who were leading the charge? It was the laity and often the religious as well. They were the ones (with humility and respect!) calling for holiness. They were the ones who were asking for the clerics to do something about the problems that existed. It appears to be the same today.

Serving three parishes means that I am working "in the trenches" and therefore I often get my hands and feet dirty. People come to me and talk about their struggles, and it is not uncommon for me to hear people ask why more Bishops are not taking a clear stand against what every honest person can see is the problem? Sodomy on the one hand (let's call it what it is), and liturgical abuse on the other (no it is not a "different style"); they are the two sides of the coin (those willing to abuse the worship of God, will be more willing to abuse their fellow man). One person suggested that Bishops laicize every priest who either has homosexual tendencies or who abuses the liturgy on a consistent basis immediately; he said "I'd rather be without a priest each Sunday, than have one who offends God, and is a threat to my son's virginity".

That is the real issue here that seems to be hindering genuine godly progress. Many seem to be afraid that the priest shortage will get worse. Yet, it appears that most laity would be willing to do without some good in order to avoid a horrible evil. Will the Bishops follow this pattern and do the serious work to "cut off the hand that offends" us all? I will confess that I hope and pray that something of this nature is what they choose to do when the USCCB meets next week. It is not my place to tell a Bishop (any Bishop) what to do, but it is the place of every one of us to call for a "cleansing of the temple". Even Canon Law says that the laity are supposed to speak to their Bishops about their problems. The offense of sodomite priests is in many ways worse than the offense that caused Jesus to drive people out of the temple in the first century. Some today need to be "driven out" by the Bishops!

As I mentioned in yesterday's post, it is hard to be a parent and bring proper discipline on children. The tendency of many today is to let things slide and hope for the best. It should be obvious that this sin has "slid" all the way to our spiritual fathers as well. Many of them are committing the same sin of neglect as are parents, and the results are the same -- disaster. Those who are abdicating their parental responsibilities (even a little) need to take to heart what it means for them to be screaming at the Bishops to "fix things" when they refuse to "fix things" in their own homes. Compromise breeds further compromise, and these Bishops who have failed in their calling were raised in homes that experienced the exact same failed parenting techniques as the rest; how can we possibly be surprised at what it going on? Looking at the problems in the home over the last 75 years, we should have seen this coming.

Therefore, those in positions of leadership need to be doing the hard work to overcome this plague which has hit the Church. While the faithful are crying out for truth, holiness, and traditional reverence, there are Cardinals and Bishops who are seeking to promote lies, abominations, and modernism; they have sold their souls for a pot of beans (Hebrews 12:16). God's people are hurting terribly right now and as a pastor they come to me to express their suffering. I have been making it my regular effort to give them hope. Yet, there are not many signs of hope when those over us are so unclear about what needs to be done. We, as the Church of God, have been betrayed, and not just by a few laity who have fallen away, but by a band of clergymen who want to abandon our Church's historic faith and follow the path of Judas Iscariot (remember how he ended up?).

My own faith is strong; strong in Christ and His power. Yet, it becomes harder day by day for many to keep the faith. There were times when God went through ancient Israel and wiped out large portions of the leadership for their disobedience and failure to protect those under their care. I truly pray that does not have to happen today, and yet we all need to be praying that God will do something to protect His people when those called to do so fail in their task. My Patron Saint is St. Jude. Starting today I am going to be saying the novena to St. Jude. It will end on the last day of the USCCB meeting in Baltimore. I encourage all of you to do the same or find some similar set of prayers. Pray for our Church; pray for holiness; pray for reparation.

No, really, I want to know . . .

Back when I was a protestant pastor (Presbyterian at the time) there was an instance after one Sunday service that I will never forget. My children were 7, 4, 3, and 6 months. My wife Catherine sat in the pew by herself with all four of them, since I was always up front leading the service. A parishioner came to me after services and said, "OK, I've gotta ask it. How does your wife keep all four of your children quiet through the entire service?" (you need to understand this was a traditional Presbyterian service; not 50-60 minutes like many Catholic Masses, but closer to 90 minutes with a 45 minute sermon!).

My response was simple and straightforward (since we had been asked it many times before). "I just do what it says in the book of Proverbs". He stood there staring at me as though I had just told him that I received a message from aliens on the planet Venus. He clearly did not believe what I was telling him. Finally he spoke, "No, really, I want to know." I quoted a few passages to him as examples, and he acted like I was insulting him with a fake answer. I never did convince him of it, and it has been the same for many other people that I have spoken to about this same subject.

To this day, I am saddened that so few people believe me when I tell them this. It is as though they think that it is just too simplistic to be true. I do, now as a Catholic, have the added advantage of being able to refer to the book of Sirach (Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus, was deleted from protestant Bibles back in the 17th century), but it has not had an apparent change in people's responses. Most seem to be looking for a magic trick, or some sneaky ploy that we press upon our children to fool them into behaving properly. It appears that the idea that God's written word has an actual set of guidelines for parenting is just too hard to believe.

Let us face the facts here. The parenting methods of the last 75 years have completely failed; they do not work; they cause more problems than can be resolved; and have led countless souls (of both parent and child) away from God (and possibly into eternal hell). It is time for something old. Yes, you read that right: "OLD". The older way of doing things was perfect -- God's way of doing things is always guaranteed success. His ways never fail, it is we who fail to follow them consistently. The failure is always in us, never in what God has said. When we do not follow through with something, or we choose our own path, then we fail (remember the story of Adam and Eve -- they sort of displayed for all of us the paradigm of self-will).

Someone may say, "then please just outline for us what the book of Proverbs says". Here is an outline: Proverbs chapter 1 through 31. In other words, you need to read the entire book, not just little excerpts. It needs to be read regularly, so that it can become second nature to your thought process. Yes, it would be helpful to have a guide in it (that is what priests are for anyways), but many of the basics are simply straightforward and can be understood by any parent. You just have to do them; and that is the hard part. In fact, it is harder for parents to implement God's guidelines than it is for the children! As parents we get lazy, we let things slide, and look for a way to compromise the rules. That is what leads to the behavior problems that most Catholic children have.

The book of Proverbs says right at the beginning the words, "hear, my son, your father's instruction" (1:8). It is clearly aiming at teaching children. The book of Sirach begins chapter 2 with an admonition to "my son" on how to deal with temptation (2:1), and then continues this train of thought throughout the 51 chapters. If this is what we call the "wisdom literature", why do so few people seek wisdom from it? Whenever a parent steps away from God's word in the raising of children, it is a guarantee that problems will arise. Those problems will create temptations for the parents. Those temptations will always lead to even worse parenting habits (compromised morals, lack of discipline, etc.).

In summary, I can put it this way: a lack of wisdom regarding the godly manner of parenting leads to bad parenting; this in turn leads to bad discipline (or a complete lack of discipline by compromising God's law); this, then, leads to anger in the parents at how things are not going well; the outcome of that is some form of abuse (mental, emotional, or physical), or a complete neglect of godly instruction. When this occurs it always leads to even more bad parenting (it is a perpetual cycle). It is possible that some parents hit on some of the right methods without actually drawing them from Proverbs or Sirach, but that will often be somewhat haphazard rather than clear and organized (and it rarely remains consistent).

Is it difficult to do this? Of course it is. I never said it was easy. I will say, however, that it is easier than the alternative. God's word guides us in learning what it means to avoid temptation and gain self-control. Only when we are on that path, can we as parents guide our children down that path. Furthermore, when we do guide them down that path, we find that they are able to find a genuine joy in obedience, not merely a tolerant acceptance of it for the sake of maintaining peace. In doing this, we and our children, can "understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God" (Proverbs 2:5).

The Grim Reaper at the Church Doors!

This last Wednesday I said a vigil Mass at one of my parishes for All Saints Day. Across the street there is protestant church (which I will leave unnamed to protect the guilty). They were having a "Halloween" celebration and parents were bringing their costumed children to the church, entering in, and after about 15 minutes coming back out and leaving. I have no idea exactly what the celebration was like, but there was one thing that was hard to ignore; it was the man standing at the door greeting the families as they entered. He was dressed like the grim reaper. No sickle in hand, but the costume could not be mistaken.

I could not help but notice a stunning imagery that was being presented there. When the grim reaper greets you at the door of the Church, how can one not think that something is amiss? I am not criticizing the observance of Halloween, but rather asking: what is being said by that particular choice of the "greeter's costume"? I pray that no one noticed the imagery and that it was just a matter of ignorance (otherwise, someone was saying that entering that church leads to death!). What does protestantism lead to? It is hard to say that it leads clearly and definitively to Christ, especially when there are so many errors in it.

Now I know that there are a number of protestant churches that are much more Catholic than they wish to admit (and many, like high church Anglicans, who willingly admit it). Yet, we have to acknowledge that protestantism is not merely "another church". Protestant churches are better referred to as "ecclesial communities". As I have said many times, the Church's position on protestantism is not a neutral acceptance. As with my previous post, the Church has had a very hard time since the vast misunderstandings of Vatican II began (right after the Council ended). It appears, as I speak with many Catholics (and even some clergy) that the confusion has not been gotten rid of.

No, we do not want to demonize our protestant brethren who remain in their churches--if it is done in ignorance. Yet, at the same time, we must admit that there is nothing in Catholic dogma that guarantees that those who are baptized, but out of communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, will be able to enter into the presence of Christ in eternity. It is a hope based on the mercy of God, and how He deals with those who desire to serve Him but are ignorant of the right ways (cf. Romans 2:14-16).

If a person eats a "pretty good" diet, but avoids certain essential nutrients, we can presume that his health will suffer for it. In the same manner, if a person has some of the historic Catholic faith, but his protestantism has rejected portions of it, we expect that it will be that much more difficult for him to stay on the path to eternal life. How can one believe the faith if he only has some of it?

This is even more serious a matter when it comes to considering our Catholic brethren who are living and believing things that are contrary to the faith. They are fully accountable to believe and practice the faith, and, for many (especially the clergy!), a rejection of it is not likely a matter of ignorance. What will we do in these days, when there is so much ignorance? Parents, catechize your children; adults, seek to teach the truths of the faith to those around you; and everyone, live a life of faithful devotion to our Lord, so that others will be drawn into the Barque of Peter; outside of which "there is no salvation".