Archive for September, 2012

2012 Election: Moral Issues Are Critical

Sunday, September 30th, 2012

by Bishop Thomas John Paprocki

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the “ayes” and the “nays” sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, “The ayes have it!”

What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently “rare” is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion “regardless of the ability to pay.” Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that “gay rights are human rights,” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

Certainly there are “pro-choice” Republicans who support abortion rights and “Log Cabin Republicans” who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.   (Bold and  italics type are the blogger’s.)  For an excellent 4 minute video on the constitution and this upcoming election, listen to this video made by teens from San Diego High School.

Natural Family Planning: Breastfeeding Spaces Babies

Sunday, September 23rd, 2012

Bishop Victor Galeone:  “You mentioned that Macabbees is the only place in the Bible that mentions the length of three years for breastfeeding in biblical times.  Back in the mid 60s when the Pill was being discussed on the news, my mother (an immigrant from Italy who never went beyond the 3rd grade) commented to me: ‘A pity the mothers today don’t know what my mother taught me.  I breastfed all my children for two years.  And that’s why there’s at least three years between each of you.’  To which I replied, ‘Mom, we had teeth already by that time.’  To which she replied, ‘I know, but I could teach each one of you not to bite.’   My five years in the Peruvian Andes taught me basically the same thing.  Their children were spaced by three to four years, and they were ever so well behaved in Church as toddlers.  No crying or screaming.”

Bishop Victor Galeone (Dec. 9, 2009)
Bishop Emeritus of St. Augustine, Florida

Our readers might enjoy a 4 minute video a mother did on ecological breastfeeding.  Everyone, please teach all engaged and married couples that ecological breastfeeding does space babies.    It’s part of God’s plan for mother and baby and father.  And it’s wonderful!  Easy! And no abstinence!  A great way to have a family!  And so many health and emotional benefits for both mother and baby!

Mucus-only NFP instruction: Is it heresy? Is it fair?

Sunday, September 16th, 2012

“…no one even mentioned the temperature method or breastfeeding. I had to kick and scream and cry (of course) just to have them admit there were other options. Other options they were completely unwilling to teach.”

The quotation is from a woman who was in a bit of a panic.  She was about three months postpartum after a difficult delivery and wanted to postpone her next pregnancy.  She went to a well regarded center where she talked with someone who teaches a mucus-only system, and she was not happy with their conversation.  After her next pregnancy and difficult delivery, she was again in a panic mood.  She and her husband had engaged in the marriage act during an early postpartum mucus patch, and now she was thinking that she would have to endure uncertainty for another three weeks before she could have a valid pregnancy test.  This time she went to the internet and somehow found us and sent an anguished email.  I told her that if she took her temps every morning for five days, I might be able to give her some certitude about her situation.  She did so and with great relief announced to me some days later that she now knew she wasn’t pregnant.

The obvious question is this: why didn’t the well paid professional to whom she first turned tell her the same thing?  Why do many of the well paid professionals who teach one of the mucus-only systems ignore the temperature sign?  Even worse, why do some of them tell women that the temperature is unnecessary (whatever that means) or even that they shouldn’t use it?  Or that temperatures are irregular, whatever that means?  Or tell them the mistaken idea that the mucus sign is the best indicator of ovulation?

Is that fair to individual women and their spouses?  Is that fair to sponsoring hospitals, dioceses and parishes?  Who is the real professional—the well trained volunteer who teaches spouses all the common signs of fertility so that they can make their own choices or the well paid promoter of one system using one sign who refuses to tell spouses about other valid common signs and systems?  You expect such a narrow approach from a hack salesman but not from someone who wants to be considered a professional.  After all, professionals would like us to think that they are something more than mercenary.

The one-sign heresy.  Every heresy starts with the affirmation of one truth but then falls into the error of denying other truths.  With regard to NFP, this goes way back.  One of the early medical promoters of the Calendar Rhythm system strongly believed that the rhythm calculations were self-sufficient and denied that they would be helped by the cross-check of the temperature sign which became available in the latter 1930s.  In the late 1960s or early 1970s, a medical proponent of a temperature-only system denied the value of the mucus sign that was just then coming into prominence.  And in the early 1970s, the originator of the Billings Ovulation Method discarded the cross-checking temperature sign in favor of a mucus-only system.  Interestingly, Dr. John Billings didn’t say the temperature sign was too difficult to use.  On the contrary, he said it was so easy to use that women would ignore giving proper attention to their cervical mucus signs.  Dr. Billings, of course, had another reason for emphasizing only the mucus sign.  He was trying to get this form of NFP into Third World countries where thermometers would be difficult to obtain, and I admire him for that effort and empathize completely with his stand for those in the Third World.

My concern in this blog is for women in First World countries where thermometers are almost universally available.  (They are increasingly available also in developing countries.)  I have to wonder if the ease of using the temperature sign is not behind the objections raised by some of the well paid professionals against it.  If its use makes NFP too easy, the demand for their follow-up services might be reduced considerably.
Let’s take a look at these allegations and objections.

Is mucus the best indicator of ovulation?  No.  Cervical mucus is certainly a great indicator of fertility, but so is an open and elevated cervix.  Peak day (the last day of more-fertile mucus before the drying-up begins) is usually associated with ovulation, but not always.  Double-mucus-peak cycles provide a problem because in such cycles because ovulation does not occur around the first Peak day but with a later mucus patch and Peak day.  Thus some mucus-only proponents tell women that they need to keep monitoring their mucus every day during Phase 3.  Does that sound as if they really believe that Peak day is the best sign that ovulation has already occurred?  Here we see the value of the temperature sign.  The temperatures remain low after the first non-ovulatory Peak day and then rise in conjunction with the Peak day that is associated with ovulation.  Furthermore, according to Dr. Konald Prem’s professional opinion stated in a medical journal, the temperature sign is the single best indicator of a baby’s gestational age.  By the way, Dr. Prem is the only doctor associated with the NFP movement who has headed up a department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at a secular medical school.

My wife and I have taught the cervix sign since the early 1970s because breastfeeding mothers found this sign more helpful than the mucus sign during amenorrhea and the sometimes ambiguous return of fertility.

Irregular temperatures?  If you are ever told that temperatures are irregular, ask what is meant by “irregular.”  Of course you—man or woman—will have slight daily variations in your waking temperatures.  That’s the way God made you.  That’s why we do not rely on just one or two temps but on the overall levels during and after the mucus patch.  The important reality is that God made woman in such a way that post-ovulation progesterone causes her temperature to rise enough so that it can definitely be charted and interpreted.

Special values.  A significant value of the temperature sign is that low levels indicate non-pregnancy while high levels indicate post-ovulation progesterone, and 21 days of elevated temps give about a 99% certainty of being pregnant.  Postpartum, couples sometimes ignore some mucus patches and then wonder if they have become pregnant.  Continued low temperatures assure them of non-pregnancy.

Choice.  Choice is not a dirty word.  Giving couples a real choice among morally valid systems of systematic NFP treats couples as adults capable of making choices best in line with their own needs and personal preferences.  That’s why we teach both external and internal observations of cervical mucus plus physical changes in the cervix.  That’s why we teach the what, why and how of ecological breastfeeding; this allows couples to make choices in terms of what is truly best for mother and baby.  That’s why eco-breastfeeding as well as all the common signs of fertility should be included in every sort of NFP instruction.  Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, and real choice is systematically denied.  Is that fair?

John F. Kippley
Battle-Scarred: Justice Can Be Elusive  This book is 20% off at lulu.com with an additional 15% off on one lulu order through Sept. 21—using the code PIRATA.
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality