Married Catholic priests gain acceptance
Family used to questions, but mainly they find they're accepted

There are few women who can say they are married to a Roman Catholic priest. And few people who can say their dad is the man whom Catholic churchgoers address formally as "Father Steve."

But Cindy Anderson and her three sons can, and they were among the rush of congregants who gathered for 10 a.m. mass on a recent Sunday at St. Mark the Evangelist Catholic Church in Goodrich.

The parish priest is Cindy's husband and the father of Austin, 24, Steven Jr., 14, and Christian, 11. The Rev. Steve Anderson has been a Catholic priest since 2003, when he became the second priest in Michigan to be ordained under an exception to the Catholic Church's celibacy rule for married ministers serving some Protestant denominations.

About 100 married men, mostly ministers in Episcopal churches in the United States, have sought permission from the Vatican to be ordained as Catholic priests since Pope John Paul II allowed it in 1980.

"It does take some explanation, for sure," said Austin Anderson, an automotive engineer. "People think I don't know what I'm talking about, at first. 'Maybe you mean deacon,' they say. 'Maybe you mean another denomination.' "

Then there's the joke he hears whenever he explains what Dad does for a living: "Do you call him 'Father father'?"
Novelty welcomed

For Cindy Anderson, being a priest's wife has meant a rare and challenging role.

"I've heard good response," the 49-year-old said. "I hear ... we'd like to see more of this. I've been well-received. Some say, 'We've been ready for this.' "

Laura Sullivan, a Kettering University mechanical engineering professor, is one of them. She followed Anderson from his previous parish, Holy Family in Grand Blanc, to his current posting.

"This is somebody my kids could talk to. Somebody married people can relate to. He brought such a fresh breath of air," Sullivan said after Sunday mass.

Kathie Trombley, another St. Mark parishioner, concurred.

"He inspires us all. I don't know of anybody who had a problem with" his being married, said Trombley. "As far as his preaching, having a wife has just enhanced it."

Michael Diebold, a spokesman for the Diocese of Lansing, which oversees Anderson, acknowledged that parishioners have welcomed the novelty of a married priest, a concept that flies counter to the Vatican's unwavering support for priestly celibacy.
Advertisement

"If there are people who find he's more approachable because of that reason, then that's a good thing," said Diebold. "Not to denigrate all the single priests who are out there, but if there's a segment of the population that finds that to be a positive in their lives, that's a good thing."
Not against celibacy

Both Anderson and the Rev. William Lipscomb, a Traverse City parish pastor who in 1997 was the first married Episcopalian minister in Michigan to be ordained a Catholic priest, say they are not campaigning for an end to Rome's celibacy requirement.

"I'm a priest. I'm not a policy-setter," said Anderson, 50.

He carefully avoids taking sides, but he doesn't believe his marriage and family have impeded his ministry.

"As a married man, you see the fruitfulness and legitimacy of a married priesthood," said Anderson. "The ancient way is for priests to have been married. ... That's not the way it's done now."

From St. Patrick Catholic Church in Traverse City, Lipscomb, who is about to become a grandfather for the first time on Holy Thursday, April 9, said he concurs with the celibacy requirement.

"I agree with the rule. ... I'm not carrying a banner to change the rules. If something happens to my wife, I'm going to be what every other priest is," said Lipscomb, 70.

He and his wife, Shirley, live in a house they own a few miles from the church, instead of the parish rectory. Their four children are grown -- two of them are now Catholic. He officiated at one son's Catholic wedding last year.

Both Lipscomb and Anderson said their faith journeys to the Catholic Church weren't motivated by controversy over ordaining women and gay priests in the Episcopal Church.

Lipscomb said he was drawn to Catholicism, in part, because he was impressed with the Catholic priests and services he encountered while serving as an Episcopal chaplain for 28 years in the Air Force.

Anderson's journey has taken him through the Presbyterian Church of his youth, to earning degrees from the conservative fundamentalist Oral Roberts University. In 1995, he became an ordained minister in the Charismatic Episcopal Church, a movement founded in 1992 and described as a blend between traditional Episcopalian practices with a Pentecostal influence. Anderson founded a Charismatic Episcopal Parish in Brighton called Church of the Resurrection.

Anderson said it was his readings of early Christian scholarly works that fueled his desire to become a Catholic.

"I didn't come in out of a reaction. I came because God was guiding me that way," Anderson said.

He and his family converted to Catholicism in 1999. He entered Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit in 2000, the same year now-retired Bishop Carl Mengeling asked the Vatican to allow Anderson to study for the Catholic priesthood.

Cindy Anderson reverently -- and good-naturedly -- has gone along.

It was natural for her and her husband to explore together the impact of Christian teachings, she said. When he talked about where his studies were leading him, she agreed to share the journey.
'We're a good team'

Steve and Cindy Anderson met at summer Bible school at White Lake Presbyterian Church in White Lake Township. She was teaching music to the Bible school kids, and he was leading group activities.

"Thirty-four years later, I still do the music and teach all the songs. And he does all the other church activities, like the mass," she says. "We're a good team."

The Andersons also live in their own house, several miles away from St. Mark's, in Grand Blanc. The couple begin their day with a standard set of Catholic prayers, reciting them together from 5:30 to 6:30 a.m. in his home office.

On this particular Sunday, Cindy Anderson's outfit includes an orange T-shirt emblazoned with "This is our Faith" on the front and, on the back, "And what a wonderful faith it is."

It's the line her husband delivers to finish every homily. Youth groups at churches where he has served and at Flint Powers High School, where he is a chaplain and teaches a theology class, print the shirts to raise money.

Steve Anderson has some news to deliver this day. He's being reassigned to Good Shepherd Catholic Parish, about 37 miles away in Montrose after only several months at St. Mark's. There are audible gasps and sighs from the parishioners.

"The bishop thought something I had was something they needed," he said.

He is to begin his new assignment in July.

The news drew a tear from churchgoer Marjorie McElroy, 43, of Grand Blanc.

"He seems so like us, so normal," said McElroy, an information technology associate with three children. "It seems as if it's easier to relate to him very quickly, pretty much from the moment you get to know him."

Having Anderson and his family be part of the parish, she said, "tied the whole concept of the parish family together for us."

Card. DiNardo on SSPX excomms and Pres. Obama at UND

His Eminence Daniel Card. DiNardo has something to say about the lifting of the SSPX excommunications and the visit of President Obama to the University of Notre Dame.

This is in the Texas Catholic Herald.

My emphases and comments.

A Shepherd’s Message

By Daniel Cardinal DiNardo

Two weeks ago, the Holy Father sent a letter to all the bishops of the world concerning the events surrounding the lifting of the excommunications of four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, a sanction imposed by the Holy See at the time since they were consecrated without the mandate or permission of Pope John Paul II. It is to be noted that the lifting of this most severe penalty did not “regularize” their status in the Church but only opened a door for discussions with them and the followers of their traditionalist society for an eventual hopeful restoration of Catholic unity. Pope Benedict XVI had a concern for the goal of eventual reconciliation. The action, however, was overshadowed by the views of one of the said bishops, Bishop Williamson, on the Holocaust and on his anti-Semitic statements. This led to what the pope called an “avalanche of protests both inside and outside the Church.” These protests “laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment.”
Pope Benedict XVI then went on to clarify and assess the whole situation. He states that an initial effort at reconciliation was construed somehow as a kind of repudiation of the reconciliation between Christians and Jews, a reversal of the work of the Second Vatican Council and other dire consequences. Further, some Catholics also displayed hostility to the very person of the Holy Father. He likewise mentions “our Jewish friends who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the day of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.”

[So far we are only summarizing.]

The pope admits that the Holy See would need to pay future attention to sources in the Internet which had already revealed the anti-Semitic sentiments of Bishop Williamson. He also admits that it was a mistake not to clearly and adequately explain the extent and the limits of the lifting of the excommunication at the very moment of its publication. It was a disciplinary matter for four individuals and not a statement on the doctrinal level, a matter that still needed and would need much further work before the restoration of unity with the Catholic Church could take place with the Lefebvrist movement. In fact, the pope also announced that he was joining the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” which had worked on the reconciliation, with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican agency that addresses doctrinal questions, particularly issues of the Second Vatican Council and the teaching authority of the Magisterium and of the pope. In doing this, the Holy Father reminded all sides that the Church’s teaching authority did not end in 1962, the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, but also, on the other hand, that authority embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. The fruits of the Tree of Faith and teaching do indeed grow, but they are not severed from the roots.

The motivation by the Holy See for an attempt at reconciliation with the four bishops and their followers was to embody the hard work of faith, hope and love, the constant preoccupation of the Church and the unity of all believers. It is not easy to break down obstinacy and narrowness on the part of some just as it is not easy to soften the arrogance and one-sidedness of others. Disunity and hostile disagreement do not serve the unity of faith or the credibility of believers. Various groups in the Church cannot bite and devour one another without destruction, a line that the pope draws from St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians 5:13-15.

[Thus endeth the summary.]

I think that the Holy Father’s letter is timely advice for us all during the Season of Lent, a time of genuine interior purification and renewal. I sometimes receive letters from people who mar their otherwise intelligent or well-taken arguments by such nasty invectives that the whole argument or point of view is put in jeopardy. Vigorous and heartfelt discussion, even debate, needs to be placed in the arms of charity for effectiveness. My hope is that this will be the case for all of us in our own local Church. [How many times have, for example, rather more traditional Catholics short-circuited their initiatives by being nasty to those who might otherwise be able to give them what they want? Sorry… rhetorical question… let’s go on.]

In light of what I wrote above, I want to venture a comment on the recently released statement of the University of Notre Dame; that statement noted that the President has accepted an invitation to give the Commencement Address this year as well as receive an Honorary Law Degree. The news release then outlines the fact that a number of other Presidents have given the Commencement Address at Notre Dame and have thus highlighted, in effect, the university’s importance. [And we now get to the important point…] I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige [a good way to put this] of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning. The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person. The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life. [NB…] Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views. Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a “Teacher,” in this case of the Law. [Excellent point.] I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

The Secret of Benedict XVI's Popularity. In Spite of Everything

Despite being rocked by criticism, this pope continues to enjoy the trust of the masses. His trip to Africa and a survey in Italy prove this. The reason is that he speaks of God to a humanity in search of direction

by Sandro Magister

ROME, March 27, 2009 – On the flight back from his trip to Cameroon and Angola, Benedict XVI told the journalists that two things in particular had been ingrained in his memory:

"On the one hand, the almost exuberant hospitality and the joy of a festive Africa. In the pope, they saw the personification of the fact that we are all children of God and his family. This family exists, and we, with all of our limitations, are in this family, and God is with us.

"On the other hand, there was the spirit of recollection at the liturgies, the strong sense of the sacred: in the liturgies, there was no self-representation of groups, no self-promotion, but the presence of the sacred, of God himself. Even the movements, the dances, were always respectful and cognizant of the divine presence."

Popularity and presence of God. The interweaving of these two elements is the secret of Joseph Ratzinger's pontificate.

***

That Benedict XVI is a popular pope might seem to be contradicted by the storm of hostile criticism rained down on him daily by the media all over the world. Over the past month, these criticisms have reached an unprecedented crescendo. Even official government representatives no longer hesitate to accuse the pope.

But the impression gathered from looking at the big numbers is different. On his voyages, Benedict XVI has always demonstrated levels of popularity beyond expectations. Not only in Africa, but also in difficult venues like the United States or France. In Rome, at the Angelus on Sunday at noon, St. Peter's Square is more packed, every time, than during the years of John Paul II.

This does not mean that these same crowds consistently accept and practice the teachings of the pope and of the Church. Countless surveys show that on marriage, sexuality, abortion, euthanasia, contraception, the views of a large number of people are more or less distant from the Catholic magisterium.

At the same time, however, many of these same people demonstrate a deeply rooted respect for the figure of the pope and the authority of the Church.

Italy is a case in point. On March 25, in "la Repubblica" – the leading progressive newspaper, and very caustic in criticizing Benedict XVI – the sociologist Ilvo Diamanti provided yet another confirmation of the high levels of confidence that Italians continue to show toward the Church and the pope, in spite of widespread disagreement on various points of their teaching.

For example, when asked to say whether they are for or against the pope's statement that condoms "do not resolve the problem of AIDS, but aggravate it," three out of four say they are against.

But the same respondents, when asked whether they trust the Church, respond "greatly" or "very much," to the tune of 58.1 percent. And confidence in Benedict XVI is also very high, at 54.9 percent.

Not only that. From the same survey, it emerges that trust in the Church and in Benedict XVI has not fallen, but has risen since a year ago.

This is how professor Diamanti explains the apparent contrast:

"The Church and the pope speak out on sensitive topics of public and private ethics in an open and direct way. They offer answers that are debatable, and are often debated, contested by the left or by the right. Nonetheless, they offer certainty to an unsure society, in search of points of reference and values. For this reason, 8 out of 10 Italians, among the non-practicers, consider it important to give their children a Catholic education, and enroll them in the hour of religious instruction. For this reason, a very large majority of families, close to 90 percent, choose to direct 0.8 percent of their income taxes to the Catholic Church."

And it is for this same reason – one might add – that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has not joined in the recent chorus of criticisms against the pope from representatives of France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, etc. On the contrary, he has taken the opposite approach.

On March 21, he said that the Church must be respected, and that its freedom of speech and action must be defended "even when one finds it proclaiming principles and concepts that are difficult and unpopular, far from the fashionable opinions." With this, Berlusconi simply expressed the view shared by many Italians.

***

So the facts outlined above already provide a glimpse of the substance of the question: that Benedict XVI's popularity has its source precisely in the way in which he carries out his mission as successor of Peter.

This pope is respected and admired for one fundamental reason. Because he has placed above all else this priority, which he formulated in the letter to the bishops last March 10, one of the essential documents of his pontificate:

"In our time, during which in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of being extinguished like a flame that has run out of fuel, the priority that stands above all others is that of making God present in this world, and revealing to the eyes of men the path to God. And not to any sort of god, but to that God who has spoken on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in love to the end (cf. John 13:1), in Jesus Christ crucified and risen. The true problem at this moment in history is that God is disappearing from the horizon of men, and that with the extinguishing of the light that comes from God, humanity is seized by a lack of direction, the destructive effects of which are becoming increasingly clear."

On Sunday, March 15, two days before he left for Africa, Benedict XVI did not say anything different in explaining the reason for his trip to the crowd that had come to St. Peter's Square for the Angelus:

"I leave for Africa with the awareness that I have nothing else to offer and give to those I will meet except for Christ and the good news of his Cross, the mystery of supreme love, of divine love that overcomes all human resistance and makes it possible even to forgive and love one's enemies. This is the grace of the Gospel that is capable of transforming the world; this is the grace that can also renew Africa, because it generates an irresistible force of peace and of profound and radical reconciliation. The Church does not pursue economic, social, and political objectives; the Church proclaims Christ, certain that the Gospel can touch to hearts of all and transform them, thus renewing persons and societies."

In Cameroon and Angola, the heart of the pope's message was effectively this. Not the denunciations – which he nonetheless voiced in strong words – of the evils of the continent and the responsibilities that they generate. But in the first place, that which was the announcement of Peter to the crippled man in chapter 3 of the Acts of the Apostles: "I have neither silver nor gold, but what I have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, arise and walk!"

It would be interesting to present an anthology of the most significant passages from the nineteen speeches, messages, interviews, and homilies that Benedict XVI gave during his seven-day trip to Cameroon and Angola.

But in order to understand the profound meaning of his mission, it is enough to present here a single emblematic text: the homily given by Benedict XVI at the Mass on Saturday, March 21, in Luanda, in the church of St. Paul.

The spirit of recollection, the strong sense of the presence of God that remained impressed on the pope's memory at the sight of the crowds that followed the liturgy, and also the exuberant celebration with which they welcomed and surrounded him, are explained in part in this homily from pope Ratzinger, in a remote church of Africa:


"Let us make haste to know the Lord"

by Benedict XVI


Dear brothers and sisters, beloved labourers in the Lord’s vineyard, as we have just heard, the children of Israel said to one another, “let us make haste to know the Lord” (Hos 6:3). They encouraged one another with these words amid their many tribulations. These misfortunes had overtaken them – the Prophet explains – because they lived without knowledge of God; their hearts were poor in love. The only physician capable of healing them was the Lord. Indeed, he himself, as a good physician, opened their wounds so that the sore might heal. And the people made up their mind: “Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heal us” (Hos 6:1). Thus human poverty was to intersect with divine mercy, which desires only to embrace the poor.

We see this in the Gospel passage that we have just heard: “Two men went up into the temple to pray”; the one “went down to his house justified rather than the other” (Lk 18:10, 14). The latter had paraded all his merits before God, virtually making God his debtor. Deep down, he felt no need for God, even though he thanked him for letting him become so perfect, “not like this tax collector”. And yet it was the tax collector who went down to his house justified. Conscious of his sins, and so not even lifting his head – although in his trust he is completely turned towards Heaven – he awaits everything from the Lord: “O God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (Lk 18:13). He knocks on the door of mercy, which then opens and justifies him, for, as Jesus concludes: “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk 18:14).

Saint Paul, the patron saint of the city of Luanda and of this splendid church built some fifty years ago, speaks to us from personal experience about this God who is rich in mercy. I wanted to highlight the second millennium of the birth of Saint Paul by celebrating the present Pauline Year, so that we can learn from him how to know Jesus Christ more fully. This is the testimony which Paul has bequeathed to us: “The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners; but I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience for an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life” (1 Tim 1:15-16). In the course of the centuries, the number of people touched by grace has continually grown. You and I are among them. Let us give thanks to God because he has called us to be part of this age-long procession and thus to advance towards the future. In the footsteps of all Jesus’ followers, let us join them in following Christ himself and thus enter into the Light. [...]

The decisive event in Paul’s life was his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus: Christ appeared to him as a dazzling light, he spoke to him and he won him over. The Apostle saw the Risen Jesus; and in him he beheld the full stature of humanity. As a result Paul experienced an inversion of perspective; he now saw everything in the light of this perfect stature of humanity in Christ: what had earlier seemed essential and fundamental, he now considered nothing more than “refuse”; no longer “gain” but loss, for now the only thing that mattered was life in Christ (cf. Phil 3:7-8). Far from being merely a stage in Paul’s personal growth, this was a death to himself and a resurrection in Christ: one form of life died in him, and a new form was born, with the Risen Christ.

My brothers and sisters, “let us make haste to know the Lord”, the Risen One! As you know, Jesus, perfect man, is also our true God. In him, God became visible to our eyes, to give us a share in his divine life. With him a new dimension of being, of life, has come about, a dimension which integrates matter and through which a new world arises. But this qualitative leap in universal history which Jesus brought about in our place and for our sake – how is it communicated to human beings, how does it permeate their life and raise it on high? It comes to each of us through faith and Baptism. This sacrament is truly death and resurrection, transformation and new life, so much so that the baptized person can say together with Paul: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). I live, but no longer I. In a certain way, my identity has been taken away and made part of an even greater identity; I still have my personal identity, but now it is changed and open to others as a result of my becoming part of Another: in Christ I find myself living on a new plane. What then has happened to us? Paul gives us the answer: You have become one in Christ Jesus (cf. Gal 3:28).

Through this process of our “christification” by the working and grace of God’s Spirit, the gestation of the Body of Christ in history is gradually being accomplished in us. At this moment I would like to go back in thought five centuries, to the years following 1506, when, in these lands, then visited by the Portuguese, the first sub-Saharan Christian kingdom was established, thanks to the faith and determination of the king, Dom Alphonsus I Mbemba-a-Nzinga, who reigned from 1506 until his death in 1543. The kingdom remained officially Catholic from the sixteenth century until the eighteenth, with its own ambassador in Rome. You see how two quite different ethnic groups – the Bantu and the Portuguese – were able to find in the Christian religion common ground for understanding, and committed themselves to ensuring that this understanding would be long-lasting, and that differences – which undoubtedly existed, and great ones at that – would not divide the two kingdoms! For Baptism enables all believers to be one in Christ.

Today it is up to you, brothers and sisters, following in the footsteps of those heroic and holy heralds of God, to offer the Risen Christ to your fellow citizens. So many of them are living in fear of spirits, of malign and threatening powers. In their bewilderment they end up even condemning street children and the elderly as alleged sorcerers. Who can go to them to proclaim that Christ has triumphed over death and all those occult powers (cf. Eph 1:19-23; 6:10-12)? Someone may object: “Why not leave them in peace? They have their truth, and we have ours. Let us all try to live in peace, leaving everyone as they are, so they can best be themselves.” But if we are convinced and have come to experience that without Christ life lacks something, that something real – indeed, the most real thing of all – is missing, we must also be convinced that we do no injustice to anyone if we present Christ to them and thus grant them the opportunity of finding their truest and most authentic selves, the joy of finding life. Indeed, we must do this. It is our duty to offer everyone this possibility of attaining eternal life.

Dear brothers and sisters, let us say to them, in the words of the Israelite people: “Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heal us.” Let us enable human poverty to encounter divine mercy. The Lord makes us his friends, he entrusts himself to us, he gives us his Body in the Eucharist, he entrusts his Church to us. And so we ought truly to be his friends, to be one in mind with him, to desire what he desires and to reject what he does not desire. Jesus himself said: “You are my friends if you do what I command you” (Jn 15:14). Let this, then, be our common commitment: together to do his holy will: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15). Let us embrace his will, like Saint Paul: “Preaching the Gospel... is a necessity laid upon me; woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16).

I have decided to post some articles regarding birth control in response to the Pope's address on condoms and AIDS in Africa. This, I hope will be able to instill awareness to Catholics on what our faith teaches regarding the use of contraceptives.

Marriage: A Communion of Life and Love

A Pastoral Letter by Bishop Victor Galeone

My brothers and sisters in the Lord,

1. Some state legislatures are presently considering bills that would redefine marriage as the stable union of any two adults regardless of gender. Such legislation would equate same-sex unions with traditional marriage. Furthermore, divorces continue to escalate to the point where couples may now get a bona fide divorce online for fees ranging from $50 to $300. These latest develop-ments are mere symptoms of a vastly more serious disorder. Until the taproot of that disorder is cut, I fear that we will continue to reap the fruit of failed marriages and worsening sexual behavior at every level of society. The disorder? Contraception. The practice is so widespread that it involves 90% of married couples at some point of their marriage, cutting across all denominational lines. Since one of the chief roles of the bishop is to teach, I invite you to revisit what the Church affirms in this area, and more importantly, why.

I. God’s Plan for Marriage

2. The vast majority of people today consider contraception a non-issue. So much so that to label it a disorder sounds like a gross exaggeration. And to revisit it seems analogous to studying a treatise from the Flat Earth Society. But contraception is an issue, an absolutely vital issue. To comprehend why it is wrong, it’s first necessary to understand what God originally intended marriage to be. In the opening chapters of Genesis we learn that God himself designed marriage for a twofold purpose: to communicate life and love.

3. There are two accounts of creation in the book of Genesis. The first account occurs in Chapter 1: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27) The next verse contains the very first command given by God: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” We thus see that God’s first purpose for marriage is that it be life-giving. Without the love embrace between husband and wife, human life would cease to exist on this earth. In the second account of creation in Genesis 2, we learn that the other purpose God has for marriage is that it be love-giving: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helpmate as his partner.” (Gen 2:18) Yes, God meant husband and wife to be intimate friends, supporting each other in mutual and lasting love. Accordingly, marriage exists to communicate both life and love.

4. The two purposes of marriage are so mutually interconnected as to be inseparable. First, recall that Jesus ruled out the possibility of divorce by applying these words to the union of husband and wife: “They are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one ever separate.” (Mk 10:8,9) In other words, spouses form an organic entity, like head and heart—not a mechanical one, like lock and key. So the separation of the head or heart from the body—unlike the removal of a key from its lock—entails the death of the organism. So too, with divorce. Likewise, it was God who also combined the love-giving and the life-giving aspects of marriage in one and the same act. Therefore, we can no more separate through contraception what God joined together in the marital act than we can separate through divorce what God joined together in the marriage union itself.

II. The Body Language of Marital Love

5. Before examining what the Church teaches about contraception, I would like to digress for a moment. According to Pope John Paul II, God designed married love to be expressed in a special language—the body language of the sexual act. In fact, sexual communication often uses the same terms that verbal communication does:

intercourse (originally, “to exchange ideas”);
to know (a euphemism for “sexual relations” Lk 1:34)
to conceive (“I can’t conceive how that happened.”)

With this in mind, let’s pose some questions:

* Is it normal for a wife to insert ear-plugs while listening to her husband?
* Is it normal for a husband to muffle his mouth while speaking to his wife?

These examples are so abnormal as to appear absurd. Yet if such behavior is abnormal for verbal communication, why do we tolerate a wife using a diaphragm or the Pill, or a husband employing a condom during sexual communication?

6. Worse still, how can one justify a husband having a surgeon clip his robust vocal cords, or a wife having her healthy eardrums surgically removed? Yet in the area of sexual communication, how do such horrific examples differ from a vasectomy or a tubal ligation? Isn’t it the task of a surgeon to remove an organ only when it is diseased and threatens human life? If the testes or ovaries are not diseased, on what grounds are we frustrating their purpose? Could it be that we now consider babies a disease, from which we must immunize ourselves through sterilization?

7. Yes, we have been created in the image and likeness of God! Jesus revealed God’s inner life to us as a Trinity of persons. Accordingly, the body language of the marital union between husband and wife must reflect God’s own inner life, namely, the mutual love between the Father and the Son, which is the person of the Holy Spirit. From the first page to the last, the Bible is a love story. It begins in Genesis with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and it ends in the Book of Revelation with the wedding feast of the Lamb—the marriage of Christ and his Bride, the Church. From all eternity God craves to give himself to us in marriage. No one expressed that fact more graphically than the prophet Isaiah:

“As a young man marries a maiden,
so will your Maker marry you.
As a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,
so will your God rejoice over you.” (Is 62:5)

St. Paul embellished this theme when he wrote, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.” (Eph 5:25) How did Christ give himself up for the Church? Totally—to the last drop of his blood! He held nothing back. If husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved, can they hold anything back? Not even their fertility?

III. Contraception: Telling Lies with Our Bodies

8. Since God fashioned our bodies male and female to communicate both life and love, every time that husband and wife deliberately frustrate this twofold purpose through contraception, they are acting out a lie. The body language of the marital act says, “I’m all yours,” but the contraceptive device adds, “except for my fertility.” So in actual fact, they are lying to each other with their bodies. Even worse, they are tacitly usurping the role of God. By thwarting the purpose of the marital love embrace, they are telling God, “You may have designed our bodies to help you transmit life to an immortal soul, but you made a mistake—a mistake we intend to correct. You may be Lord of our lives—but not of our fertility.”

9. In 1968, Pope Paul VI said essentially the same thing when he issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae: “There is an inseparable link between the two meanings of the marriage act: the unitive meaning (love-giving) and the procreative meaning (life-giving). This connection was established by God himself, and man is not permitted to break it on his own initiative.” (H.V., no. 12) Pope Paul went on to condemn every form of contraception as being unworthy of the dignity of the human person. A tidal wave of angry dissent erupted over this teaching. Catholics and non-Catholics alike berated “the celibate old man in the Vatican” for failing to read the signs of the times and thus hindering the Church’s full entry into the modern era. But the Holy Father was merely restating the unbroken teaching of the Church from the beginning, upheld by all Christian denominations until the Anglican Church made the first break at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. In substance—though not expressed in these exact words—he was declaring: “It is not right for man to separate what God has joined together. Attempting to do so would enshrine man in the place of God and unleash a series of unspeakable evils on society.”

10. Many scoffed at the dire consequences that Pope Paul predicted if the use of contraception escalated. Among his predictions were: 1) increased marital infidelity; 2) a general lowering of morality, especially among the young; 3) husbands viewing their wives as mere sex objects; and 4) governments forcing massive birth control programs on their people. Thirty-five years later the moral landscape is strewn with the following stark reality: 1) The divorce rate has more than tripled. 2) The number of sexually transmitted diseases has expanded from six to fifty. 3) Pornography grosses more than all the receipts from professional sports and legitimate entertainment combined. 4) Sterilization is forced on unsuspecting women in third world countries, with China’s one-child-per-couple policy in the vanguard. Today, even critics of Humanae Vitae admit that its teaching was prophetic.

11. Many Catholics who make use of contraceptives claim that they are doing nothing wrong since they are merely obeying the dictates of their conscience. After all, doesn’t the Church teach that we must follow our conscience to decide if a behavior is right or wrong? Yes, that’s true—provided that it’s a properly formed conscience. Specifically, we must all conform our individual consciences to the natural law and the Ten Commandments, just as we have to adjust our clocks to sun time (Greenwich Mean Time). If a clock goes too fast or too slow, it will soon tell us that it’s bedtime at dawn. And to say that we must accommodate our individual conscience to behavior that clearly contradicts God’s law is to say that we must rule our lives by the clock, even when it tells us that night is day.

IV. NFP: Speaking the Truth with Our Bodies

12. I fear that much of what I have said seems harshly critical of couples using contraceptives. In reality, I am not blaming them for what has occurred during the past four decades. It was not their fault. With rare exceptions, because of our silence we bishops and priests are to blame. A letter I received from a young father last year is characteristic of many others: “Early in our marriage, Jan and I used artificial contraception like everybody else. Today’s culture was telling us that this was the normal thing to do. We knew the ‘official’ Church teaching was against it, but we were not taught why. We even had priests tell us that it was a personal decision; so if we felt the need to use contraception, it was okay. But couples need to be taught why contraception is wrong. We were never taught that the Pill is an abortifacient, that it can possibly abort a (newly conceived) child without us knowing it. We were not taught that artificial birth control is a hindrance to building a healthy marriage. We did not know that there is a healthier, Church-approved, alternative to artificial birth control.”

13. While contraception is always wrong, there is a morally acceptable way for married couples to space their children—Natural Family Planning (NFP). Couples, when properly motivated, may regulate births by abstaining from the marital act during the wife’s fertile period. NFP instructors teach couples how to identify the fertile days, which can last from seven to ten days per cycle. NFP has a number of benefits: It is scientifically sound, it involves no harmful side effects, and it entails no cost after the initial fee for materials. Studies have shown that NFP, when accurately followed, can be 99% effective in postponing pregnancy. That’s equivalent to the Pill and better than all the barrier methods. Best of all, while complying with God’s will, husband and wife discover the beautifully designed functions of their fertility, enhance their intimacy, and deepen their love for each other.

14. But how does Natural Family Planning differ from contraception? And why bother, if their objective is the same? To understand the difference, one must realize that having a right intention for an action does not always justify the means. For example, two separate couples want to support their families. The first couple does it through legitimate employment, while the other couple does it by trafficking in illegal drugs. Or two persons want to lose weight. The first accomplishes the objective through a strict diet; the other, by binging and purging. Or to return to our analogy of the language of the body: To say that NFP is no different from contraception is to say that maintaining silence is the equivalent of telling a lie. Paul VI expressed the same idea more poetically: “To experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not master of the sources of life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.” (H.V., no. 13)

15. What would you think of a scientist who discovered the cure for cancer but refused to divulge it? Confronted with the spiritual cancer attacking the family today, how can one explain the reluctance of us bishops and priests in spreading the good news of the Church’s full teaching on married love and life? Consider this statistic: Today at least 30% of all marriages end in divorce, compared with only 3% of NFP users. Since the use of contraception burgeoned in the early 1960s to the present, there has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of divorce. Why such a dramatic increase in failed marriages? As we saw in paragraph # 4, to separate what God joined together in the marital act through contraception is bound to have repercussions on what God joined together in the marriage union—namely, divorce. The solution is clear. What’s needed is courage.

16. In order to counter the silence surrounding the Church’s teaching in this area, as your bishop, I ask that the following guidelines be implemented in our diocese:

* All pastoral ministers should study the liberating message of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body in order to share it with others.
* When appropriate, priests and deacons should present in their homilies the Church’s teaching dealing with marriage, including why contraceptive behavior is wrong.
* Adequate instruction in NFP is to become a part of all marriage preparation programs.
* Instruction in our high schools, the upper grades of Religious Education classes, and RCIA classes should clearly teach the immorality of those forms of sexual behavior condemned by the Church, including contraception.

17. In closing, I would like to quote from an article by Roberta Roane that appeared in the National Catholic Reporter. (Oct. 31, 1986)

She began by asserting: “Yes, I was alive and fertile in 1968. I was 19 and I knew the Pill was a gift from God and Humanae Vitae was a real crock. The Pill was going to eliminate teenage pregnancy, marital disharmony and world population problems…” After recounting her odyssey of bearing three children while switching from the Pill, to the IUD, to condoms, she continues:

“Finally, my husband and I reached a turning point. At a very low point in our marriage, we met some great people who urged us to really give our lives to the Lord and be chaste in our marriage.

“That blew our minds. We thought it meant ‘give up sex.’ That’s not what it means. It means respecting bodily union as a sacred act. It meant acting like a couple in love, a couple in awe, not a couple of cats in heat. For my husband and me, it meant NFP…and I won’t kid you, it was a difficult discipleship. NFP and a chaste attitude toward sex in marriage opened up a new world for us. It bonded my husband and me in a way that is so deep, so strong, that it’s hard to describe. Sometimes it’s difficult, but that makes us even closer. We revere each other. And when we do come together, we’re like honeymooners.

“Sad to say, I was past 35 when I finally realized that the Church was right after all. Not the grab-your-sincerity-and-slide Church of Charlie Curran, but the real Church, the Church we encountered in the Couple to Couple League, the Catholic Church. The Church is right about contraception (it stinks), right about marriage (it’s a sacrament), right about human happiness (it flows—no, it floods when you embrace the will of God). It gave us depth. It opened our hearts to love.”

Roberta Roane is merely echoing what St. Paul said many centuries ago:

“Don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own. You were bought at a great price. Therefore, glorify God with your body!” (1 Cor 6:19,20)

+ Victor Galeone
Bishop of St. Augustine
July 10, 2003

Why use Natural Family Planning?

Natural Family Planning accepts our fertility.

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a comprehensive acceptance of the divine gift of fertility within marriage, wherein the couple monitors their fertility to determine fertile and non-fertile phases for the purpose of either achieving or postponing pregnancy. It is not to be confused with the older and significantly less effective "calendar rhythm method" which estimates and projects the couple’s fertile and non-fertile phases by observing when these phases occurred in previous cycles.

NFP has a strong scientific basis.

The greater effectiveness of NFP is due to a much more precise and systematic approach in which, depending on the method, couples observe changes in the woman’s cervical mucus, temperature changes and/or other signs to determine fertile and non-fertile phases. Since both cervical mucus and temperature are responsive to the chemical/hormonal changes that regulate fertility, NFP users are able to accurately determine when they are fertile and when they are not. The outmoded calendar rhythm method was more of an educated guess that relied heavily on the often erroneous assumption that fertility cycles are the same from month to month.

NFP is a powerful tool for achieving or postponing pregnancy.

NFP users are able to determine their fertility by simply observing their cervical mucus and/or temperature and charting it. The process takes only minutes a day, and with the observance of a few simple rules yields an effectiveness rate for postponing pregnancy equal to or better than any artificial contraceptive methods. In fact the Couple to Couple League, an international Natural Family Planning organization in Cincinnati, Ohio, cites numerous studies, including one conducted by the U.S. government, that show the Sympto-Thermal Method of NFP, which combines temperature and mucus observations, can be used at the 99% level of effectiveness for postponing pregnancy. It is also highly effective for achieving pregnancy and is used by many couples as a means of overcoming difficulties conceiving.

Natural Family Planning is safe, healthy, and inexpensive

Natural Family Planning does nothing to chemically alter a woman’s natural cycle and it makes use of no invasive or prophylactic measures such as IUDs, diaphragms, condoms, and spermicides to interfere with a woman’s fertility. There is no cost to NFP except a meager fee for classes, a basal thermometer, and charts. Mucus-only NFP users pay only for charts. Compare this to the cost of pills, condoms, diaphragms, injections, doctor visits, treatment for side effects, chemicals, and implants, and the cost difference is obvious.

NFP is as effective or more effective than contraceptives.

NFP meets or exceeds the effectiveness rates of all contraceptive methods if used properly. In fact, all the methods of NFP can be used at the 99% level of effectiveness to postpone or avoid pregnancy.1 "Several well-designed trials by the World Health Organization have shown that Natural Family Planning…has had an effectiveness rate when used correctly that is better than OCPs (oral contraceptive pills), that is, less than a 3% rate of pregnancies per year… One of the largest trials (of 19,843 women performed by the World Health Organization in India) showed the failure rate to be 0.2 pregnancies per 100 women yearly—a rate that is significantly better than almost all artificial methods of contraception."2 Some simple rules must be followed to achieve this level of effectiveness but this is true of artificial contraception as well. The misuse rates of condoms and pills are startlingly high and typically exceed those of NFP users.3 One distinct advantage of NFP over contraception is that it is immediately reversible unlike IUDs, injections, implants, and sterilization.

NFP contributes to the health and welfare of the marriage

Unlike contraception, which acts as an inhibitor of one’s natural fertility, NFP keeps it intact and works within it. In this way it is not a rejection of the gifts that husband and wife have to offer each other. The marital embrace is a complete gift of self to one’s spouse—nothing is held back. Yet these gifts are not reducible to a sharing in the physiological aspects of fertility. The marital act is a visible sign of the reality that two have become one; that in the covenant of marriage each spouse belongs fully to the other—nothing is held back. In the act of making love, spouses say with their bodies what they intend with their hearts. If fertility is withheld, this covenant expression is weakened if not wholly disintegrated. It becomes a conspicuous reservation in which, in keeping with the expression "actions speak louder than words," spouses say, "you can have all of me except my power to give life." It is not hard to understand why many married people feel used, even betrayed, by contraceptive sex; for implicit in this mutual withholding of self is a mutual rejection. Sex that does not accept the fullness of the other can easily become self-directed, reducing sex to a matter of self-indulgence and physical gratification, so much so that it becomes a wedge instead of a bond. Perhaps this is why divorce rates for NFP users are between 1/10 and 1/25 of the overall divorce rate in the United States in the 90s.4 Indeed, a study conducted by the Family of Americas Foundation found only 16 women ever divorced among 505 NFP users, a rate of 3.6%!5

NFP is consistent with the life of faith

There is no greater happiness and fulfillment than a life lived in and through God. Eliminating obstacles to this relationship is a positive choice, freeing us to love as fully as possible. The Church teaches against contraception not to impose arbitrary prohibitions, but to safeguard marriage and to deepen the expression of marital love.

The following comments are taken from the pastoral letter Of Human Life by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput.

It’s hard to see the difference [between NFP and contraception] when the emphasis is placed on "artificial" versus "natural" methods. People rightly point out that many things we use are artificial but not immoral. So it’s important to realize that the Church doesn’t oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. Rather, what the Church opposes is any method of birth control which is contraceptive, whether artificial devices, pills, etc. are used or not.

Contraception is the choice, by any means, to sterilize a given act of intercourse. In other words, a contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse and, knowing that it may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility. Herein lies a key distinction: Natural Family Planning (NFP) is in no way contraceptive. The choice to abstain from a fertile act of intercourse is completely different from the willful choice to sterilize a fertile act of intercourse. NFP simply accepts from God’s hand the natural cycle of infertility that He has built into the nature of woman.

Regarding the issue of intention: Yes, both couples [the contracepting couple and the couple using Natural Family Planning] may have the same end in mind—to avoid pregnancy. But the means to achieve their common goal are not alike. Take, for example, two students, each of whom intends to excel in school. Obviously that’s a very good intention. With the same goal in mind, one studies diligently. The other cheats on every test. The point is, the end doesn’t justify the means—in getting an education, in regulating births, or in anything else.6

This pamphlet is drawn from Chapter 8 of Called to Give Life by Jason T. Adams. Jason is a theology teacher at Carroll High School in Dayton, Ohio, where he resides with his wife, Linda, and their two children, Timothy and Bridget. Jason and Linda have used Natural Family Planning to successfully postpone and achieve pregnancy throughout their marriage, and have shared their testimony to its benefits in Pre-Cana, RCIA, young adult/youth groups, and other venues.

What a Woman Should Know about Birth Control

by Chris Kahlenborn, MD

with Ann Moell, MD

Overall Ethical Concerns

All methods of birth control are efforts to separate sexual intercourse from procreation. This separation supports sexual relationships that are much weaker than traditional marriage—hooking up, cohabitation, adultery, and serial monogamy. These relationships erode society by leading to divorce, unexpected pregnancy, abortion, single parent households, abuse, and poverty. The consequences of birth control clearly demonstrate an unhealthy, anti-culture and anti-life, impact that raises major ethical concerns. Use of birth control is like intentionally eating unhealthy, nutrition-less, food just for the pleasure of eating. A steady diet will kill you. In much the same way, a steady diet of birth control kills relationships.

“The Pill”

The birth control pill is used by over 10 million women in the US and about 4 million of those are under age 25.1 The Pill consists of a combination of two types of artificial hormones called estrogens and progestins. It works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm transport and by changing the lining of the inside of a woman’s uterus (called the endometrium) so that if the woman does conceive she may have an early abortion.

Ethical concerns: It is estimated that a sexually active woman will experience at least one very early abortion every year that she is on the Pill.2 Both pro-abortion and pro-life groups acknowledge that the Pill causes early abortions.3

Medical side effects: The birth control pill increases the risk of breast cancer by over 40% if it is taken before a woman delivers her first baby.4 This risk increases by 70% if the Pill is used for four or more years before the woman’s first child is born.5 Other side effects that women have experienced include high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain, and migraines. Diabetics who take oral contraceptives may note increased sugar levels. Some women who stop taking the Pill do not have a return of their fertility (menstrual cycles) for a year, or even longer. Although the Pill decreases ovarian and some uterine cancers, it increases breast, liver, and cervical cancer.4 At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill if their partner(s) have the HIV virus. 6 , 7 , 8

“The Shot” and Norplant

Commonly known as “the shot,” Depo-Provera, a long acting progestin hormone, is injected into a woman’s muscle every three months. It works by decreasing ovulation, by inhibiting sperm transport and by changing the lining of a woman’s uterus. Norplant is another progestin in silastic (rubber-like) tubes that are placed under her skin, and left there for up to five years.

Ethical concerns: By changing the lining of the uterus, Norplant and Depo-Provera both can cause an early abortion when conception does occur. Women who use Norplant will probably experience more than one such abortion each year since the average woman ovulates in more than 40% of her cycles while using Norplant.9 Depo-Provera may theoretically cause just as many abortions as Norplant since it is also a type of progestin.

Medical side effects: The results of two major world studies have shown that women who take Depo-Provera for two years or more before age 25 have at least a 190% increased risk of developing breast cancer.10 In addition, Depo-Provera may reduce a woman’s bone density, and worsen her cholesterol level. One study found that women who had received injectable progestins (i.e., usually Depo-Provera or norethisterone enanthate) for at least five years suffered a 430% increased risk of developing cervical cancer.11 Several studies have shown that women who receive injectable progestins have a much higher rate of contracting the AIDS virus if their partner is infected, with one study showing a 240% increased risk.12 Norplant, which was developed later than Depo-Provera, has received less scrutiny, but may carry just as high a risk as Depo-Provera. Over 50,000 women have participated in law suits against the manufacturer of Norplant, citing complaints of irregular bleeding, scarring, muscle pain, and headaches.13

Other Hormonal Contraceptives

The same artificial hormones used in the Pill, Depo-Provera, and Norplant are packaged in a variety of other delivery systems: the Patch, the “Morning after Pill,” the monthly injection Lunelle, hormone impregnated IUDs and vaginal inserts, and others. More are in development. Most are so new that their side effects have not been well researched. They use the same chemicals as the Pill and can be expected to have generally the same effects. All the hormonal contraceptives can also cause extended periods of unintended infertility after they are discontinued.

Barrier Methods:
The Condom and the Diaphragm

The condom has a failure rate that is estimated to be between 10-30%.14, 15 There are several reasons: breakage or slippage during use, manufacturing defects, and defects caused by shipping and storage in a hot or very cold place.

Medical side effects: The condom does not adequately stop the transmission of the AIDS virus. CM Rowland, PhD, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, tells us that electron micrographs (pictures taken with a very powerful microscope) reveal voids (holes) in the condom that are up to 50 times bigger than the HIV particle.16

The diaphragm is a barrier method of birth control so it theoretically does not cause early abortion. At least one study has noted that women who use barrier methods such as the diaphragm or condom, or the withdrawal method, had a 137% increased risk of developing preeclampsia.17 Preeclampsia, a complication occurring in some pregnant women, is a syndrome of high blood pressure, fluid retention, and kidney damage, which may eventually lead to prolonged seizures and/or coma. It is theorized that exposure to the male’s sperm plays a protective role against preeclampsia.

Spermicides

A spermicide is an agent that is designed to kill the man’s sperm and is often sold as a gel or as an ingredient in the vaginal sponge. Toxic Shock Syndrome has been associated with the spermicide sponge.18 One researcher has noted that couples who have used certain spermicides within a month of conception have experienced a doubling in the rate of birth defects, as well as a doubling of the rate of miscarriage.19

The IUD (Intrauterine Device)

This is a T-shaped device made of hard plastic. It may also contain copper or contraceptive hormones. A doctor inserts it into a woman’s uterus. It works by irritating the lining of the uterus and obstructing sperm transport.

Ethical concerns: When conception occurs with an IUD in place, the IUD can prevent implantation, or destroy the new embryo by copper poisoning or by attack from the body’s immune system, thus causing an early abortion.20

Medical side effects: These include uterine perforation, which may lead to a hysterectomy, and infection, such as a pelvic or tubo-ovarian abscess. Use of all IUDs has been associated with an increased incidence of PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease) and of ectopic pregnancy.20 An ectopic pregnancy is one in which the unborn child implants himself/ herself in a location other than in the mother’s uterus, usually in the fallopian tube. According to Rossing and Daling, two prominent researchers, women who had used an IUD for three or more years were more than twice as likely to have a tubal pregnancy as women who had never used an IUD. Among these long-term users of an IUD, risk of ectopic pregnancy remained elevated for many years after the device was removed. Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal death in the United States. The IUD may also cause back aches, cramping, dyspareunia (painful intercourse), dysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cycles), and infertility.

“Permanent” Sterilization:
Tubal Ligation and Vasectomy

Surgical sterilization attempts to achieve permanent sterility through closing a woman’s fallopian tubes (called “tubal ligation”) or a man’s vas deferens (called “vasectomy”) by tying the tube closed and in some cases by cutting, burning, or removing part of the tube.

Medical side effects: Tubal ligation does not always prevent conception. When conception does occur, it is associated with a much higher incidence of ectopic pregnancy,22 which, as was noted, is the leading cause of death in pregnant women. In addition, women who undergo the procedure may experience complications from the anesthesia or from surgery. Complications include bladder puncture, bleeding, and even cardiac arrest after inflation of the abdomen with carbon dioxide.23 Some women who have undergone a tubal ligation experience a syndrome of intermittent vaginal bleeding associated with severe cramping pain in the lower abdomen.24 Reduced intimacy, lower libido, and a greater risk for hysterectomy often follow tubal ligation; deep regret for having been sterilized is common.

About 50% of men who undergo a vasectomy will develop anti-sperm antibodies.25 In essence, their bodies will come to recognize their own sperm as “the enemy.” This could lead to a higher incidence of autoimmune disease. Several studies have noted that men who undergo a vasectomy have a higher incidence of developing prostate cancer, especially 15-20 years after their vasectomy,26, 27, 28, 29 although one large study did not find a link.30

Wise Options

The best option before marriage is abstinence. The obvious benefits include greater self-respect, freedom from the risk of venereal disease, as well as monetary savings and no chance of a surprise pregnancy.

Within marriage it should be noted that an openness towards having children yields specific medical benefits. Every additional child a woman bears reduces her risk of breast cancer, some uterine cancers, and ovarian cancer.

NFP: Natural Family Planning

Natural Family Planning is a totally natural method by which couples can manage their fertility. In NFP a woman determines when she is either fertile or infertile by observing the consistency of her cervical mucus. The WHO (World Health Organization) has performed several large-scale trials that have demonstrated an unintended pregnancy rate of between 0.3 and 3%, which is as good as any artificial form of birth control except sterilization. One very large trial involving about 20,000 Indian women showed an unintended pregnancy rate of less than 0.3%.32

Some obvious benefits of NFP are that it is virtually cost-free and there is no increased risk of cancer. Couples who use NFP have a divorce rate that is less than 5%33__far lower than the national rate of about 50%.

The Pill vs. NFP

By Jose R. Fernandez, MD

A Catholic Physician's Story

As a family physician, I was trained that the only way to plan families effectively was to use artificial contraceptives, IUD's or sterilization. Although these artificial methods had side effects, I was taught in medical school that they were worth the risk. Moral consequences were not to be considered since our faith life had nothing to do with our bodies, right? I was constantly reminded that one's bag of morals and life ethic should be left at the doorway to medical education. I was there to serve the desires of my patients whether they wanted birth control pills or tubal ligations. My personal feelings, regardless of Church teaching had nothing to do with my practice of medicine.

To be honest, I never knew what the Church really taught on this subject. Even if I had known, I thought it could not impact the way I practiced medicine.

At the beginning of our marriage, my wife and I used oral contraceptives, but after our first child, we switched to the Sympto-Thermal Method of Natural Family Planning. This decision was not really based on faith, but due to our concerns for the side effects of the "pill" and the fact that my wife never took it consistently anyway.

One day at the end of a rotation during family practice residency, one of my best friends asked me a question that shook me to the roots of my being. "Jose‚" he asked, "I know you are a good doctor, but are you a Catholic doctor?"

That simple question threw me into a tailspin. I, like so many other Catholics, thought that going to church on Sunday and going to Confession when you did something "really bad," was all that one needed to be a good Catholic. What I found out was that I could not have been further from the truth.

It took me a while to figure it out. I sought the counsel of many. Most could not appreciate the struggle I was in and why I wrestled with these issues, especially at this point in my life. I was made to feel I would be abandoning my patients and that I would be denying them a service I had provided in the past. After all, what would my patients say to me if I told them that I had stopped prescribing contraceptives, could no longer perform vasectomies or tubal ligations, just because of my Church's teaching?

Through it all, my wife gave me the inner strength to know that I was on the right path. As I grew in my Catholic faith I realized God's plan for me, my family and the patients I cared for, had to do with not only what I was doing, but also the way I was doing it. My wife was instrumental in helping me pick up the pieces. In many ways, she showed me I had not entered into a profession called medicine, but rather I had entered into a vocation-a way of life-one that was very personal. She showed me that my faith and values at home should and could impact my practice of medicine.

Since that soul searching, I have become a strong advocate for Natural Family Planning and the Culture of Life. To my surprise (and the surprise of my colleagues) my patients did not feel abandoned. Some were curious as to why I had made this decision, and said they admired me for standing up for my beliefs.

I find myself each day trying to be more faithful to the God who loves and forgives me. Each day, regardless of the 'hat' I wear, I am able to love a little more and forgive a little more. I have learned there are issues which cannot be compromised. For me, being a Catholic physician is all I know because my faith has pierced my heart and my soul.

I tell you my story not out of pride, but rather as a way to encourage you in your own journey of faith. As a Catholic, a husband, and a physician, I hope to bring to your attention three things:

1. The effects of artificial contraception on the mind, body and soul.
2. The Church's gift of Natural Family Planning and its effectiveness.
3. The reaffirmation of God's plan for you in your married or single life through the understanding of your bodily cycles.

Humanae Vitae

In my renewal of the Catholic Faith, especially with regard to my medical practice, I learned that God indeed has a plan for each of us: A plan transmitted through His Church, taught through its Magisterium, and presented (among other ways) in the form of an encyclical called Humanae Vitae. Written in 1968, this document outlines the Church's teaching on conjugal relationships and responsible parenthood. It taught that, while artificial contraception in any form is morally wrong at all times and for any reason, natural fertility regulation may be used whenever there is a serious need to avoid pregnancy. This reason could be a medical, psychological, social or economic, temporary or permanent one.

Humanae Vitae not only detailed the evil of contraception, but also stressed the serious consequences that would befall society if we fell away from the Church's teaching. As anyone can see, we have fallen away, with estimates of contraceptive use among Catholics and non-Catholics alike as high as 90 percent. The consequences have been devastating in terms of skyrocketing marital infidelity and divorce.

Pope Paul VI's predictions that an increase in contraceptive use would lead to men regarding women as objects of desire and would allow governments to wield technological and economic power in population-reduction programs have been overwhelmingly fulfilled.

The "Pill" vs. NFP

How It Works

The modern-day birth control pill is made up of two types of artificial steroids that mimic the effects of naturally occurring hormones, estrogen and progesterone. These artificial hormones are formulated to act singularly or in combination, and may be taken by mouth, injected or placed beneath one's skin. Their effectiveness relies on three mechanisms.

1. Suppression of ovulation.
2. Impeding migration of sperm, and
3. Inhibiting implantation of the embryo in the uterus

The pill is very effective if used as directed. It can prevent or terminate (more on that later) pregnancy 98-99 percent of the time.

So then, if it is so effective, why would I as a physician not prescribe it? Because I believe, as a Catholic Physician, I am called to address not just the patient's body, but the personal unity of body, mind and soul.

The Body

The effects of artificial contraception can be devastating, depending on a woman's genetic make-up, weight, length of time and type of contraceptive taken. Modern-day contraceptives have potent cardiovascular effects. A woman's chances of suffering a heart attack, a stroke, or blood clots are increased significantly, even at the lowered dosages in use today as opposed to higher dosages given when the pill first came on the market over 40 years ago.

Contraceptives also have a potent carcinogenic effect. They raise a woman's chances of suffering cervical cancer, liver tumors and breast cancer. Contraceptives are linked to increased incidence of migraine headaches, vaginal infections, gallbladder disease, changes in vision and a host of other clinical problems, including death.

Perhaps most sadly, all modern artificial contraceptives can cause early (chemical) abortions. They do this by making the lining of the womb hostile to the implantation and growth of the embryo. Thus, if ovulation occurs despite the contraceptive's first mechanism (and this happens all too frequently), and the egg is fertilized, becoming a new human being, the contraceptive's third mechanism acts to deny the embryo the home and nutrition it should receive in its mother's womb. Therefore, an early abortion can occur during any given cycle and the woman would never know it because the embryo dies and is expelled from the body.

Also, due to a contraceptive's potency, the side effects will likely last much longer than their time in use, and may cause some women to be permanently infertile.

The Mind

The use of artificial contraception can lead to depression, even after one shot (in the case of Depo-Provera), worsen premenstrual syndrome, and suppress a woman's sexual drive.

The Soul

The Catholic Church still teaches that deliberate sterilization (temporary or permanent) is a gravely immoral form of birth control. Man and woman were made to be co-creators with God in the making of new human life. Therefore, when one uses contraception it is wrong, not only because it violates the procreative meaning of the sexual act, but also because it violates the unitive act as well. The sexual act is meant by God to be 'total self-giving' and when marriage partners withhold their fertility from their spouses, they are not totally giving themselves. The Catholic Church's challenge to us throughout the centuries has been not to separate the lovemaking and life creating aspects of the sexual act within marriage.

A Healthy Alternative

Natural Family Planning or NFP (of which there are several models, such as the Billings Ovulation Method, the Sympto-Thermal Method or the Creighton Model) is a truly modern and effective way to plan one's family, understand the miraculous function of the human body, and better participate in God's plan for married couples and their fertility.

These methods are all based on the fact that a woman will undergo cyclical changes in her fertility evidenced by certain bodily changes. These changes include differences in cervical mucus, body temperature and others. These signs of fertility and infertility are easy to observe and interpret. The couple can then use these signs of fertile and infertile days to either achieve or avoid a pregnancy.

These methods are highly effective. When learned and used correctly and conscientiously, Natural Family Planning is effective in avoiding pregnancy 99.5* percent of the time. Research has documented its effectiveness in achieving a pregnancy in the first cycle of use at 76 percent.

Why isn't every married couple learning and using NFP? Good question. Perhaps it is because too many people simply don't know the truth about it. NFP is not a repackaged version of the old calendar-based "rhythm method"-a misconception even doctors have today. Unfortunately, medical training in this area, in most cases, is often nonexistent or inadequate.

In addition to the medical benefits of using NFP, other benefits include the enhancement of the married couple's sexuality, and placing responsibility for fertility on the man and the woman equally. This leads to a more loving cooperation in matters of sexuality and family planning. By learning NFP, the married couple comes to a deeper understanding of the physical aspect of sexuality and how it relates to the spiritual, mental and emotional aspects of life as well.

Finally, Natural Family Planning is a versatile method that can be used in all stages of reproductive life. The observations a woman makes as a user of NFP can be extremely helpful when seeking the assistance of a physician, should a reproductive problem arise, in the transition from one stage of life to another. These observations can help the physician diagnose and treat such problems as PMS, ovarian cysts, recurrent miscarriages and infertility. Natural Family Planning is easy to learn, inexpensive, and quickly becomes second nature to the married couples who use it. But most importantly, NFP brings together the physical, spiritual and emotional aspects of a couple's fertility to enrich marriages by following God's teachings and plan for their married lives

* J. Reprod. Med. 1998; 43:495-502

Dr. Jose Fernandez is a family practice physician in Kissimmee, Florida. (407) 847-9090

For more information on Natural Family Planning contact:

Billings Ovulation Method Assn-USA
(651) 699-8139 www.Boma-usa.org

The Couple To Couple League (STM)
(513) 471-2000 www.ccli.org

Family of the Americas Foundation
(301) 627-3346 www.familyplanning.net

Northwest Family Services (STM)
(503) 215-6377 www.nwfs.org

Pope Paul VI Institute
(402) 390-6600 www.popepaulvi.com

One More Soul
(800) 307-7685 www.OMSoul.com

Q. What's the big difference between NFP and contraception?

A. There are at least four enormous differences between NFP and contraception. The first is the morality of the act; the second deals with the fact that some contraceptives work by causing abortions; the third issue pertains to adverse side effects that are caused by contraceptives; and the last issue deals with the fruits of NFP.

Suppose that a married couple is using contraceptives for the same reason another couple is practicing NFP. Both couples already have children and hope to have more. But for good reasons they need to space the next birth by a couple of years. Both have the intent to regulate births, and responsible parenthood allows couples not to have more children than they can care for. However, the good intent of a couple is not sufficient to determine the morality of their act. For example, if two women wanted to avoid becoming overweight, one might go on a diet, and the other might binge and purge (bulimia). Both may stay slim, but one exercises the virtue of temperance, while the other succumbs to gluttony and unnatural, unhealthy behavior.

Similarly, the Church’s condemnation of contraception does not imply that the couple has bad intentions but that they are using a means that is immoral. Married couples are free to have intercourse (or to agree to abstain from it) on any given day, regardless of the wife’s fertility. But when they do join as one flesh, they must not frustrate the purpose God designed that act to have. It is God alone who has the power to create an immortal soul as a result of the marital act, and to contracept is to say that God’s presence is not desired. Clearly then, a couple abstaining from sex for a just reason cannot be compared to a couple who sterilize their acts of lovemaking in order to enjoy the pleasure of the marital act apart from God’s design.

The reason the Church denounces contraception is not because it is artificial. After all, the Church allows the use of countless artificial drugs and other technological advances that medicine can offer man. However, these are to be used to heal dysfunction and promote the proper functioning of the body as God designed it. Contraception does the opposite: it prevents the natural functioning of the body.

Therefore, the moral difference between NFP and contraception is that contraception deliberately interrupts, sterilizes, and works against (contra) conception, while NFP respects the way God ordained conception to occur. In no way does NFP interrupt or sterilize an act of intercourse. NFP couples are not acting against the way God has designed fertility but are working with it.

Another major difference between NFP and contraceptives is that some birth control methods work by causing abortions. For example, the birth control pill, the morning after pill, the patch, the intrauterine device (IUD), and Depo-Provera (the shot) sometimes work by preventing a newly conceived child from attaching to the uterus. This causes a first trimester abortion to occur—without the mother even knowing it.

All contraceptives have potential adverse side effects, most of which affect the woman. Elsewhere, the Q and A section goes into detail regarding the side effects of contraceptives. Here I will simply point out that depending on the method used, these may include a heightened risk of breast cancer, a greater risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease, migraine headaches, high blood pressure, fatal blood clots, increased fetal abnormalities, and toxic shock syndrome.

Finally, consider the implications of the fact that couples who use NFP have a divorce rate of 1 to 3 percent.[1] In one study there were zero divorces out of fourteen hundred NFP couples.[2] Keep in mind that more than half of all marriages end in divorce. The striking correlation between NFP and strong marriages is an important indication of the close relationship between NFP and the way God designed marriage and sex to work.

Also, NFP offers something else that contraceptives cannot: an understanding of how to time intercourse to achieve pregnancy. Further, NFP couples are in a much better position to teach their teens about sexual self-control. A couple should not expect their children to follow the Church’s teachings on sexuality outside of marriage if they as parents are not willing to follow the Church’s teachings on sexuality within marriage. When we consider the positive impact of NFP on a marriage and the potential dangers of contraception, the most loving option becomes obvious.

Despite all of these differences, NFP can be abused. Because it is so effective in regulating births, a couple could take on a contraceptive mentality and close themselves off from the gift of life. NFP must be practiced responsibly and only when there is just reason to do so.
_______________________
[1]. What’s Wrong with Contraception? (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Couple to Couple League International); Mercedes Arzú Wilson, “The Practice of Natural Family Planning Versus the Use of Artificial Birth Control: Family, Sexual, and Moral Issues,” Catholic Social Science Review 7 (November 2002).
[2]. West, Good News About Sex and Marriage, 179.

Q. Why is the Catholic Church against contraception?

A. Contraception is nothing new; history records people using various methods of birth control four thousand years ago. Ancient people swallowed potions to cause temporary sterility; they used linens, wool, or animal skins as barrier methods; they fumigated the uterus with poison to keep it from bearing life. The Romans practiced contraception, but the early Christians stood out from the pagan culture because they refused to use it.[1] Scripture condemned the act (Gen. 38:8–10), as did all Christian denominations before 1930.

At that time the Anglican Church decided to allow contraception in some circumstances. They soon gave in on the issue altogether, and before long all Protestant denominations followed suit. Now only the Catholic Church stands fast on the teaching of historic Christianity. But why? Why doesn’t the Church “get with the times”?

The modern world has trouble understanding the Church’s stance on contraception because the world does not know the purpose of sex. The writer Frank Sheed said that “modern man practically never thinks about sex.” He dreams of it, craves it, pictures it, drools over it, but never pauses to actually think about it. Sheed continued: “Our typical modern man, when he gives his mind to it at all, thinks of sex as something we are lucky enough to have; and he sees all its problems rolled into the one problem of how to get the most pleasure out of it.”[2]

But we should put more thought into the matter. Who invented sex? What is sex? What is its purpose? What is it worth? For starters, God invented sex. Since he is its author, he knows its meaning and purpose better than we do. God has revealed that the purposes of sex are procreation and union (babies and bonding), and that the sexual act can be thought of as the wedding vows made flesh. The wedding vows are promises that your love will be free, faithful, total, and open to life. Each act of marital intercourse should be a renewal of these vows.

Some couples say that they will be open to life but will contracept between kids. In other words, they will be completely open to life—except when they sterilize their acts of love. Imagine if they had the same mentality with other parts of the wedding vows. Can a wife say she is faithful except when she has affairs? Can she say that she will give herself totally to her husband as long as he’s rich? Can a husband say the marital act is free except when he forces himself upon his wife? All of this is absurd, but contracepting couples contradict their own vows in a similar way when they refuse to be open to God’s gift of life. When it comes down to it, they are afraid of what sex really means.

But sex is more than the wedding vows made flesh. It is also a reflection of the life-giving love of the Trinity. In the words of Carlo Cardinal Martini, “In the Bible, the man-woman couple is not meant to be simply a preservation of the species, as is the case for the other animals. Insofar as it was called to become the image and likeness of God, it expresses in a bodily, tangible way the face of God, which is Love.”[3] God’s plan for us to love as he loves is stamped into our very being, and so there is really only one question to ask when it comes to sexual morality: “Am I expressing God’s love through my body?” When a married couple does this, they become what they are—an image of Trinitarian love—and through this they unveil the love of God to the world.

The act of life-giving love between a husband and wife is also meant to be a mirror of the love that Christ has for his Church. We should ask ourselves: “If we consider the relationship between Christ and his Church, where does contraception fit into the picture? What is contraceptive about Christ’s love?”

Beyond the theological implications, consider the consequences of contraception in society. When contraception spread among Christians, the Catholic Church warned about the harm it would inflict on relationships. Rates of marital infidelity would increase because spouses could be unfaithful without fear of pregnancy. Since contraception offers an easy way to elude the moral law, there would be a general lowering of morality. The Church “feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman, and no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”[4] Furthermore, if people could separate making love from making life, then why would those acts that are unable to make life (homosexual sex or masturbation) be forbidden? With the increase in contraceptive use, it would become increasingly difficult to view sexuality as a sign of God’s love.

Some argue that the Church restricts women’s freedom by opposing contraception. However, the sour fruit of contraceptive “liberation” is manifested most clearly not by arguments but by the lives of those who accept such false ideas of freedom. Consider the following question that one young woman sent to Dear Abby: “I am a twenty-three-year-old liberated woman who has been on the Pill for two years. It’s getting pretty expensive and I think my boyfriend should share half the cost, but I don’t know him well enough to discuss money with him.”[5]

In the words of Christopher West, “If the real problem behind women’s oppression is men’s failure to treat them properly as persons, contraception is a sure way to keep women in chains.”[6] The earliest feminists opposed contraception for this reason, and some modern feminists still realize that contraception is the enemy of women’s liberation.[7]

Anthropologists who study the origin and destruction of civilizations have noted that societies that do not direct their sexual energies toward the good of marriage and family begin to crumble.[8] Therefore the Church did not hesitate to point out the vast implications of contraception. The love between a husband and wife holds a marriage together. A strong marriage holds the family together. Strong families hold society together, and a civilization will stand or fall upon this. “The future of humanity,” according to the Church, “passes by way of the family.”[9] If it can be shown that contraception compromises intimacy between a husband and wife, invites selfishness into the marital act, and opens a door for greater infidelity, then contraception is a cancer to civilization itself.

For a great explanation of why the Church opposes contraception, check out Janet Smith's tape, Contraception, Why Not?.
_________________________
[1] St. Augustine Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419), St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391), and others. (www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp).
[2] Frank Sheed, Society and Sanity (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1953), 107.
[3]. Cardinal Carlo Martini, On the Body (New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 2000), 49.
[4]. Pope Paul VI, encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae 17 (Of Human Life), (Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1997).
[5]. Abigail Van Buren, The Best of Dear Abby (New York: Andrews and McMeel, 1981), 242, as quoted in DeMarco, New Perspectives, 42.
[6]. West, Good News About Sex and Marriage, 122.
[7]. Donald DeMarco, “Contraception and the Trivialization of Sex” (www.cuf.org/july99a.htm).
[8]. Donald DeMarco, New Perspectives on Contraception (Dayton, Ohio: One More Soul, 1999), 89.
[9]. Pope John Paul II, apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio 86 (The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), (Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1981).

Hey, Obama: Hands Off Burke

A reliable source tells me that someone representing the Obama administration is about to put pressure on the papal nuncio to the United States to get Archbishop Raymond Burke to be quiet. The Obama complaint is that Archbishop Burke, who is now head of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, has supported another bishop in his chastisement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for her support of abortion.

A few days ago Archbishop Burke gave an interview to the San Diego-based organization Catholic Action for Faith and Family, during which he took the gloves off about Sebelius, who has been nominated to head the massive U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He noted her “public association with some of the more notorious agents of the culture of death.” This, of course, was a reference to her hosting a party for the late-term abortionist George Tiller, currently on trial in Kansas for nineteen infractions of abortion restrictions.

Burke commented on her fitness for office, saying that for Sebelius to be “placed in charge of the federal office with responsibilities for health and human services” is “sad for our nation” and a “source of great embarrassment.”

He also spoke about her relationship to the Church, and pointed out that Sebelius’s bishop in Kansas had properly instructed her about the dangerous ground she treads. Archbishop Joseph Naumann offered her pastoral counseling on the teachings of the Church related to abortion and urged her to accept them. She declined. Only then did Naumann instruct her not to approach the altar rail for Communion. Burke said this fulfilled “one of the most solemn duties as a pastor, namely, the care of the Most Blessed Sacrament and of the worthy reception of Communion.”

Burke closed the interview by issuing a challenge to his brother bishops, most notably Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C.: “Every bishop is held to the same universal discipline which has been in force since the time of St. Paul the Apostle and is stated in canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.” And then this: “Whether Governor Sebelius is in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, or in any other diocese [italics mine], she should not present herself for Holy Communion because, after pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin.”

You can see why the Obama administration might get upset about this. They played footsie with pet Catholics of left and right last year and thought they had this kind of problem covered, since some of them have already offered cover for Sebelius. Two groups created to offer such services, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance, started a petition drive saying Sebelius was really pro-life.

And now there is word that someone who is well known among Republicans, and who has served in previous Republican administrations, is reaching out on behalf of the Obama administration to get the Holy See to quiet Burke, or at least to make it clear he speaks not for the Church, but only for himself.

Democrats may say that Burke overstepped his bounds by commenting not just on Sebelius and Communion, but her fitness as a nominee for HHS secretary. IRS guidelines, which are even now being tested by the Alliance Defense Fund, say Church officials may not comment positively or negatively on candidates for federal office. But Sebelius is not running for federal office. She has been nominated to a cabinet post by the president. And beyond a mere technical question of IRS guidelines, since when are bishops required to shut up about public policy or to speak only for themselves?

But it’s not just questioning her fitness for office that offends Obama and his Catholics. They are also offended about Burke questioning Sebelius’s fidelity to the Catholic Church, for this strikes at the heart of their appeal to Catholics in the pews. Catholics who believe the Democratic answer to health care is more important than the murder of a million children a year desperately need the fiction that someone like Sebelius is a Catholic in good standing. Burke gives the lie to that assertion.

By trying to stop a bishop from commenting on internal Church matters, the Obama administration wades into dangerous waters. Archbishop Burke is the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican office that is charged with interpreting the Code of Canon Law. The proper reception of Communion is proper to the Code of Canon Law, and therefore proper to any bishop, and especially to Archbishop Burke.

The pressure won't work, of course. Burke is just too smart, and tough. But Obama and his representatives are coming dangerously close to interfering in internal Church matters. More than anything else, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended precisely to protect religious bodies from meddling by the state, even covert meddling by the White House like this. Obama and his pet Catholics should back off – and fast.