Catholic Exchange

Natural Law Dramatized on National TV

Something quite amazing is playing out before us on national television that shows the wisdom of Catholic teaching such as Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life). In spite of all the horrific pro-death, anti-life, anti-family decisions made by our politicians, one fact remains: In the end, you can’t buck natural law.  Or, in the words of another common adage from years gone by, “You can’t fool mother nature.”  But, boy, the drama of watching it play out on reality TV is both heartrending and amazing.  Since becoming Catholic I’ve been enamored with the phenomenon of large families, especially Catholic families.  As a filmmaker I wanted to do a documentary on a couple of them, but never got together the resources.  Lucky for me, others were able to mount projects (although not Catholic), and we’ve been enjoying The Learning Channel’s productions of the Duggars (18 Kids and Counting), and the Gosslins (John & Kate Plus 8).

Both families have Christian roots.  The Duggars have a more explicit Christian presence (www.duggarfamily.com ), but on the Gosslin’s show Scripture verses can be seen taped to the end of John and Kate’s kitchen cabinets, and John has been seen wearing T-shirts with Scripture references on them.  But I saw a huge difference in these families, and recently the difference has become a news item on just about every news show and website.  I’m speaking about the breakdown of John and Kate’s marriage, and the very public playing out of the conflict on national television.  The news media would have you believe the problem is the stress of success by having a hit show to which ten million tune in weekly.  And indeed that is probably a contributor.  But I noticed something early on.  Did you?  There has always been a romantic detachment in John and Kate’s relationship.  They look at each other as if there was no romantic relationship between them whatsoever.  They are like romance zombies… the romantic walking dead.  You could never tell by their non-verbal or interactions that these two people love each other as husband and wife.  They could be complete strangers thrown together in a reality show where they’re trying to get along, but it’s a strain.  I have always felt sorry for them because of that.

But, if you watch the Duggars, the difference is startling.  Now, the Duggars don’t have 8 kids to deal with, they have 18.  Let’s say that again: THEY HAVE EIGHTEEN!!!  And have you ever noticed the nonverbal between Jim Bob and Michelle?  It’s like “love at first sight.”  When Jim Bob talks and Michelle’s within sight her eyes are on him as if he was the most wonderful man in the world.  She is totally in love with this guy.  And when she talks, Jim Bob watches her affectionately.  His eyes never wander.  The love and respect is palatable, even through the silly, flat TV screen.

Why the difference?  Did you ever wonder?  Well, Paul VI could have told you, as well as John Paul II, and a few others.  And while I don’t want to be labeled a judge of people, I can’t help but take note of one particularly public difference between the sexuality of these two couples and Catholic teaching about natural law.  In the case of John and Kate Gosslin, all eight of their babies were conceived via intrauterine insemination, which involved implantation of Jon’s sperm via a catheter.  Kate compares the procedure with in vitro fertilization, (but) “there are no eggs removed or put back, as with IVF.”

Now consider the Duggars.  While I’ve found no specific reference to how their children were conceived, (and there wouldn’t be if they were natural) their frank discussion of how they came to give up the contraceptive pill and let God have his total will with their lives and how many children they would have, explains that the Duggars, while not Catholic, have come to understand and apply natural law for all their pregnancies.  On their website is a FAQ where they discuss how God told them to give up the contraceptive pill.

Through these two high-profile network reality shows we see the impact that natural vs. non-natural fertilization methods have.  Catholic teaching is founded on natural law.  When we follow what is natural, husbands and wives are drawn close together in a natural and supportive love.  In the sexuality of marriage, when we reject what is natural, we enter the danger zone: a separation between the unitive and procreative nature of marriage.  Paul VI writes “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood” (Humanae Vitae, 12).

This all become very real for me recently as I’m in the midst of producing a pro-life Catholic television drama on in vitro versus natural fertilization.  The project is titled TIGER’S HOPE, a co-production of the Diocese of Lansing and my production company, SWC Films, with seed funding from Our Sunday Visitor.  We hope to shoot it this fall in Michigan.  Through the power of story, this short movie will give an accurate picture of the state of both in vitro technology with its health hazards, its low probability of success, and its health effects on children and mothers.  All that will be dramatically contrasted with natural methods that have no side effects, almost no cost, and a success rate that is 300-400% greater than in vitro.  The cultural ramifications of separating the conception of children from the martial act will also be revealed in light of the Church’s teachings on marriage and the dignity of each human being.  The differences between the Duggars and the Gosllins dramatically underscore the need for a clearer understanding of natural law, and why Church teachings are so vital for healthy and happy marriages.  TIGER’S HOPE is designed to reach television audiences world wide with that message in a dramatic, movie format.  If you’d like to be involved in this unique international film project, or know someone who would, visit the project website at www.TigersHope.com.

Comments

16 responses to “Natural Law Dramatized on National TV”

  1. zoopermom Avatar
    zoopermom

    Thank you for putting into words what I have also noticed re: the difference between these two families. I want to comment, however, that alternative ways of bringing children into marriage without the marital act can be done successfully through the love and commitment equal to those who abide by natural law. My husband is a quadraplegic and together we adopted four of the many children we fostered. They are, in essence, a product of our incredible marriage without conception. Because of God, our faith, our undying love and respect for our Catholic teachings, we have a most blessed family filled with love. Please remember us and those like us when you do Tigers Hope – a most vital Church teaching on true love and natural law that we look forward to seeing. Thank you..

  2. fatherjo Avatar
    fatherjo

    With all the emphasis today on going “green” and being so attuned to nature, one wonders why the concept of natural law seems so unnatural to so many. Why are human beings (in great numbers) not considered part of nature? Can it be that man and woman (and their many descendants) were placed in the garden precisely to care for and protect nature? Does not the Bible say as much? For example, the threat of N.E.O.’s (Near Earth Objects), some of them quite huge, orbiting in space and threatening to collide with the earth, is quite real. They have done so in the past, and have caused mass extinctions of entire species. It is difficult to think of a diminished number of human beings, with a diminished economy, being able to do much to prevent such a disaster from happening again.

  3. terrygeorge Avatar
    terrygeorge

    i’m not certain, but i was under the impression from some of j&k’s earliest footage that they did originally attend a catholic church. they are in my prayers for encouragement

  4. Mary Kochan Avatar
    Mary Kochan

    The idea that the world does not need humans and they are parasites on its surface is purely demonic. Fatherjo points out one way that humans may save life on this planet from extinction in the future, but humans have already saved numerous kinds of animals and plants. The ascendancy of the grasses over other plants — grasses that feed so much of the wildlife — is due to human’s preference for the grasses. The bottom line is that hatred of humanity does not not rationally have a human origin — it comes from the father of lies who seeks the destruction of us all.

  5. StMichael Pray4us Avatar
    StMichael Pray4us

    Stan, you hit the nail right on the head with this article!!! My wife and I are regular viewers of both of these shows and have been saying the same thing you just wrote about for some time now. How the relationships of these two couples are so different and the attitudes they portray towards each other are night and day. The artificial vs natural relationship in my opinion is a major factor towards this. Since we had our reversion back to the Church a few years ago and have fully embraced the church’s teachings on marital love, our relationship has been completely transformed. God’s plan is best, no doubt about it, AMEN!!! And when we get diverted from the natural path that God has laid out for us to follow, it’s not pretty what lies ahead.

  6. Claire Avatar
    Claire

    Per the USCCB website:

    Reproductive Technologies under Discussion (neither “approved” nor “disapproved”):

    Gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT).
    (The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not yet pronounced on the subject.)

    Intrauterine insemination (IUI) of “licitly obtained” (normal intercourse) but technologically prepared semen sample (washed, etc.).

    Church theologians continue to debate whether IUI is licit. Until they reach a determination, I don’t think it’s fair for us to judge that people who use this technology have not embraced Church teaching on marital love.

    My husband and I have struggled with infertility and miscarriage since our marriage 5 years ago. We did one IUI (which was unsuccessful), and felt that it detracted from the dignity of our martial act, and therefore never repeated this procedure. The three children that we have conceived (and then miscarried) during the course of our marriage were conceived with no medical intervention at all. Our infertility/miscarriage has turned out to be a blessing, as it lead us to adopting our now 17-month old son, who was worth all the pain we have experienced. Despite my own experience, I don’t think it’s right to say that using IUI was the beginning of the breakdown of Jon and Kate’s marriage. I, too, have noticed differences between them and the Duggars, but there are so many possible factors for this. Kate’s personality being a huge one.

  7. […] po­st­: N­­at­ural Law­ Dramat­i­ze­d on­­ N­­at&#173… Share and […]

  8. StMichael Pray4us Avatar
    StMichael Pray4us

    Nobody is judging and nobody knows for sure what the problem is with their marriage. I’m sure it’s a number things that contributed to this. I was only trying to point out that when you divert from God’s plan and decide to play God, the end result will not be good. I understand how wanting to have children and not being able to can be heart wrenching, but we can’t take matters into our own hands and play God just to obtain what we want. I’d like to have a million bucks in my bank account, but I’m not going to rob a bank to get it. We have to be open to God’s will and trust him. When we override his will with our own will it takes us away from his intended purpose for our life. That’s exactly what the devil wants to do, divert us and lead us away from God’s way. And when we are lead away, the end result is misery. The devil has then accomplished his goal. When we become so consumed with what we want instead what God wants for us, we get diverted from his plan. I know it’s not easy. But we all have crosses to bear. And when we pick up that cross and follow our Lord we are brought to resurection.

  9. Claire Avatar
    Claire

    My initial post wasn’t in response to your comment specifically. But if IUI isn’t officially against Church teaching, then how can you say that by doing IUI they were diverting from God’s plan and playing God? It’s really not fair to compare bank robbery to using a fertility treatment (that has not yet been declared illicit). The desire for children is a much holier desire than the desire for a million bucks. As I said, I don’t have a good feeling about IUI, having done it once myself. But theologians are still debating whether or not it is immoral. Until Rome speaks, married couples are free to use their own consciences regarding this procedure.

  10. elkabrikir Avatar
    elkabrikir

    I find both shows incredibly boring. Any time I have spent watching either show has been more than enough to convince me that I need to spend more time interacting with MY family instead of watching theirs (like a voyeur).

    Maybe if more people would pray and read scripture and the CCC and the Saints, we’d have families that follow Natural Law.

    It just isn’t “natural” to watch others live……..As for me, I’m busy enough living the life portrayed on TV (I’ve got 11 kids).

    And, NO, for the gazillinth time to those who ask, I DON’T have or want my OWN show…. “You should be on TV!!!!!!”

    Yeah, I am…on God’s TV screen.

  11. angelmama Avatar
    angelmama

    I’m confused about Claire’s post. I just did a little research on IUI and most places say that IUI and artificial insemination are one in the same. Claire quoted the USCCB web site which lists IUI as something that has not been determined to be approved or disapproved :”Intrauterine insemination (IUI) of “licitly obtained” (normal intercourse) but technologically prepared semen sample (washed, etc.).”

    I don’t understand how you could obtain a “technologically prepared semen sample (washed, ect.)” that would then presumably have to somehow get implanted into the woman any other way than by artificial manipulation or medical trickery, which is illicit, as I understand it. Is there a doctor or someone with a medical background who can clarify this procedure in light of Catholic teaching? I am currently experiencing infertility and would like to understand this procedure better.

  12. angelmama Avatar
    angelmama

    I also looked into Gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT), as mentioned in Claire’s first post. I don’t understand why the jury is out on this procedure. It would appear to me to be illicit.

    The Wiki definition is this, “It takes, on average, four to six weeks to complete a cycle of GIFT. First, the woman must take a fertility drug to stimulate egg production in the ovaries. The doctor will monitor the growth of the ovarian follicles, and once they are mature, the woman will be injected with Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). The eggs will be harvested approximately 36 hours later, mixed with the man’s sperm, and placed back into the woman’s Fallopian tubes using a laparoscope.

    So in other words, the sperm and egg are not joined to force conception as an in vitro procedure. But the egg and sperm are taken from the woman and man and “mixed together” and then placed in the fallopian tubes in hopes of fertilization occuring “naturally”. If intercourse is both unitive and procreative, how is a child who is conceived through GIFT a product of the marital embrace?

    On the same page of info dealing with Reproductive Technology on the USCCB web site there is a Q&A at the bottom which says,

    “How do I know when a reproductive technology is morally right?”

    The rule of thumb is:

    Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral

    Procedures which add a “third party” into the act of conception, or which substitute a laboratory procedure for intercourse, are not acceptable.”

    Isn’t mixing the sperm and egg together in a petri dish, even if you aren’t attempting to achieve conception in said dish, substituting marital intercourse with a laboratory procedure? Again, if there’s a medical professional who can help me understand this, I’d be grateful!

  13. Kathryn Avatar
    Kathryn

    Elkabrikir brings up something very interesting: that it isn’t “natural” to watch others live (although I have occasionally wondered if the homeschool community could put on a Reality TV show just to prove we are not wacko…)

    I learned in “Christian history” at college that in the early days of Christianity, there were debates on whether a real Christian could go watch games at the Colosseum, inc. the Gladatorial Games, or if it was sinful behavior (people died after all!). I can’t help but wonder if Reality TV isn’t just a “soft form” of those old games. Certainly our society has much in common with old Rome: abortion, contraception, divorce, low fertility rates, out of the closet homosexual behavior, even some people who “married” their dogs! I also remember reading in a magazine where someone was had noticed the old Roman authors (say Catullus or Martial–can’t remember which) mentioned in their writings people who had symptoms very similar to symptons of the disease we now call AIDS.

    I don’t know what Rome’s final answer was about attending those old games. And I certainly would NOT say that people who watch J&K or the Duggars are sinning, but I do have a “bad feeling” about shows like that, and it is another one of those things I wonder about.

  14. Stan Williams, Ph.D. Avatar

    A few comments from the author.

    1) The USCCB is infamously not an authority on Catholic doctrine. And indeed the liberals that work there may be correct that some Catholic theologians may be debating some of these procedures. (Their way of being a dissident.) But that doesn’t mean the Vatican is debating them. (Get my drift.) Understand that the USCCB IS NOT UNDER THE VATICAN, nor does things with Vatican approval… just read Mother Angelia’s biography by Raymond Arroyo. . It is set up to administer and help coordinate the American bishops voice, but there aren’t usually bishops wandering the halls and looking over the shoulder’s of those the work there…which explains some of the scandalous movie reviews of the past.

    (2) If you do a little reading up on some of these “fertility” processes, you discover that the common method of collecting sperm involves the father in a grave sin.

    (3) I think angelmama has it correct. And if some of these procedures are debatable (I can’t imagine how), my observation about John and Kate is evidence that IUI is illicit.

    (4) Go to my blog and look at the two photographs posted there, and then read my P.S. It was too pejorative to post here, but I think it’s more good evidence that all this stuff is immoral. http://www.crossingnineveh.blogspot.com

  15. Claire Avatar
    Claire

    Stan and Angelmama,

    There is a way of obtaining a sperm sample without making the man commit a grave sin. It is done using a perforated condom during intercourse. I doubt that Jon and Kate used this method, since they’re not Catholic and Protestant denominations probably don’t have moral objections to the more customary methods of obtaining sperm samples. The reason that the jury is still out on IUI and GIFT is that since the sperm can be collected during the marital act, the martial act is still part of the process, even though the actual conception doesn’t occur at the same time as the martial act. Based on my own experience with IUI, my gut tells me that it’s not a good way to conceive a child, but that’s personal revelation which I wouldn’t inflict on anyone.

  16. Claire Avatar
    Claire

    As far as the PS section on your blog: the photo of Jon and Kate around the dinner table is of Kate serving out dinner, while the picture of the Duggars is of Jim Bob leading a family Bible study. Women typically take the lead when it comes to serving dinner, as they are traditionally the ones who prepare dinner. Furthermore, in a busy household, when one spouse had an organized/Type A personality and the other spouse has a laid back personality, it’s inevitable that the organized one is going to be the stronger presence when it comes to rounding up the kids, etc. In the Duggar household, both spouses are fairly laid back, so Michelle doesn’t tend to orchestrate things the way Kate does.

    I’m not trying to be argumentative, and I have always admired Dr. Williams’ articles (including this one). I honestly didn’t realize that the USCCB wasn’t a reliable authority on Church teaching; I figured that the bishops are part of the magesterium so their website must be reliable. I will certainly take that into account if I’m ever faced with a difficult moral decision in the future. And as I said, based on my own experience I am not a proponent of IUI. I’m also not a huge fan of Jon and Kate; in fact, I no longer watch their show (but I do still watch the Duggars, because I admire their faith).

    I guess I’m just feeling a little defensive because in my household, while we don’t have 18 kids or even 8, we have a very hectic life, and having a personality very simliar to Kate’s (organized/Type A), I tend to orchestrate a lot of things, and my romantic feelings for my husband go on the back burner when we’re in the middle of chaos. That’s how I am; I don’t relax till the work is done. It’s just my personality, and I suspect it’s Kate’s as well. If cameras followed me, you probably wouldn’t see a visible romantic connection between my husband and me until a calmer moment. However, when it comes to big decisions (such as who to vote for, who to name as guardian for our child in the event of our deaths, etc), I defer to my husband as the head of our home. It’s because of my commitment to defer to him that I have come to realize the necessity of voting pro Life across the board, avoiding artificial contraception (not that that would ever be an issue for us!), etc. And we have always followed Church teaching on the natural law; even when we did our IUI we were not aware that it was illicit; we honestly thought that the jury was still out.

    So, while I think this article makes a good point, what I’m saying is that there may be other components to it, too, and I do feel that if I were in the limelight my own marriage would be misinterpreted based on some of these observations.

Leave a Reply