Patent Medicine from Dr. Popcak

I should probably stop writing about our buddy Dr. Popcak.  He's really not that important in the grand scheme of things.  Still, there is something about him that really rubs me the wrong way, especially when he talks about birth control.  What bothers me is not that I think he is wrong when he talks about NFP; I certainly think he is wrong, but that's not what bothers me.  What bothers me is that I think he is deliberately misleading people when he talks about the topic.  He is so committed to the notion that NFP is the only way to go that he seems willing to twist any evidence or circumstances into an argument supporting his position.

That, combined with his incessant pimping of his books, makes me think this guy is basically a huckster--a version of the old patent medicine sellers.  Like patent medicine, real people can suffer real consequences from swallowing Popcak's medicine.  He has an obligation to be truthful about what he is selling. I don't believe he is.  That bothers me.

Take for instance his recent post, entitled "CNN (!?!?) Loves NFP."  Every single thing about this post is disingenuous.  One click to the CNN article reveals that the piece is actually about the Fertility Awareness Method, or FAM.  FAM utilizes the superstructure of NFP--the charts, the taking body temperature, the mucus analysis, etc.--to determine the peak fertile and non-fertile periods, just like NFP.  However, and this is important, when a FAM practitioner reaches those days of maximum fertility (presuming she doesn't want to get pregnant), there is no requirement, as NFP has, that the couple abstain during the fertile periods.

Don't take my word for it.  Let's read the FAQ of the "Fertility Awareness Center," whose director is quoted extensively in the piece (emphasis mine):

Is Fertility Awareness Method (FAM) the same as Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

 There are many similarities between FAM & NFP. Both are based on the premise that a woman can know where she is in her cycle by observing the signs that her body gives her. Fertility Awareness in fact was derived from NFP. However, FAM is a secular practice, whereas NFP is generally taught and practiced within a religious (typically Catholic) context. Thus, an NFP class may be offered only to married or engaged couples, whereas a FAM class will likely be open to anyone, regardless of relationship status or sexuality. Moreover, NFP generally insists on "abstinence" during the fertile time, whereas FAM users may choose to incorporate one or more barriers during the fertile time or to enjoy forms of sexual expression other than intercourse. FAM also supports the use of condoms for disease prevention.

 In other words, when FAM tells the couple they are in a fertile period, the assumption is that the couple will use a condom, or have oral sex (presumably to ejaculation for the man, contra Popcak's One Rule), or whatever--all of which is considered to be morally unacceptable to the Catholic Church.  Widespread adoption of FAM by couples would not advance the ball at all from the perspective of those who hold to the Humanae Vitae line.  FAM is simply about advocating one basket of (Catholic Church prohibited) artificial birth control methods in favor of a different basket.

To be clear, I have no particular water to carry for hormonal birth control.  I can absolutely see why a woman would be uneasy mucking around with her biochemistry.  If my wife or someone else I was with preferred to use something like FAM to avoid taking hormones, that's fine (with the caveat that I would be concerned about effectiveness--notice that the doctor they interviewed express deep skepticism on that front).  If it works for a particular couple, great.

But none of that has anything to do with NFP.  NFP is not about opposition to hormonal birth control; it's about opposition to all forms of artificial birth control, and if Dr. Popcak's book is a fair indication, a whole lots else besides.  To conflate FAM with NFP is to attempt to sneak all of that other stuff--especially the part about extended periods not being able to have sex--through in the fine print.

It is a bait-and-switch, and it's is fundamentally dishonest.  It's patent medicine, once again.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

On a Pelagian Politics, and Why It Would Be Good

I have two very hot takes.  The first is that Joe Biden is the best United States President in my lifetime, and probably the best since Franklin Roosevelt, and his many critics on both the right and the left are wrong.  The second is that the Irish monk Pelagius and his (mostly Celtic) disciples were basically right, and more specifically Pelagius's great opponent Augustine (and by extension the rest of the Western Church ever since) was wrong.  But the hottest take, the Hegelian synthesis of this Hotness, is that these two takes are ultimately the same take.  I believe that Biden is a great President because I am a Pelagian with a Pelagian world view, whereas American politics is fundamentally Calvinist, which is just Augustinianism taken to its logical conclusion. Let me try to justify this ball of hot takes. 1. Most of what we know of Pelagius comes from his opponents, especially Augustine and Jerome, who attempted (more or less successfully) to have him cast out of the church a
Read more

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more