Spiritual Responses to the Regulation of Birth (A Historical Comparison)

Over 30 years ago the founders of the Christian Family Movement (CFM), a worldwide Catholic family action group, conducted a survey to investigate the marital effects of practicing “rhythm. ” Their final report indicated that many participants felt that periodic abstinence was harmful to their marriage and caused spiritual and religious distress. The CFM survey results were thought to have been influential in convincing the 1966 Papal Birth Control Commission to recommend a change in church teaching. The purpose of this paper is to report a re-analysis of the 1966 archived data (in the light of the Papal Encyclical Humane Vitae–On the Regulation of Birth) and to compare that study with responses from married couples using modern methods of NFP, i.e., methods that purport to be more effective and to have fewer days of periodic abstinence. This paper will provide an examination of the original study within its historical context and report on the responses relating to spirituality from the 1966 couples in comparison with couples currently practicing periodic abstinence through the Billings Ovulation Method. SPIRITUAL RESPONSES TO THE REGULATION OF BIRTHS In the mid-1960s, Patrick and Patricia Crowley, the founders and executive secretaries of the Christian Family Movement (CFM), conducted several international surveys to determine how the practice of the calendar-rhythm method of family planning affected marital life. (1) The Crowley’s were members of the Papal Birth Control Commission that was studying the question of population and family planning and ultimately considering the question whether the Catholic Church should change its teachings on birth Life and Learning XII 266 control. In 1966 the Crowley’s distributed a questionnaire to members of CFM throughout the US and Canada that asked them how “rhythm” either helped or harmed their marriage. The responses that they received from the participating couples were mostly negative in that the majority felt that the practice of “rhythm” somehow harmed their marriage. The results of this study were never published but rather were submitted as a written report to the Papal Birth Control Commission. According to Robert McClury, a journalism professor from Northwestern University, this report influenced the members of the Papal Commission to recommend that the Catholic Church change its position on the use of contraception. (2) McClury indicated that the report and the negative responses to the practice of rhythm contributed to the “turning point” in the deliberations of the Papal Commission. The written responses (data) from the 278 couples who completed Crowley’s questionnaires are on archive at the University of Notre Dame. The qualitative data have never been analyzed using modern qualitative research methods. A re-analysis of the Crowley’s qualitative data using modern methods of analysis would be of interest to historians, to individuals involved with Church policy, and to health professionals interested in family planning issues. The purpose of this paper is to present a re-analysis of the spiritual responses from the 278 couples who were practicing calendar-rhythm in the Crowley study and to provide a comparison analysis of the spiritual responses from 192 contemporary couples that are currently using a modern method of natural family planning, the Billings Ovulation Method. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND During the l940s and 1950s a number of Catholic and Christian “family life” organizations or movements emerged in the United States. (2-6) The purposes of these organizations were to support and strengthen family life in the United States. They were in part a response to the aftermath of World War II and the rise of communism, which both posed threats to traditional American Richard J. Fehring and Elizabeth McGraw 267 family life. One of the largest and most successful of these family movement organizations was the Christian Family Movement (CFM). Patrick and Patty Crowley founded the CFM in the Archdiocese of Chicago around 1946 with the encouragement of Monsignor Reynold Hillenbrand, their spiritual advisor. (4) The CFM started out as a local movement of small groups or “cells” of families who would meet on a regular basis to discuss religion, scripture and current topics that pertained to family life. Following the study, discussion and reflection on scripture, they would focus on how to take action on issues that were raised. This is why the CFM can be termed a Catholic action group. In the 1950s and 1960s, one of the topics of concern was birth control. Largely due to the efforts of the Crowleys, the CFM movement grew to an international organization of over 145,000 members by the mid1960s. The 1960s was a decade of tremendous social change for the world. In the Catholic Church, that change was stimulated by the Second Vatican Council (called by Pope John XXIII in 1962). One of the key members of the Council was Bishop, and later Cardinal, Leo Joseph Suenens from Belgium, who convinced Pope John, and subsequently Paul VI, that the question of birth control should be taken out of the purview of the entire council and studied instead by a special commission. (2,5) Thus, the Pontifical Commission for the Study of Population, Family and Births (less formally known as the Papal Birth Commission) was created in 1963 by John XXIII and continued by Paul VI. The Commission began with six members and conducted six meetings from 1963 to 1966. By 1966 the commission grew to have over seventy members. (2,5) The largest group of these was added in 1965. Within the 1965 group there were three married couples Dr. Charles and Elisabeth Rendu from France, Dr. Lourent and Colette Potvin from Canada, and Patricia and Patrick Crowley from the United States. (2,5) The original purpose of the Commission was not clearly defined. It was given the broad purpose to study the questions of population, birth control, and the effects on the family. (2) The Life and Learning XII 268 problem of population and birth control was among the major topics addressed by the United Nations at that time. (2,6) As the Commission evolved, its members eventually saw the possibility of influencing Church teaching on the matter of birth control. The leader of the commission, Fr. Henri de Riedmatten, who was aware of the possibility of change in the Church’s teaching, asked the Crowleys to survey members of the CFM on their opinions of birth control, the Church’s teaching, and the effect of “calendarrhythm” on marriage and family life. (2,6) The Crowleys then conducted a series of three surveys among CFM members in the United States and other countries. (1) The survey questionnaire asked the participants to comment on the effectiveness of the rhythm method and on the question whether the practice of rhythm was helpful or harmful to married life. The data from of the surveys were analyzed with the help of Professor Donald Barrett, a sociologist from the University of Notre Dame, and one of the members of the Birth Control Commission. Professor Barrett and the Crowleys presented the results to the Commission in 1966. Patti Crowley also gave a short paper called “Feminist Response,” in which she explained that the practice of rhythm was harmful to married life and that no good could come from it. (1) As is well known, the Birth Control Commission eventually recommended that the Church change its teaching on birth control. However, there was no consensus among the members of the Commission and, eventually, a majority and minority report was presented to Paul VI. The majority report provided criteria for couples to make a responsible decision for limiting family size. It referred to the principle of totality by stating that as long as the couple is open overall to having children, each and every marital act does not have to have a procreative intent. (2) The majority report is also thought to have more of an emphasis on the importance of the marital relationship and individual conscience (i.e., the personalist response). The majority report was intended to be a private recommendation to Paul VI, a report that he alone was to consult in making a decision about Church teaching. Richard J. Fehring and Elizabeth McGraw 269 However, the report was leaked to the press and subsequently published in its entirety by the National Catholic Reporter. (7) Following the publication there were great expectations that the Church would change its teachings on birth control. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT The historical context of the commission and the Crowley’s survey was one of change. Of note is that the first birth control pill (Enovid) was approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960. John Rock, M.D., a Catholic obstetrician and gynecologist from Harvard University, was one of the clinical investigators who gathered data to obtain FDA approval for the pill. (8) In 1963 Rock published A Time For Change, which challenged Church teaching on birth control and called for change. (9) Catholic theologians (including Cardinal Suenens) began to openly question Church teaching on birth control and America magazine had a series of articles on the topic. The secular media also fueled the expectation for change in popular magazines (e.g., Time, Look, Life, Newsweek) and in television programs. A popular religious magazine, St. Anthony’s Messenger, and the March 1966 issue of the Ladies’ Home Journal had articles about the Crowley survey, the damaging effects of rhythm, and the expectation for change in Church teaching. (6,10) Furthermore, the national CFM conferences had speakers from Planned Parenthood and articles in its newsletter (ACT) that called for change in Church teaching and illustrated stories of personal distress alleged to flow from the damaging effects of rhythm on marital life. (2, 6) Coincidentally, the 1950s and 1960s were the decades when the “modern” methods of natural birth control (i.e., the symptothermal method and the