New Book: Pill is Marital ‘Cancer’ — Mentally, Physically and Spiritually
Posted By Jennie Chancey on June 30, 2010
NEW YORK, June 29 /Christian Newswire/ — Irish pharmacist and pro-life leader Patrick McCrystal is in New York City this week for the U.S. launch of his second book, which deals with the devastating effect contraception has on marriages and the culture as a whole.
McCrystal’s book comes on the heels of Nancy Gibb’s recent expose in Time magazine, “Love, Sex, Freedom and The Paradox of the Pill,” which celebrates the “first medicine ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick.” This was followed by the surprisingly candid commentary on the Pill by movie star and celebrity sex symbol Raquel Welch, who sees the lasting legacy of the Pill as the breakdown of marriage and the family: “I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.”
“Contraception is a most potent destroyer of marital harmony,” said McCrystal, author of Who’s at the Centre of Your Marriage: The Pill or Jesus Christ. “Most would be surprised to see me and Raquel Welch lining up on the same side of a debate, but she makes some very smart and accurate points in her column,” observed McCrystal. “While her diagnosis is correct, my book goes a step further to offer the prescription that can help heal ailing couples: re-centering their marriage on Christ.”
Read the rest at this link.
About The Author
Jennie Chancey
Jennie is the wife of Matthew and mother of ten children, all of whom keep the household bubbling with life, learning, and levity. Jennie co-founded LAF in 2002 with Lydia Sherman and has been delighted to hear from women all over the world who enjoy their femininity and love to cultivate womanly virtues.Comments
13 Responses to “New Book: Pill is Marital ‘Cancer’ — Mentally, Physically and Spiritually”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A very interesting article. I wished people could grasp what the Pill is truly doing to their marriage. When you take the pill you are putting a wall between you and God because you are telling your partner, “I want everything there is about you, except your fertility”. How is this supposed to make us feel when this message is being sent to our unconscious. Part of us is now undesirable, and God made all of us, so now a part of who God is is BAD. Thus, the wall between you and God.
I was on the pill before I got married and didn’t believe how destructive it was until someone made me think about what I was really doing. Back in the late 60s a document came out (Humanae Vitae) predicting what the Pill would do to society over the course of time. This document was scoffed at by many but decide for yourself if the predictions came true: First, there would be a general lowering of morality in society; Second, there would be a general disregard for the physical and psychological well-being of females by males (think pornography and sexual abuse); Third, that governments would use family planning programs for coercive purposes once contraception became widely available; and Fourth, that we would begin to treat our bodies as though they were machines.
This is so toxic to us and our society. We need to take back that which God gave us and protect it with love and reverence. Fertility is not a bad thing in marriage. Children help to bond a marriage, especially when they are accepted as part of who we are as humans.
There’s a social scientist at the University of Stanford named Robert Michael who did statistical scientific investigation on the effects of children on marriage. Michael’s first observation is that the statistical data show that those who use contraceptives have fewer children and have them later in marriage. His statistical data show that those who have the first baby in the first two years of marriage and another baby in the next couple years of marriage, have a much longer lasting marriage than those who don’t.
The Pill is bad for marriage. It makes us too independent of our partner, takes God out of the equation, and it makes us selfish. We are withholding a part of us that is so special and unique.
If we look at Luke 9:59-62: And to another he said, “Follow me.”
But he replied, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”
But he answered him, “Let the dead bury their dead.
But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
And another said, “I will follow you, Lord,
but first let me say farewell to my family at home.”
To him Jesus said, “No one who sets a hand to the plow
and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.”
Jesus is telling us that we need to follow the vocation which he gave us. If following Jesus is being married and having a family, we should not run away from it. People say that they are not ready for children yet. But clearly, God has other plans. Plans we may not seem ready for yet. We need to trust God and his plans. He is the only one who can put a 2nd soul in a woman’s body. Only God can create life, we are the vessel. Say yes to God, and no to societal norms.
I’m all for the government staying out of our business. But if by “coercive purposes” you mean that they are trying to mandate the number of children we produce, you’re implying that we have no free will. The fact that you claim birth control is treating our bodies like machines is laughable to me. While you boast and brag about “trusting God and his plan for us” to keep getting pregnant, darn near defines the term. Ridiculous. It is a shared opinion in my marriage to not bear children. I can assure you my husband feels no inadequacy in our love making, simply because I do not demand he impregnate me each time.
You are jumping to conclusions that are not found on this site. Sexual intimacy was designed by God for pleasure as well as procreation. We do not “demand that our husbands impregnate” us. Please read more carefully and thoughtfully before making such absurd claims. No one is calling for “coercive” childbearing here. We merely wish to point out that science demonstrates the poor results of forcing our bodies to hormonally and chemically alter what they are naturally designed to do. You have freedom of choice in this area; we are simply pointing out the verifiable consequences of those choices.
I’m not talking about the two sentences that were your own words, in this article. I am responding to all of the comments surrounding it. I am “putting a wall up between me and God”?, Why?,,because I’m smart enough to consider the future, before irresponsibly having sex. The pill “makes us selfish”? haha. Really? That’s funny, because I thought selfish was when you knew you could not afford to, nor wanted to, raise a child, and had one anyway…just because,,, you know “God said so” I hate to break it to you, but when you have sex unprotected, you get pregnant. There’s no magic or mystery to it. It’s not some higher being’s plan. It’s science. Sex + no birth control = baby. So the fact that someone pops out 19 kids is not an indication of “God’s plan,” it is an indication of her own poor choice not to use the pill. So please don’t tell me I’m jumping to conclusions, when it is right there in black and white.
Hi, fedup,
I’ve read your comments here and wanted to respond to some of the issues you’ve raised in this one comment (rather than going to each one separately. It’s easier to write everything in one place!
) I don’t want to come across as harsh and I certainly don’t want to speak for anyone else. We don’t know each other, and the internet isn’t always the best method of communication – particularly about sensitive topics. I’d love to be able to get together and talk one-on-one with people who visit, because then we’d all be able to get to know each other rather than type to a computer screen. 
Personal interaction seems to favor civil discourse and mutual understanding much more so than online communications.
I am not sure what your religious background is. You’ve indicated that you attended Catholic school and that you believe in a “higher power.” You’ve probably read here that many authors for LAF are Christian, and many articles are thus geared toward women and families whose religious beliefs generally line up with the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is one of the reasons why you’ll see Scripture references in various pieces. Scripture and two millennia of Christian tradition teach that children are a blessing (c.f. Psalm 127:3.) Others have covered the theological aspects in much more depth than I could! But, I’ll sum up what I perceive to be common — we believe that children are blessings from God, and that God opens and closes the womb.
From a personal perspective, that belief is very comforting to me, because I’m struggling with severe health issues that may have rendered me infertile. After conceiving in March (to my husband’s and my utter surprise and delight), I miscarried in April. It was devastating. I’ve had to learn how to trust God and His plan in a million new and sometimes very difficult ways. I have friends (and I’m sure others here can speak to having friends and relatives in similar situations) who prayed for years before they were blessed with a child. Certainly, some went on to adopt children or assist children in other ways (in the foster care system, for example.) To summarize — I would gently point out that “sex + no birth control” doesn’t always “= baby,” as you put it. For me, at least, that’s been extraordinarily sad.
On eugenics and morality: proponents of eugenics have appealed countless times to what they believe to be true morality – i.e., what’s right and good not just what’s correct. They have cast themselves in a specifically moral light. You’ve indicated that you’re interested in history, which is wonderful! (My husband was a history major and I love studying different historical topics – especially from different perspectives. I always think it’s amazing how two scholars can examine the same set of facts and draw totally different conclusions.) One particular article by Mary Ziegler, “Eugenic Feminism: Mental Hygiene, the Women’s Movement, and the Campaign for Eugenic Legal Reform, 1900-1935,” 31 Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 211 (2008) cites well over a hundred useful sources which demonstrate that advocates of contraception and abortion in the early and mid 20th century saw their cause in moral terms. Margaret Sanger’s Woman and the New Race makes explicit appeals to moral standards of right and wrong. The full text (linked) is available on Google Books, and it’s well worth reading.
Authors have long connected birth control with attitudes of selfishness. From Juvenal’s writings (Satire VI, trans. Lewis Evans (New York: Harper & Bros., 1889), 62), to Roman author Aulus Gellius (c. AD 130 – AD 180) (see The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, vol. 2, 323), to scholars from all different religious traditions in the medieval era to religious and secular modern authors … the list is quite long. Secular philosopher Immanuel Kant cited avoidance of procreation as an immoral practice because it involves use of another person’s body for intimacy and pleasure – i. e., it’s the use of someone as a means to an end.
I’d recommend looking at these articles in particular for the historical data:
P. P. A. Biller, “Birth Control in the West in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” 94 Past and Present 3 (1982) [note that the article covers a broader period, but its focus is on the 13th and 14th centuries]
Keith Hopkins, “Contraception in the Roman Empire,” 8 Comparative Studies in Society and History 124 (1965)
John M. Riddle, Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999)
Please note that these authors have secular backgrounds and, in some cases, are very pro-choice. They’re certainly not biased to favor Christians, but their historical expositions are very interesting and useful.
I don’t believe any author here at LAF is advocating that women bear children for whom they can’t care. The situation isn’t really “either/or” – having many children and being able to take care of one’s children are not mutually exclusive. Certainly, we all know of cases where a woman seems to be overwhelmed and to have “too many” children. But rather than encourage her to avoid having children, perhaps we should focus on a more holistic conception of responsible parenthood, responsible sexuality, and the welfare of the whole person. Instead of looking at children as potentially detrimental to the environment, why not come up with environmentally-friendly solutions that enable all people to use resources more wisely?
I would encourage you to read some of the resources that I’ve cited. Please don’t hesitate to contact me personally if I can be of any assistance; I’m happy to send you copies of articles and such.
Warmly,
Luci
Luci,
I’m sorry to hear about your history with not being able to have a baby. I don’t want you to think that I am putting everyone down, that comments on this site. I am strictly referring to the ones who put ME down. I am by no means saying that everyone who tries, becomes pregnant. And I have no doubt that you, or the authors of the books and/or articles you read are not brilliant people. But again, just because someone is brilliant, that does not make their thoughts law. I am a selfless person, who does not wish to have children. If you do not feel I am selfish, than my comments are not meant for you.
Hi, fedup! (That looks strange in writing … but I don’t know your name.
) I’m so glad you’ve commented again and wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions.
Thank you for your kind words.
It’s a difficult time right now, and I am very grateful to you for your compassion.
I’m so sorry that you’ve felt put down here, and sincerely hope that my comments to you haven’t made you feel that way. Please, please, please let me know if you see something I write as a personal attack. And please know that I don’t intend for anything to be that way. Phrasing comments about social issues – especially over the internet!
– can be difficult.
I am a little perplexed by what you wrote: “…just because someone is brilliant, that does not make their thoughts law.” I completely agree! Maybe I’ve missed the point of what you wrote. (It’s been a long afternoon.
)
I understand from your comments that you don’t want to feel (and you don’t feel) like using the pill or other birth control is a selfish act. Would you say that’s correct? Do you see a statement like, “Use of birth control is a selfish act” as an attack on you? I honestly want to try to get to the heart of the matter here and make sure I understand what you’re saying.
If you do see that as an attack – would you mind explaining why?
I hope you’re having a wonderful day!
Warmly,
Luci
PS: If you’d prefer to respond privately, my email is mcleod.luci at gmail.com.
Luci, how could I not see it as an attack? When people comment on large families, and how they disagree with that lifestyle, women who live that lifestyle, too, feel attacked. Otherwise, they wouldn’t comment, explaining why they feel the way they do( on this site ) The only thing I don’t understand is why people think that intelligence makes you an expert on morality. I’m supposed to feel that I AM selfish, because someone with a degree feels so. It doesn’t matter to me how many phds’ you have, you can not prove issues on morality. If I feel as though I would rather not deal with having to dedicate my entire life to something, and I go about making sure it doesn’t happen, is selfless, then it is. Having children just because your mom wants you to, or someone says that “God” wants you to, to me, is absurd. It is selfish, in my opinion, to have children, solely for that purpose. If it is not 100% what you want, then you should not do it. Creating, and shaping a life, to me, is the absolute most major thing you will do in your life, if you so choose. It’s not something I take lightly. There are girls who have kids because they wanna “dress them up like dolls” or give them to their parents to raise. That’s not selfish? Then I must NOT know what is. Did you notice I do not say I disagree with people having seven, ten, twelve babies. No, I said it isn’t for ME. I don’t put people down for that, if that is what YOU really wanted for your life. Not what someone taught you is supposed to happen for you. The comment I made about how not using protection results in pregnancy, was the result of a comment made by someone else, claiming that it is God’s will and/or plan for them to have 20 kids. I personally just disagree with that. If I let myself have children, if my body was ABLE to , which I’ll never know, then I would have children. That’s all I am saying. For people to say something so blatently ignorant as ” using birth control is selfish” is just another example of how self serving people can be. When they use religion as a means to defend it, I get upset by that. I appreciate you taking the time to write me, and explain my side. Seems like a much better approach than branding me the selfish anti-Christ. – Kate
Hi, Kate!
I was hoping that you’d come back, and I’m grateful for your clarifications. I think we may have a lot more in common than was immediately apparent.
I’ll start by saying that the *last* thing I’d want to do is “brand” you something like a selfish anti-Christ! I really appreciate how we can have a good conversation about this without personal attacks. You sound like a lovely person and I hope that, if we met in real life, we’d be friends. 
You wrote, “The only thing I don’t understand is why people think that intelligence makes you an expert on morality.” I totally agree with that statement. Intelligence and one’s sense of morality don’t always go hand in hand. Would you say, though, that absolute moral standards exist? I get the sense from your comments that you see morality as a personal decision – i.e., each person chooses what’s right or wrong. Would you say that’s accurate? (I could have completely missed something; if so, I’m sorry!)
You said that “creating and shaping a life, to me, is the absolute most major thing you will do in your life, if you so choose.” I agree with you 110%!! I attended a school where, for a few girls, babies were like fashion accessories. That was completely and totally selfish. They conceived the children out of wedlock and had no idea what was actually involved in caring for these new humans. It was so, so, so sad.
I think that perhaps the crux of the matter is the definition of selfishness. I think we would agree on the fact that having children can be a selfish act. The corollary I see is: do you think that the use of birth control can be a selfish act? This is not to suggest that it is automatically a selfish act (I have my own views, but those aren’t relevant here) – but rather that it could/can be one. It seems to me that the issue cuts both ways. What do you think?
You referred to God and used quotation marks. I don’t know your religious background, but I saw an implication there that your religious beliefs are probably different from mine.
Would you say that’s accurate? (Please don’t feel like you have to describe what you believe about religion – I understand that it’s a personal subject! – but I think it would help to clarify where we’re coming from when we approach the issue & thus how we see it differently.)
What I really appreciate about your comments, Kate, is your explanation for why you felt attacked. I think all of us who blog/comment – myself very much included – can and should do a better job of being polite and not attacking other people. Putting people down is never a good response! It’s disrespectful and it absolutely shouldn’t happen. We can approach sensitive issues – like birth control – from different ethical perspectives and have a civil conversation (just like you and I are doing now!:)) and indeed learn from each other.
I’m also curious about one last item – let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it turned out that contraception tended to promote behaviors that harmed marriages. (I’m trying to be as broad as possible – it’s a hypothetical.) Not that this happened in every case, but that, on average, the use of contraception by married people tended to harm their marriages. What would you think?
It’s obvious that you’re very committed to your marriage and it sounds like you and your husband are very close!
I hope you’re having a wonderful Friday! I’d love your perspective on what I’ve written.
Warmly,
Luci
Hi Lucy,
Thank you, also, for taking the time to reply. I’m not really one for using other peoples’ words, but the dictionary definition for selfish is :devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. Well, this is where I feel it describes precisely what I’m defending. It is thinking of one’s own welfare, when deciding to have a child/children, when it doesn’t fully benefit the child. It is thinking of one’s self, to bring life/lives into a world that you might see as a disadvantage to them, simply because it is what YOU want.
I do consider my marriage to be a very strong one, built on trust, honesty, fun, and most important, of love. That being said, if someone else were in love, but decided not to marry, I would not deem that a selfish act. I feel as though everyone has his/her own desires, beliefs, limitations, etc. The only way I could see contraception as being harmful to a marriage, would be if one were looking to be a parent, and the other, not.
The reason I use quotations, when talking about God is because GOD is just one name used in describing a higher power. It just seems to me, that whenever one who considers themselves religious, in any sect, lives a particular way, he or she will use that name, to justify it. I have to admit it is a clever tactic,, to intimidate, chastise, convince, using something or someone who can not be seen, or proven. Most people would not want to burn in “hell” or insult Allah, etc. But I am not sure it is the most mature means to defend oneself. We live on earth, and do need to co-exist with one another. I wish we could do so, without judging what the other does on Saturdays or Sundays. I understand, again, that this does not define you, personally. You do seem like a thoughtful and kind woman. I’m merely explaining why I feel the way I do. Thanks for listening. I look forward to hearing from you again.
Hi, Kate! I’m so sorry it’s taken me forever to get back to your comment. My husband and I are moving this week, and I’ve found that we have *much* more clutter than I’d expected …
Anyway, I hope the delay wasn’t inconvenient for you – I’m now back to regular comment-posting. 
You wrote, “I feel as though everyone has his/her own desires, beliefs, limitations, etc.” That’s certainly true. As a Christian, I believe that God made all of us with our own unique gifts, talents, and characteristics – and those differences are a blessing! They enable us to work together. And, besides, the world would be pretty boring if everyone was the same.
That being said, I would ask whether you feel that absolute standards exist independent of personal characteristics or subjective opinions. It’s clear that you believe in a “higher power,” but I’m not sure to what extent you’d agree with the idea that God has laws for humanity that we should follow — laws that are applicable regardless of our personal opinions or where we find ourselves in life.
You also wrote, “The only way I could see contraception as being harmful to a marriage, would be if one were looking to be a parent, and the other, not.” That’s absolutely harmful. But … what about the use of intimacy for companionship/mutual love without openness to procreation? Here’s why I ask: throughout history, scholars and theologians alike have debated over whether the primary purpose of marriage is (a) procreation or (b) mutual love and companionship. During the Reformation, the vast majority of Reformers came out in favor of a dual purpose that put bothprocreation and mutual companionship at the top of reasons for marriage.
The idea behind the argument is that the use of another’s body in sexual intimacy is wrong, or selfish, if such intimacy isn’t open to those dual purposes. Intimacy isn’t just a “private” act, although it occurs in private — it has clear implications for the public sphere. Secular philosophers and authors have agreed (Kant’s exposition is particularly good, as is Daniel Defoe’s.)
With the use of contraception, then, one would fulfill the purpose of mutual love and companionship – without being open to the other primary purpose of procreation. (Contemporary scholars and theologians debate over whether intimacy must ALWAYS be open to procreation or whether one can avoid procreation in a moral fashion – whether through birth control or natural family planning.)
Intimacy, then, without being open to procreation, would be selfish — according to the definition you gave — because it’s serving one’s own desires and concerned only with physical pleasure for oneself and/or one’s partner.
What do you think? (I hope everything I wrote is clear — I’m trying to be precise with my words because it’s such an important issue!)
I hope you’re having a wonderful week thus far and look forward to hearing from you.
I promise I won’t take days to respond again!! — Thankfully, most of the packing is done … I’ll be so glad when it’s over! 
Warmly,
Luci
Hey Luci,
To answer your question, I probably do believe that there are set-in-stone,(sort of speak) rules that God would like us to follow. I have no idea what those are, because I do not know how I would choose from all of the religions out there, to decipher which is the “correct” Law. I don’t quite grasp how you could even possibly know what “He”, “She” , Whomever, wants you to do or not do. I say that because there are different rules , depending on which religion you’re talking about.
I just can’t say enough that it makes no difference to me, what scholars feel about intimacy, or what their ideals are. I’m not affected, whatsoever, by their thoughts and definitions of intimacy. No more than I am by words in a book, a book that could very well be just that, a book with words in it.
I guess maybe that’s where there is a barrier between us. No matter what one claims to know, he/she really, concretely, does not. Maybe that’s why we may never totally agree with one another, or see eye to eye on these areas. That is fine with me. Like I said, to each his own. The only time I comment is when I read something that conflicts with what I feel, and how I live.
At one time, “scholars” thought the earth was flat. They thought homosexuality was a disease or birth defect. What I’m trying to say is that they have been wrong before. We now know differently. Why should I take everything they say as Law? I think that is what free will is all about, no matter who you pray to.
Good luck with the move. I do wish you well. Please feel free to write me again, if you’d like to. – Kate
Hi, Kate,
I have some specific issues I’d like to address. Please don’t feel attacked; this isn’t personal, I just simply want to respond to what you’ve written.
Thank you for your kind words about the move.
“I have no idea what those are, because I do not know how I would choose from all of the religions out there, to decipher which is the “correct” Law.”
What investigations have you done? Have you read books on different religions? Yes, different religions have different rules and standards. But that fact alone doesn’t justify failing to investigate the claims of Christianity and different religions. You said, “No matter what one claims to know, he/she really, concretely, does not.” Well, if that statement is true, we can’t know if the statement ITSELF is true. We can’t know anything! That proposition doesn’t work in any aspect of life.
“I just can’t say enough that it makes no difference to me, what scholars feel about intimacy, or what their ideals are. I’m not affected, whatsoever, by their thoughts and definitions of intimacy.”
1. We’re all affected by those around us – scholars, parents, teachers, friends, family, spouses, etc. What others think about sexual morality shapes how we view the topic. We don’t develop our views in a vacuum!
2. It’s just not wise to ignore what others in the past have said about such serious issues! Yes, scholars/academics in history have been wrong on certain issues – but that’s no reason to throw out everything they’ve said. We’re not the first generation to consider issues of sexual morality. We should NOT abandon the wisdom of our forefathers and foremothers in favor of deciding what’s right and true for us. It’s just not open-minded at all to say that one doesn’t care about what scholars and others have thought. It’s one thing to consider others’ informed opinions and weigh the issues – and then decide for oneself – but it’s a totally different matter to decide that one doesn’t care about what other people say. That’s the opposite of open-mindedness; that’s deciding that what the individual thinks is what’s Right (capital R.)
3. We SHOULDN’T take everything at face value, and I don’t think anyone here would disagree. But, we should investigate these issues as best we can.
If absolute moral standards exist – and we both agree that they do – then it’s our duty as people to find out what those are (because BY NECESSITY we can’t develop them ourselves — since they would be subjective and therefore wouldn’t apply to everyone); likewise, it would then be a duty to follow those standards as best we can. By your logic, if the Bible could be just “a book with words in it,” we should find out if it is. We shouldn’t just leave the question unanswered! We can’t just ignore these issues and claim agnosticism. The topics touch on all aspects of what it means to be human. Refusing to investigate these claims – refusing to look at what others have said – refusing to make a judgment call (an act which is by its very nature a judgment call) – is neither rational nor intellectual.
Our opinions and beliefs should have serious intellectual (and spiritual) foundations. Otherwise, why would these standards be worth believing? We can’t just say that “I think xyz” and have that stand as a genuine reason to accept a decision as “moral” or “immoral.” Such propositions go against thousands of years of intellectual history, thousands of years of human investigations, and the nature of sociology, science, and all of the major disciplines.
I hope you had a wonderful week, and I look forward to hearing from you!
Warmly,
Luci