Abandoning NFP - damaging the Marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lovemysix,

What would happen if you were honest with your family, friends or church acquaintances about everything you have talked about? Or maybe with just a select few?

Do you think they would wish for the downfall of your marriage? Gossip about you? Shun you? Do you think they would end the friendship? Or would they merciful if you were honest with them like you were here?

I know it is not wise to broadcast your heart to the whole world. It is really not everyone’s business. I generally uphold the “Don’t ask Don’t tell policy” I have regretted that at times. I had a close friend who had extremely premature babies and life threatening pregnancies share with me her anxiety and inability to use NFP to avoid pregnancy. She was a CCL instructor and said, “I can’t believe I have lied to women (couples) all these years” That was in reference to being able to use NFP to avoid a pregnancy (and still have an intimate relationship, even if rarely) Her and her husband lived pretty close to celibacy for 10 years. It really took a toll. All along I never shared honestly the conclusions my husband and I made. I felt strongly that I did not want to interfere with her conscience and doing what she believed was right. I felt like a fake at times.

Eventually, I did share with her honestly and it only validated for her what her and her husband had already concluded.

I wrestle with this inability to be honest. Particularly in certain conversations where I feel I have to practically lie by omission. Just wondering if this is something you easily accept or have any struggle with.
 
"What would happen if you were honest with your family, friends or church acquaintances about everything you have talked about? Or maybe with just a select few?

Do you think they would wish for the downfall of your marriage? Gossip about you? Shun you? Do you think they would end the friendship? Or would they merciful if you were honest with them like you were here?"

I appreciate your question and understand where you are coming from. But honestly, at this point, it would be speculation because I don’t know anymore exactly how people would react. Like I said earlier, speculation tends to bring out meanness in the comboxes, and I have no desire to be part of any of that.

What I do know is that it is not worth the risk of fallout. Plus I really don’t think it is the business of our friends, family, and fellow parishioners.

We will continue with DADT. And as I mentioned before, we tend to get a pass on too much direct asking by the NFP crowd, not only because we have a large family but also because everybody saw with their own eyes just how sick I was during the time period I was having the last children, and I have become much, much healthier now that I am not getting pregnant constantly.
 
This is kind of a peculiar discussion, because it seems to be simultaneously running in two opposite directions:
  1. NFP is bad because it doesn’t work (sailor28).
  2. NFP is bad because it works all too well (cf 7armyrugrats’ judgy NFP teacher sister with only two kids)
 
Xantippe said:
This is kind of a peculiar discussion, because it seems to be simultaneously running in two opposite directions:
  1. NFP is bad because it doesn’t work (sailor28).
  2. NFP is bad because it works all too well (cf 7armyrugrats’ judgy NFP teacher sister with only two kids)
Click to expand...
For the record, I don’t think NFP is always bad and I think it works wonderfully for some people. Even if it works wonderfully with great sacrifice and frustration it is something that is not destructive for some even in the midst of trial. It is an ideal to hold up.

I think there are a lot of different conversations going on here. I wasn’t focusing on your part of it when I was writing. The thread veered off topic at the beginning but that is par for the course. I have a different interest in this thread than others do. I don’t get to ask the types of questions I am asking in real life to too many people.
 
I don’t think NFP is objectively bad. I am really, really glad we tried it and gave it all we had. I’m hippy enough to love the crunchiness of it, and I’m so thankful there is “green” option that more and more couples are availing themselves of, whether NFP or FAM. I think it is far preferable to chemicals and/or foreign objects being inserted into the body.

It didn’t work out for us in the end, but that doesn’t translate into hating it. I do believe it can be a viable option for some couples, and more power to them. I am a firm believer that every woman (and couple) should have a thorough understanding of how the female body works. I certainly want my daughters to know how their bodies work and to respect it.

We are all (whether male or female) truly wondrously made.
 
lovemysix said:
The minute the Church started talking about “responsible parenting” in conjunction with determining family size, she implicitly acknowledged that there is such a thing as “irresponsible parenting” with respect to determining family size. I don’t think there is any getting around that one, and I do believe that is probably something of a sea change. In days of yore, nobody realistically believed most people were going to be abstinent over long periods of their lives (barring perhaps true life and death situations, and even then a lot of people just weren’t able to cut it, got pregnant anyways, and died), so babies came when they came, and if you ended up with 10 of them, it must have been God’s will for you. Now that we have fertility knowledge, that has changed forevermore. There is no going back, for better or for worse.

Fertility awareness brings with it more responsibility. We are encouraged by the Church to be responsible parents, and given the length of our lives and our overall health and nutritrion in comparison to previous centuries, this will likely mean most people (not all, certainly) will need to take some action at some point in their lives to avoid pregnancy.

Society as a whole feels vested in people being responsible about childbearing, and that has led to a lot of busy-bodiness. In the old days, there wasn’t much to gossip about, other than the fact perhaps poor Mrs. Jones should just tell her husband **no more sex **now that they have 12 children. Nowadays, we all know how to prevent that from happening. So if you have 12 kids (on both sides–NFP and ABC), you CHOSE that. No breaks for you, nosirreee. You asked for it, honey.

I’ve been on the receiving end of that, and it’s not fun, but** it is the direct result of our modern day knowledge and technology that gives us a choice about whether or not to have children.** This is one reason I continue to believe in Church teaching—otherwise, it’s just too easy to lose sight of what really matters in life. I may not have been able to live up to it, but I do think its there for a reason.
Click to expand...
I agree with the spirit of your post - however the part I placed in bold made me both laugh and sigh. In my own experience, I would say we do NOT have a choice about whether we have or do not have children (except by total abstinence). It’s God’s choice. Fertile time / infertile time. BC pills / EBF’ing. Sterilization / condoms / letting what happens happen. I have either directly experienced or spoken with those (yes, American culture in action) who have experienced both pregnancy and infertility in ALL of those situations. Another thread speaks of IVF, even.

The point is that no matter how hard we try, God still is ultimately in control. I’m not saying we shouldn’t attempt to be responsible with our bodies and our choices. But I am personally tired that both sides that claim to know they can control fertility versus influencing it.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
But NFP is not the default. In marriage vows we do not stipulate NFP. God, in His very first command to humanity did not mention NFP. And what we term “NFP” is relatively new. In fact historically and even in many countries today NFP is not even known about. Birth Control was never the default until recently. With the different methods and availability and sexual revolution and no fault divorce ABC became the norm even in Christian and even in Catholic circles. But there was a time not too long ago that ABC was prohibited by every Christian Church in existence. Most Catholics worldwide today have no available way to practice NFP. So a vast majority of God’s Children who married and procreated since the time of Adam and Eve have not used NFP or ABC at all. “default” is hardly a word used to describe this kind of situation. “privilege” would be more like it. If you are educated and have access to NFP tools, then you are the elite privileged of the majority of Catholics worldwide today and historically. So perhaps instead of going around thinking NFP needs to be defended at every turn and that it is some sort of thing that needs to be pushed in every marriage, perhaps we should take a moment and thank God that we have the ability to have this knowledge, use the internet to debate this issue and educate ourselves about it and live in a time where with the full support of the Church we have the technology to have a tool that helps marriages that for some serious reason, cannot procreate at this time. Not many married couples who remain faithful to the Church have had this option. For them there was only two choices, abstain, or make a baby.
Click to expand...
This 👍
 
A poster referred to the fact that they feel freedom by abandoning NFP. Not sure if they mean they went to ABC and it gave them freedom, or if they meant discontinuing charting ( and not turning to ABC).

Freedom would not be felt by couples who are formed in the faith who turn to ABC. Slavery would be a better word.

Some NFP charters may not find freedom by abandoning the practice (and not turning to ABC), Not knowing may produce anxiety. Especially those who chart to monitor reproductive health.

Even with those who find reason to prayfully space, the luteal phase is pretty much “unscheduled” ,so God provides a balance for them.
 
" agree with the spirit of your post - however the part I placed in bold made me both laugh and sigh. In my own experience, I would say we do NOT have a choice about whether we have or do not have children (except by total abstinence)"

Cradle,

Really, I’m with you here. Anybody who thinks that anything short of complete abstinence or a total hysterectomy is a 100% guarantee of preventing pregnancy is a fool. If you are having sex, and you haven’t had a complete hysterectomy, there is the possibility you could get pregnant. Period. Full-stop.

However, I really don’t think we can deny the overall effectiveness of birth control—whether ABC or NFP–in limiting family size. Some methods may not be terribly effective for some couples, but falling birth rates all over the world clearly demonstrate that people are “controlling” their fertility fairly well, one way or another.

God is ultimately in control, but knowledge and technology have certainly given us the ability to limit family size—and pretty effectively, too, from the numbers.
 
Xantippe said:
This is kind of a peculiar discussion, because it seems to be simultaneously running in two opposite directions:
  1. NFP is bad because it doesn’t work (sailor28).
  2. NFP is bad because it works all too well (cf 7armyrugrats’ judgy NFP teacher sister with only two kids)
Click to expand...
The OP asked why NFP was abandoned and if it damaged the couple who anandond NFP marriage.

I never said NFP was sinful. I said it is possible to misuse NFP. I said it is not what every couple is supposed to be doing all the time. NFP is supposed to be use in grave-serious-just(chose your favorite word) circumstances, be discerned each month, and abandoned when unnecessary. NFP is supposed to be an alternative to total abstinence, not and alternative to children.

NFP/FAM are both marketed as natural birth control to the general public. Many couples and singles are beginning to practice one method or another because they are tired of the dangers if hormal birth control. Many Catholics, including me when I was still using NFP, employ the use of a monitor or a basal thermometer. Some of these are sold as or marketed as contraceptive devices, other are actively seeking to be marketed as contraceptive devices. The secular world admits that when practices strictly, NFP is more effective than most forms of ABC. Catholics also state its effectiveness as proof it actually works. It is Catholic birth control when used indiscriminately.

We are in an age when NFP is the norm not the exception. That is the result of a contraceptive mentality. People are so fearful of their fertility that they believe if they are not constantly on top of things they will remain pregnant. It is simply not true. For some of us (myself included here) will have many kids. Many people will only have a few.

The reason you see different sides is because some people abandon NFP to use ABC and some abandon it in order to put it in God’s hands, and some abandon it for total abstinence at least for a time of particular hardship. Since the OP asked why NFP was abandoned and for what was it abandoned and how it was destructive to our marriage people are going to have different answers.
 
momoffamily said:
A poster referred to the fact that they feel freedom by abandoning NFP. Not sure if they mean they went to ABC and it gave them freedom, or if they meant discontinuing charting ( and not turning to ABC).

Freedom would not be felt by couples who are formed in the faith who turn to ABC. Slavery would be a better word.

Some NFP charters may not find freedom by abandoning the practice (and not turning to ABC), Not knowing may produce anxiety. Especially those who chart to monitor reproductive health.

Even with those who find reason to prayfully space, the luteal phase is pretty much “unscheduled” ,so God provides a balance for them.
Click to expand...
Relax, no one is going to take away your charts.

I’ll repeat again—NFP if done for just/serious/grave reasons is AN ALTERNATIVE TO total abstinence. This is coming from the great wisdom of the Church.

When discerning monthly if you still have just/serious/grave reasons, if no reasons exist, NFP should be abandoned. No one has said that couples that continue to use NFP ARE sinful, but I admit I have said they MAY VERY WELL BE sinful because they are using NFP no differently than ABC. The reason many people who abandon NFP for ABC is because they realize this in themselves and they are tired of being judged for it.

I have not left it for ABC. I left it for total abstinence during severe health crisis. The freedom I felt was because I no linger obsessed about my fertility. I no longer feared pregnancy at a time that I needed to be 100% sure or else I could die or I could damage my baby. During the three years we were celibate, we began to realize that we had been misusing NFP and the damage it did to our relationship. We will not go back to it again. We are currently leaving it up to God, but if my health goes down hill again we will go back to total abstinence. Anyone with a health crisis, financial crisis, or whatever has that as a legitimate option. No one here has attempted to say NFP is sinful and should never be used.
 
" People are so fearful of their fertility that they believe if they are not constantly on top of things they will remain pregnant. It is simply not true. For some of us (myself included here) will have many kids. Many people will only have a few."

Yes, there are people who won’t have, 8, 10, 12 kids if they allow their fertility to run free. However, there are plenty of people who will, and there isn’t really a way to know whether you fall into that category or not without simply finding out by frequent pregnancy.

I went to a very small orthodox Catholic college, and I don’t know a single couple who did not have some sort of perceived infertility issue who married in their early 20s and did not have babies in fairly quick succession, breastfeeding or not.

Granted, I also think that now that we have some "control’ over our fertility, people in general don’t have the “whatever happens, happens” attitude about getting pregnant. If you have a normal sex life, don’t use some sort of birth control, and you don’t get pregnant within the first couple of years of marriage, some level of “infertility” is generally assumed.

Perhaps I just happen to know a bunch of super-fertile people (myself included). I dunno. But having babies in fairly quick succession in the 20s and early 30s was the norm among our family and friends, unless they were using some form of birth control/child spacing/whatever you want to call it. These were all people who married young (by today’s standards, anyway–early 20s) and believed in Church teaching.

I suspect nutrition, medicine, and general good health and longevity (at least compared to previous centuries) have tended to make us more fertile. (Not to mention infant mortality has decreased dramatically) While ecological breastfeeding worked for some women I know (at least to space children 2-3 years apart vs. 12-18 mos), I do know some who were deadly serious about practicing ecological breastfeeding who still had early return of cycles and babies fairly close together. So even that isn’t some sort of magical solution to the need to space children.
 
I understand. I all into that category too. I am super fertile. EBF is a joke for me. No one has said that the goal is to have as many children as possible. No one has said parents must produce whether or not the can provide for their kids. But the default is not to continuously try to control every aspect of life, including fertility.

Infertility is on the rise around the world, not increased fertility.

That being said, there have been times I have envied the barren myself. While using NFP strictly I had 6 kids in 8 years. That’s not counting the 7 miscarriages I had during that time as well. I understand how hard it can be. I get it and that is why I do not fault someone who chooses to use ABC. Celibacy is not a heavy cross to my husband and I, but it would completely destroy another persons marriage. I get that. If it had been destructive to mine I don’t know if I would have gone to it as well. I hope not, but I am human and chances are very high I would have.

Most couples that do strictly follow the rules of NFP do not have the problems we had. People can go a decade or longer and never conceive because they are lucky enough to have easy to read signs. It isn’t always used for just reasons. When used as the default, how is NFP less moral than using ABC when that couple has tried everything else and the reasons to avoid are serious?
 
LongingSoul said:
No I don’t agree that NFP is a method. There are methods used to recognise fertility but natural family planning means many different things to many different people. The one thing that natural family planning rejects in common with everyone though is limiting or completely stopping natural fertility for contraception. That is anti health and intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
So why is the rhythm method not considered NFP? When it is a method to recognise fertility? In other threads, people have told me NFP is a very specific method which requires instruction.

If NFP is the default, why doesn’t the church require it?
 
I hear you loud and clear, 7army.

There are no easy answers, and that’s just life. I have no desire to go back to the good old days of chamber pots, high infant and maternal mortality, and no antibiotics, but at the same time, knowledge and technology are double-edged swords and bring about a whole host of new responsibilities and challenges.
 
lovemysix said:
I hear you loud and clear, 7army.

There are no easy answers, and that’s just life. I have no desire to go back to the good old days of chamber pots, high infant and maternal mortality, and no antibiotics, but at the same time, knowledge and technology are double-edged swords and bring about a whole host of new responsibilities and challenges.
Click to expand...
Yes. And I wish each and everyone of us a long happy marriage in which to raise our kids. We are in a fallen world and none of us are perfect. I am very far from perfection and I have no interest in condemning anybody else. Life is hard enough without worrying about other people’s imperfections. It just gets so frustrating when others continuously state that NFP is never wrong, works for everybody if done “correctly,” is never birth control, and ABC will be the path to Hell for the selfish sex obsessed that use it. Dialogue can never happen successfully until each side is able to listen to and acknowledge the other honestly and admit the truth about their own imperfections. People need to stop jumping into defense mode and making blanket assumptions as if they are fact. All of us struggle and all of us need to examine ourselves constantly. The OP asked a good question but I suspect that none of us have a really good answer, or at least an answer that will be deemed acceptable by others.
 
Truth_Faith13 said:
So why is the rhythm method not considered NFP? When it is a method to recognise fertility? In other threads, people have told me NFP is a very specific method which requires instruction.

If NFP is the default, why doesn’t the church require it?
Click to expand...
The term NFP means Natural Family Planning, which is an umbrella term for methods that utilize periodic abstinence to avoid/postpone pregnancy.

There are a number of NFP methods. The methods consist of observing the body in order to determine when the fertile days are, so If a couple wants to avoid pregnancy they also avoid sexual relations on those days.

The Rhythm method is an earlier form of NFP that looked at the calendar to determine when the fertile time was. People would avoid sexual relations normally for about a week or so in the middle of the cycle. Often it wasn’t reliable because women often did not have very regular periods.

The Church does not require NFP because it is up to the couple to determine whether just reasons to postpone/ avoid pregnancy exist.

The Church does require that each and every marital act remain open to the possibility of conception.

This is the reason contraception is considered a sin, it alters each individual act. NFP is permitted because the sexual act is completed in a way that conception could occur if the wife were fertile. Women are not always fertile, so sex during infertile times is still licit and a good in marriage.
 
Xantippe said:
This is kind of a peculiar discussion, because it seems to be simultaneously running in two opposite directions:
  1. NFP is bad because it doesn’t work (sailor28).
  2. NFP is bad because it works all too well (cf 7armyrugrats’ judgy NFP teacher sister with only two kids)
Click to expand...
You must read Chesterton. He spends significant time in “Orthodoxy” noticing how the Church tends to take flack from both flanks. That she’s too judgmental AND too readily forgives sinners, she’s too cerebral AND too mysterious, she’s too stuck in the past AND too eager to infer new conclusions from old defined teachings. Fun stuff!
 
Truth_Faith13 said:
So why is the rhythm method not considered NFP? When it is a method to recognise fertility? In other threads, people have told me NFP is a very specific method which requires instruction.

If NFP is the default, why doesn’t the church require it?
Click to expand...
Mary Gail has explained it well. NFP is an umbrella term. It connotes an overall attitude towards the body and the sexual life that is pro-life in contrast to the contraceptive attitude which literally means ‘against life’.

Natural family planing respects the body’s God given fertility and choose to abstain or engage in sex at the fertile times of the month depending on your desire to have a baby or not at the time. The natural family planners who are spacing or have finished childbearing, use various methods and some dedication in detecting ovulation. The natural family planners who are trying for babies or taking a whatever comes road don’t need to really worry too hard about the methods unless they have trouble falling pregnant. All these types are natural family planners. They don’t in any way interfere with the ecology of the body in planning their families.

A few years ago where I live we had a massive rain and flood episode. Thousands of houses were destroyed and people died. A whole town was washed away. Most of the devastation turned out to be because of how natural waterways had been damned up or re-directed in the pursuit of progress. When the floods came, the water did what the water always did for thousands of years and took back its natural pathways destroying everything in its ways. You can’t take control of the waterways without affecting the long term safety of the people who’ve build their lives around this attitude of controlling the lake and river systems. After the water went down that town that was completely destroyed was rebuilt a km or so away from the original town at a place that respected the natural flow of the river should need be.

Can you see the difference between building the family around the natural flow of the body … and manipulating the body ‘flows’ in order to claim an artificial place to build the family? It’s not ecologically (morally) sound.
 
7armyrugrats said:
No one has said that couples that continue to use NFP ARE sinful, but I admit I have said they MAY VERY WELL BE sinful **because they are using NFP no differently than ABC. **
Click to expand...
If NFP (awareness of fertility) is “used” to avoid, then they are using it with the same purpose as ABC. The difference does not lie in the purpose - eg. avoiding for a just reason, or an unjust reason. The difference, which makes NFP licit and ABC not, lies in the method. In one case, you don’t have sex, in the other you have “corrupted” sex. That which makes ABC wrong is not possible with NFP, and the two should never be equated in this way. I am not saying that one’s attitude to NFP cannot be wrong, but I am saying that the transgression, if any, should not be compared with ABC, any more than celibacy should.

There appear to be 2 “domains” of sin.
  1. Corrupting the sex act - possible only with ABC.
  2. Avoiding children without just cause - possible with ABC and with NFP.
    And, potentially total abstinence in marriage might be a factor in 2 as well.
7armyrugrats said:
I have not left it for ABC. I left it for total abstinence during severe health crisis. The freedom I felt was because I no linger obsessed about my fertility. I no longer feared pregnancy at a time that I needed to be 100% sure or else I could die or I could damage my baby. During the three years we were celibate, we began to realize that we had been misusing NFP and the damage it did to our relationship. We will not go back to it again. We are currently leaving it up to God, but if my health goes down hill again we will go back to total abstinence. Anyone with a health crisis, financial crisis, or whatever has that as a legitimate option. No one here has attempted to say NFP is sinful and should never be used.
Click to expand...
Consistent with what you’ve said, to choose total abstinence over NFP (assuming a desire for sex) must reflect either or both of:
  1. Frustration at the mechanics of assessing fertility;
  2. Concern about the residual risks arising from it, and the stress of making the decisions.
It would seem that if one could easily have perfect knowledge of fertility, one would not choose celibacy - so the problem of NFP (in your situation of illness at least) arose from its imperfections, not the principles. I remain a little unclear of why you “leave it up to God” now that you are well? Is it that you simply have a neutral stance on more children at present?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top