Birth control for very serious reasons

[felra]

josea:

How good are we informed about NFP? As good as a normal christian out there: very little. But as a normal christian we did not find the place where to get help so far.

Regards,
Jose

Given the scarcity of NFP instuctors in your area, here is an internet web site that has a NFP discussion forum moderated by certified NFP instructor who has a BS in biology and MS in human physiology background; she also will answer email questions for more specific concerns:

Sara Fox Peterson: a stay-at-home mom and certified teacher of the Billings Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning. She holds a BS in biology and an MS in human physiology, both from Georgetown University, and lives in Maryland with her husband and two sons.
**
**Looking for more information on Natural Family Planning? Visit our Natural Family Planning Resource Center.

For additional ‘cyber-support’ you are also most welcome to join in the discussions in the Catholic Mom Community’s NFP Forum - http://p205.ezboard.com/fcatholicmomcommunityfrm63

*copyright 2004 Sara Fox Peterson :*Sara can be contacted by email at sfp@thosepetersons.com - please indicate “NFP” in the subject line of your email.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Theoretically the NFP is a very secure method but only theoretically, the chances of making a mistake using NFP practically are way biger than using let’s say the pill and a condom at the same time. This is not an argument.

I disagree. This is not theoretical. Studies show that NFP is just as effective as the best artificial methods available.

Between 1976 and 1978, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare conducted a prospective study to determine the relative user effectiveness of two different systems of Natural Family Planning.[1] Participants were randomly assigned to either the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) or Ovulation Method (OM) sides of the study. … group of 1257 couples …

The couples who followed these simple rules [STM] achieved a 100% effectiveness rate in avoiding pregnancy, i.e., zero unplanned pregnancies. (The couples who used the OM rules had 5.67 unplanned pregnancies per 100 woman years of exposure, i.e., about a 94% method effectiveness rate. Better OM results were achieved in a five nation World Health Organization study: a standard Pearl rate of 2.6; i.e. a 97.4% effectiveness rate.)

{http://www.ccli.org/nfp/effect2.shtml}

I believe irrational fears of this method have blinded you to the facts of these studies, and convinced you that these are merely “theoretical” effectiveness rates. You are incorrect in your assumptions.

 

[josea]

Dear Dave,

Probably I did not explain myself properly. I try again:
I think it is much easier, due to the complicated issue of monitoring fertility, to make a mistake using NFP than using a couple of artificial methods. Do you agree now?

Dear felra,
Thanks for the link. I will use it if necessary.
Regards,
Jose

 

[CatholicMatthew]

josea:

I think it is much easier, due to the complicated issue of monitoring fertility, to make a mistake using NFP than using a couple of artificial methods. Do you agree now?

Actually, when you are using a sympto-thermal method and utilizing a conservative phase one rule and a rule that requires a stronger shift for end of phase II the ability to make mistakes are very low. Temps are very cut and dry and can be used to determine end of phase one (previous cycle info) and end of phase II (thermal shift is pretty obvious).

Matt

 

[goravens]

I’d second what Catholic Matthew said. If you’re charting temperatures, it’s a physical impossibility to become pregnant after the temp rise has occurred. Temp, cervical fluid, and cervix changes can all be monitored to bracket your wife’s fertile time, without needing to have a regular schedule.

I can certainly sympathize with your struggle…you have a very serious reason for avoiding another pregnany. When we first started using nfp it was very scary to me. Even though it’s effective, I felt very vulnerable because you’re so free, open and without reservation. There’s nothing else keeping you from having a baby except your own observations, judgments, and self-control. And that can be scary if you need to seriously avoid another pregnancy. So I can definitely sypathize with you and your wife. For us, even though it was worrisome at first, it’s been the best thing for us. Our love and sacrifice for one another has really increased and nfp has proven effective for as long as we have to avoid a pregnancy. I hope you both will pray about this together and entrust God’s will in your lives…that has never failed me in any kind of personal struggle.

 

[PaulDupre]

josea:

I do not konw of anybod ygetting pregnant taking the pill and many, many cases close to me of getting pregnant using naturla methods. There is a clear difference.

My daughter has three beautiful sons, all conceived while she was on the pill. She never missed a dose, but got pregnant anyway.

Please, get informed, the pill is not abortive, it blocks ovulation, nothing else, and if you mean that in the rare case of fecundation the pill could induce an abortion because the body is not ready to receive the fecundate oocite, it should moraly be seen as a secundary effect, using the same method you do to argue about this issues.

You should get informed, Josea. The formulations used in the 50’s thru the 70’s indeed blocked ovulation. But they had terrible side effects. In the 80’s the newer low-dose pills were formulated. They have far fewer side effects, but they work differently. Rather than block ovulation, they make the uterine wall unable to host the embryo, resulting in a spontaneous abortion.

BTW, so everyone will be clear, NFP is not the rhythm method. It has nothing to do with counting days or anything like that. It is highly scientific, and as effective as the pill if used correctly. It is a shame that most Catholics know nothing about it.
God bless you,
Paul

 

[josea]

I am informed about how the actual combination-pills (estrogen-progesterone pill) work-

Here a summary:

Estrogen present in the pill inhibits ovulation by suppressing the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) by the pituitary gland.

Progesterone, which is produced during the last half of the menstrual cycle, prepares the endometrium to receive the egg. If the egg is fertilized, progesterone secretion continues, preventing release of additional eggs from the ovaries.

It also affects the endometrium to make it hostile to implantation. But this is a secondary effect and it is not the main reason why progesterone is used here. The main reason is to make the body think that the woman is pregnant and so avoid the ovulation. In the rare case that an egg is released and fecundated, it could not get implanted, again, that could be seen as a secondary effect.

(The mini-pill has only progesterone and it is less efficient in suppressing ovulation so the ovulation could occur and, if fecundated, the egg could not be implanted.)

I am still not sure if it is morally licit the combination I talked in one of my last posts about NFP and the mini-pill taken only in the second part of the cycle. It is actually used by some conservative catholic people as a mean to regulate the cycle and avoid extra ovulations allowing a normal single ovulation to occur. But as I said, it could also be seen as a complicated way to stay on a thin line between what is moral and immoral.

Here they use the “excuse” that no NFP method is convenient for them (because as you said: double ovulation and an irregular cycle can be easily detected by NFP). Anyways they were not sure about NFP because also resulted in birth o babies and then a medicine is used (primolut-nor) that is basically progesterone as in the mini-pill. Taking this pill after the ovulation regulates the time of menstruation AND, at the same time, impairs extra ovulation.

They would practice abstinence from the first day of the cycle until day 19 (taking the pill day 16).

My problem with this method is clear. If it is not licit to suppress the normal ovulation, why is here allowed to suppress an extra ovulation?

Of course the reasoning behind is the “second effect” case. One takes this pill to regulate the period but one is also aware that this can not be done without avoiding the extra ovulations. But this is exactly what they want: to avoid this second ovulation. The second effect is also wanted here.

It looks to me as a very very complicated way to try not to cross the line, although I think the line is crossed anyways.

Why is it so complicated? If this is licit, is that the kind of complicated moral exercises God wants for us?

Regards,

Jose

 

[josea]

And about the infallibility or not of the HV, please revise the case of usury. In the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Canonists adopted it as well as the theologians; and Benedict XIV made it his own in his famous Encyclical “Vix pervenit” of 1 November, 1745, which was promulgated after thorough examination, but addressed only to the bishops of Italy, and therefore not an infallible Decree. On 29, July, 1836, the Holy Office incidentally declared that this Encyclical applied to the whole Church; but such a declaration could not give to a document an infallible character which it did not otherwise possess. Canonists adopted it as well as the theologians; and Benedict XIV made it his own in his famous Encyclical “Vix pervenit” of 1 November, 1745, which was promulgated after thorough examination, but addressed only to the bishops of Italy, and therefore not an infallible Decree. On 29, July, 1836, the Holy Office incidentally declared that this Encyclical applied to the whole Church; but such a declaration could not give to a document an infallible character which it did not otherwise possess.

I find really strange that in some cases a Encyclical is considered infallible even when there are doubts about it and in other cases like the one I present here is not because is only address to Italy, although the Holy Office, and the common sense, said that this should be applied to eth whole Church???

In any case, the teaching of the Church about usury considered as a sin (Vix pervenit)

I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious….
7. First of all, show your people with persuasive words that the sin and vice of usury is most emphatically condemned in the Sacred Scriptures; that it assumes various forms and appearances in order that the faithful, restored to liberty and grace by the blood of Christ, may again be driven headlong into ruin. Therefore, if they desire to invest their money, let them exercise diligent care lest they be snatched by cupidity, the source of all evil; to this end, let them be guided by those who excel in doctrine and the glory of virtue.

is later modified without problems.

Jose

 

[Vincent]

josea:

In any case, the teaching of the Church about usury considered as a sin (Vix pervenit)

is later modified without problems.

There’s more to it than that:

"Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time. A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself. But this is not a change of the Church’s teaching on usury. Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury. This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury. "

“The Red Herring of Usury”

 

[Vincent]

And unlike the statements on usury, Humanae Vitae was addressed to, “To His Venerable Brothers the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, to the Clergy and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World, and to All Men of Good Will,” by the Pope himself.

 

[josea]

Sorry for the confussion.
Usury is the typical example when talking about infallibility and I did not intend to discuss if the Church’s teachings have changed or not. I just wanted to point out how the Caholic Encyclopedia treats the issue about infallibility of the Encyclicals.

I find really strange that in some cases a Encyclical is considered infallible even when there are doubts about it and in other cases like the one I present here is not because is only address to Italy, although the Holy Office, and the common sense, said that this should be applied to the whole Church???

Regards,
Jose

 

[fix]

The Church has not changed her teachings on any moral issue. Usury is still immoral. The meaning and use of money have changed. It is a red herring.

NFP has been expalined many times. There are many resources out there by authentic OB/GYN physicians and peer reviewed studies that show it is effective. What I find so perplexing is that so many want to find a way to use the pill. That compound has had the direct result of helping to destroy the fabric of our society. The incredible increase in abortion, fornication, sodomy, divorce, etc can all be traced back to the early 1960s and the embrace of the pill.

While there are some legitimate uses for that pill, it is not needed to space children.BTW, if the Church were to change Her teachings that would mean we would have no way to know what Christ’s moral laws were and how to live them. We would be moral relativists. Look to Protestantism or secular culture and see the result of rejecting Christ’s Church. We see moral confusion and vice being accepted as virtue. Christ speaks infallibly through His Church on issues of faith and morals.

 

[josea]

Some days ago discussing about the use of the pill a major argument used was that it is abortifacient. I talked about the possibility of combining the two methods (pill and NFP) to avoid the abortifacient aspect of the pill and to regulate the period to an extent that NFP methods would be more reliable (using the pill for instance the second part of the cycle) and avoiding extra ovulations.

I have asked the same question to some moral theologians but not answer yet.

It seems that nobody wants to answer this.

Is that licit?

I see that it could be a moral problem to use the pill to regulate exactly the period and avoiding extra ovulations although the “planned” ovulation would occur.

First: there is not serious medical reason to use anticonceptives (no illness to cure).

Second: I think regulating the cycle artificially and ensuring the occurrence of only one ovulation per period is also a way to avoid pregnancy artificially. The second effect does not apply here because it is clearly wanted. Why should it be licit to prevent extra ovulations and not preventing the normal one?

Please, tell me if this is correct.

Jose

 

[mercygate]

josea:

Some days ago discussing about the use of the pill a major argument used was that it is abortifacient. I talked about the possibility of combining the two methods (pill and NFP) to avoid the abortifacient aspect of the pill and to regulate the period to an extent that NFP methods would be more reliable (using the pill for instance the second part of the cycle) and avoiding extra ovulations.

I have asked the same question to some moral theologians but not answer yet.

It seems that nobody wants to answer this.

Is that licit?

I see that it could be a moral problem to use the pill to regulate exactly the period and avoiding extra ovulations although the “planned” ovulation would occur.

First: there is not serious medical reason to use anticonceptives (no illness to cure).

Second: I think regulating the cycle artificially and ensuring the occurrence of only one ovulation per period is also a way to avoid pregnancy artificially. The second effect does not apply here because it is clearly wanted. Why should it be licit to prevent extra ovulations and not preventing the normal one?

Please, tell me if this is correct.

Jose

Have you asked this on the “Ask an Apologist” forum? They might have the answer or refer you to someone who specializes in these things.

 

[josea]

Yes, I asked also there among other people, but not anwer yet.Thanks for the advice,
Jose

 

[fix]

josea:

I talked about the possibility of combining the two methods (pill and NFP) to avoid the abortifacient aspect of the pill and to regulate the period to an extent that NFP methods would be more reliable (using the pill for instance the second part of the cycle) and avoiding extra ovulations.

I have asked the same question to some moral theologians but not answer yet.

It seems that nobody wants to answer this.

Is that licit?

I see that it could be a moral problem to use the pill to regulate exactly the period and avoiding extra ovulations although the “planned” ovulation would occur.

First: there is not serious medical reason to use anticonceptives (no illness to cure).

Second: I think regulating the cycle artificially and ensuring the occurrence of only one ovulation per period is also a way to avoid pregnancy artificially. The second effect does not apply here because it is clearly wanted. Why should it be licit to prevent extra ovulations and not preventing the normal one?

Please, tell me if this is correct.

Jose

I can’t see how the pill used as you have described it would be licit. It may be used for reasons not related to contraception in the marital embrace. Your discription says it would be used as an “aid” to contraception, right? NFP is as effective as the pill with less side effects. Double or triple ovulations are not a problem with NFP. The pill has serious side effects. Why risk it? Why not trust Christ? He has given you answer through His Church. How fortunate we are to have such a resource.

 

[josea]

Well, this is what a friend of mine is doing now. She has an irregular period and probably multiple ovulations problem: She was well trained in using NFP and she got pregnant again. After getting some advice from some doctors and priests form Opus Dei in Spain she is now taking a medicine (progesterone) short of a mini-pill in the last halve of her period to have menstruation exactly at day 28. Then she would abstain for sex in the first part of her cycle where ovulation is indeed occurring and not blocked by this medicine because she does not take it in the first part of the cycle.

I assume the reasoning is the following: let’s use the medication to regulate your cycle and then use a rhythm method to avoid fecundation.

I think I am a good Christian (despite my sins). I trust Jesus and the Church but and I do not see the problem in looking for the right and licit way to act. Why should we carry crosses that are not necessary? I think trying to assure that my wife does not get again in death danger and at the same time have a normal sexual life (according to the teachings of the Church) does not mean that I do not trust Christ.

Regards,
Jose

 

[felra]

josea:

Some days ago discussing about the use of the pill a major argument used was that it is abortifacient. I talked about the possibility of combining the two methods (pill and NFP) to avoid the abortifacient aspect of the pill and to regulate the period to an extent that NFP methods would be more reliable (using the pill for instance the second part of the cycle) and avoiding extra ovulations.

I have asked the same question to some moral theologians but not answer yet.

It seems that nobody wants to answer this.

Is that licit?

I see that it could be a moral problem to use the pill to regulate exactly the period and avoiding extra ovulations although the “planned” ovulation would occur.

First: there is not serious medical reason to use anticonceptives (no illness to cure).

Second: I think regulating the cycle artificially and ensuring the occurrence of only one ovulation per period is also a way to avoid pregnancy artificially. The second effect does not apply here because it is clearly wanted. Why should it be licit to prevent extra ovulations and not preventing the normal one?

Please, tell me if this is correct.

Jose

At the risk of being redundant, I am representing the following authoritative Church statements that clearly prohibit the use of ABC for the sole purpose of achieving contraceptive intercourse. I do not believe that an adjunctive/additive use of ABC toward the overall goal of limiting future pregancies does proportionately reduce/remove the illicitness of using ABC; this seems to be your inquiry.

Likewise, for example, if you combined the pill with another form of ABC (condom) does not render one of these ABC methods non-illicit. The intent of an action does not remove the evil from the intinsic evil of an action.

Read below for yourself and draw your own conclusions. It seems plain enough to me, though, I may be missing the complexity of your question.
“. . .the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children . . . Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” (Humanae Vitae)

“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399)

“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

 

[josea]

Island Oak:

How is this situation distinguishable from the situation involving an etopic pregnancy? Yes, there is the openness to life in one case, but here the very openness to life IS the threat. For etopic pregnanacy the church allows the removal of a fertilized ovum since there is significant risk to the health of the mother and no chance that the child would grow and survive. What’s the difference here if this woman were to have her life threatened by another pregnancy? NFP can be very reliable and predictable for most, but is there really no concession for the exceptional case?

I find it really hard to swallow that the church would impose that kind of risk on either marriage partner and justify it with the suggestion that openness to life is the greater good being served. This is especially true given that the couple is responsible for children already born. I am aware that exceptions to contraception/sterilization have been granted by church officials in such situations. I think that given the sincerity of this couple’s desire to be consistent with church teachings and the serious nature of the health condition involved, this is something they should explore–at higher levels than just the parish priest, if necessary.

Dear Island Oak,

You were absolutely right!!!

After asking a lot here and there and getting different “solutions” for our problem I decided to go to “higher level than just the parish priests” and forums about theology: I asked my Bishop for an audience. And I got it just yesterday. We explained the Bishop our problem and he said that in our case, the use of hormone treatment to prevent a pregnancy is legitimated based on therapeutical reasons. I was so surprised because my Bishop is a very well known and beloved and recognized professor of dogmatic theology, nobody to be suspicious about. When I explained to him during more than 40 minutes all the moral problems raised here and I insisted that “he might be wrong” he told me: “as authority of the Church I can interpret the magisterial teachings, be quiet you are not doing “intrinsically evil“ in this case.

We were sooooo relieved!

I just want to tell all the people here that make so definitive moral judgements here not to put heavy burdens on other’s shoulders.

But for your information, at the moment we will keep trying NFP methods anyways.

Regards,

Jose

 

[josea]

Island Oak:

I’m sorry I can’t help you. I guess I’m looking for the same information. I, too have heard that it is/has been granted but am not aware if it is just a “renegade priest” or some higher authority.

Dear Island Oak,

For me, the conversation I had with my Bishop is the prove that exception exist.

First we got the advice from two different priests but then the bishop confirmed it. I do not want to give names but my Bishop is a very respectable and trusted man in the Catholic Church. For the developments I see in my country I even think he will go to Rome in the next future. One could argue that he made a mistake with our case, well, we can not do more than trust him and its advice and I think we will not make a mistake by doing so.

You can contact me personally if you would like to know more details about our case.

Regards,

Jose