Catholic mum answers, "isn't NFP just Catholic birth control?"

[Avocadomom]

I don’t have a problem with that. I am fine with doing unnatural things for a good reason.

I have an issue with a double standard. It’s OK to do an unnatural thing with NFP but it’s not OK with other non-abortive birth control.

Because the issue is NOT that it’s natural or unnatural.

It happens to be called “Natural Family Planning” - but it may as well be called “Fertility Awareness” “Catholic Family Planning” or “Fertility Monitoring.” Let go of the idea that the reason NFP is okay is that it is “natural.” That is not why it is okay.

 

[fpt]

I don’t have a problem with that. I am fine with doing unnatural things for a good reason.

I have an issue with a double standard. It’s OK to do an unnatural thing with NFP but it’s not OK with other non-abortive birth control.

It’s not morally okay, with the non-abortive birth control, because it is wanted directly and voluntary and because these artificial methods do not respect the cycle of the physiology of of wife and do not respect the potential procreativity of the marital act. The barriers do not have to be direct and voluntary in the effects of the contraception.

Do you refuse the conjugal French kiss in the couple, because there are exchanges of fluids?
Do you refuse the marital act, because there are exchanges of fluids?
Do you refuse the sexual foreplay, because there are exchanges of fluids?
Do you refuse the conjugal caresses, in the sexual way, in the context of the marital act (before, during and after the union of bodies), because there are exchanges of fluids?
Do you refuse to kiss, to suck, to lick, to massage, to caresse, to stimulate the below intimate parts of your spouse, in the context of the marital act, because of the exchanges of fluids?
Does the marriage mean many exchanges of physiological fluids?
Do you refuse to exchange your physiological fluids, in the marriage?
Are these conjugal physiological fluids dirty and unclean?

Your view on the uncleanness is like in the Old testament!!! Be careful!!!

 

[GangGreen]

People forget the major thing with NFP… abstinence. A couple who is trying not to conceive must be abstinent during the wife’s fertile period.

If a couple is using artificial birth control (e.g., pill, condoms) then they can have sex all day every day and theoretically not have a child (of course BC can fail). Here there is no sacrifice made and no desire to please God.

With NFP the couple must sacrifice. They must put God before themselves. They do this because they consciously wish to obey God and not use artificial means to prevent pregnancy. In fact, abstaining during the woman’s peak fertile time is extremely difficult just by the very way we’re made. Women tend to have a heightened sense of arousal during this time and men actually tend to find women most attractive during this time (pheromones and all that). So in this sense using NFP requires a sacrifice for the sake of God that other methods do not involve.

It’s one thing if someone is using NFP and then having sex with condoms during the fertile time. It’s another when the couple actually follows it properly and has to go through what could be a week or more of abstinence every month during their peak time of arousal.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t have a problem with that. I am fine with doing unnatural things for a good reason.

I have an issue with a double standard. It’s OK to do an unnatural thing with NFP but it’s not OK with other non-abortive birth control.

As has been pointed out to you earlier on in this thread the natural or unnaturalness (according to your definition of natural and unnatural) has nothing to do with the Church’s reasons for saying contraception is an immoral method of birth control while abstinence, whether for short or long periods, is a moral method of birth control. There is no double-standard going on because the Church’s teaching has nothing to do with whether or not something is natural.

 

[Rau]

…Whatever we do to intentionally evade pregnancy, be it via abstinence or the pill is still an intentional act of evasion, contrary to the nature of intercourse and marriage.

Unless you’re leaving it down to chance every time you have intercourse, you are on some level contracepting.

Neko, if you claim your own definitions for words, then you can declare up to be down and black to be white.

It is not, per se, wrong to evade pregnancy by licit means. It is not in the nature of human intercourse or marriage to have sex whenever the desire arises. We are thinking, planning creatures, and we properly apply those faculties to every aspect of our lives.

 

[Default]

I am not catholic but the NFP issue is something I am struggling with in thinking about trying to enter the church. The thread seemed to get a bit off track but I really do have a hard time seeing any logic in the concept of NFP. My understanding is that masturbation is a sin because you are seeking the physical pleasure of sex without the possibility of creating life. Similarly, the use of artificial birth control between married couples is sinful because it is seeking the physical pleasure of sex but trying to avoid the possibility of the creation of life. This is also one of many problems with homosexual actions. That however seems to apply with equal force to NFP. Many supporters of NFP stridently argue about its effectiveness, which for me makes it sound like you can have the pleasure of sex at these times of the month but with the affirmative intent to minimize to the maximum extent possible the creation of life. It seems more logically satisfying to say that any sex without the intent to create life is sinful. That would lead to the inconvenient conclusion that sex during pregnancy, breast feeding, post menopause etc. is sinful. Maybe I should not think as much about this, and be happy that the church says it is ok even if the logic seems really strained but it really seems to me that logic would dictate that sex within marriage should be restrained to times where the couple is really and truly intending to create life.

 

[godisgood77]

Here there is no sacrifice made and no desire to please God.

How could you possibly say with any certainty that any couple has no desire to please God? Seems like a pretty absurd statement.

 

[jlc2k2]

I am not catholic but the NFP issue is something I am struggling with in thinking about trying to enter the church. The thread seemed to get a bit off track but I really do have a hard time seeing any logic in the concept of NFP. My understanding is that masturbation is a sin because you are seeking the physical pleasure of sex without the possibility of creating life. Similarly, the use of artificial birth control between married couples is sinful because it is seeking the physical pleasure of sex but trying to avoid the possibility of the creation of life. This is also one of many problems with homosexual actions. That however seems to apply with equal force to NFP. Many supporters of NFP stridently argue about its effectiveness, which for me makes it sound like you can have the pleasure of sex at these times of the month but with the affirmative intent to minimize to the maximum extent possible the creation of life. It seems more logically satisfying to say that any sex without the intent to create life is sinful. That would lead to the inconvenient conclusion that sex during pregnancy, breast feeding, post menopause etc. is sinful. Maybe I should not think as much about this, and be happy that the church says it is ok even if the logic seems really strained but it really seems to me that logic would dictate that sex within marriage should be restrained to times where the couple is really and truly intending to create life.

Your assumption is that procreation is the sole purpose of sex. That is not Catholic teaching. There is a unitive aspect that cannot be ignored.

 

[GangGreen]

How could you possibly say with any certainty that any couple has no desire to please God? Seems like a pretty absurd statement.

If you desire to please God why do you intentionally disobey his commandments?

Sure if you give in to a moment of weakness and you decide to have relations with your wife and use a condom because she’s fertile, it’s one thing if it’s a rare thing. It’s like any other sin. However, if you make it a way of life, then yes, you obviously have no desire to please God in this respect.

 

[thewanderer]

I am not catholic but the NFP issue is something I am struggling with in thinking about trying to enter the church. The thread seemed to get a bit off track but I really do have a hard time seeing any logic in the concept of NFP. My understanding is that masturbation is a sin because you are seeking the physical pleasure of sex without the possibility of creating life. Similarly, the use of artificial birth control between married couples is sinful because it is seeking the physical pleasure of sex but trying to avoid the possibility of the creation of life. This is also one of many problems with homosexual actions. That however seems to apply with equal force to NFP. Many supporters of NFP stridently argue about its effectiveness, which for me makes it sound like you can have the pleasure of sex at these times of the month but with the affirmative intent to minimize to the maximum extent possible the creation of life. It seems more logically satisfying to say that any sex without the intent to create life is sinful. That would lead to the inconvenient conclusion that sex during pregnancy, breast feeding, post menopause etc. is sinful. Maybe I should not think as much about this, and be happy that the church says it is ok even if the logic seems really strained but it really seems to me that logic would dictate that sex within marriage should be restrained to times where the couple is really and truly intending to create life.

Hi

It sounds like you are (very understandably) confused about this issue because of a misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches. Its a difficult topic and a lot of people (including a lot of Catholics) often spread misinformation about what the Church actually teaches on the subject.

First off, the Church has explicitly taught that the intention to avoid children is not inherently sinful. A lot of people get confused about this. They don’t understand the subtleties of the Church’s teaching about this and so end up thinking the Church is against contraception simply because the couple in question is attempting to avoid conception. This is not at all the reason the Church teaches against contraception. From your post it kind of sounds like that is what you have been led to believe. That is why you are confused that Catholics promote NFP as being effective. If it is the intention to avoid children which is wrong then it would be wrong to try to find the most effective method for avoiding children. The fact is, the Church teaches that so long as you have a serious/just reason to avoid conception it is perfectly moral to do so, so long as the means you use to avoid is moral.

Ok, this brings us to the real difference between contraception and NFP/abstinence - the means used. Before I try to explain the difference I just want to try and clarify another major misunderstanding. I know others have already pointed it out on this thread, but for the sake of being thorough I’ll bring it up again anyway. The difference in morality between NFP vs contraception does not stem from some idea of NFP being natural (ie “found in the wild” natural) and contraception being man made. For some reason that is another pretty widespread misconception.

Ok, so, what exactly is the difference? Well, with contraception the couple acts to try and take an otherwise fertile man/woman/sexual act and turn it into a sterile man/woman/sexual act. With NFP/abstinance the couple has/seeks knowledge about their fertility and then uses that knowledge to decide whether or not to engage in the marital act. The distinction is kind of subtle, but its there. So, with contraception you have people taking something that is working as it is supposed to (human fertility) and purposefully trying to break it whereas in the other case you have people who simply gather knowledge so that they can make better more prudent decision about whether or not to engage in the marital act.

Now, I doubt this will have cleared the issue up entirely for you, because, as I’ve noted, its a hard topic to understand, but hopefully it has made things a little clearer. I’d love to do what I can to help you understand, so if you have any questions about what I’ve said feel free to ask and I’ll do my best to explain.

 

[Rau]

I am not catholic but the NFP issue is something I am struggling with in thinking about trying to enter the church. The thread seemed to get a bit off track but I really do have a hard time seeing any logic in the concept of NFP. My understanding is that masturbation is a sin because you are seeking the physical pleasure of sex without the possibility of creating life. Similarly, the use of artificial birth control between married couples is sinful because it is seeking the physical pleasure of sex but trying to avoid the possibility of the creation of life. This is also one of many problems with homosexual actions. That however seems to apply with equal force to NFP. Many supporters of NFP stridently argue about its effectiveness, which for me makes it sound like you can have the pleasure of sex at these times of the month but with the affirmative intent to minimize to the maximum extent possible the creation of life. It seems more logically satisfying to say that any sex without the intent to create life is sinful. That would lead to the inconvenient conclusion that sex during pregnancy, breast feeding, post menopause etc. is sinful. Maybe I should not think as much about this, and be happy that the church says it is ok even if the logic seems really strained but it really seems to me that logic would dictate that sex within marriage should be restrained to times where the couple is really and truly intending to create life.

The likelihood of conception when having sex is not relevant. Contraception is rejected because the act is interfered with. To choose to deny yourself the act, as happens when NFP is being practiced to avoid, is entirely different. You’re not corrupting the act because the act is not happening!

 

[GangGreen]

The main difference between NFP and artificial contraception is quite simple.

Openness to life.

In NFP you do not alter the sex act at all. Sure you may know that today is an infertile day, but that isn’t important. You are doing the full blown sex act and as such if you miscalculated or there’s some miracle that occurs, you are allowing the act to have the possibility (even if remote) of creating life because you are taking part of the sex act in the way it was designed.

By introducing artificial contraception, you are plain and simply saying that you are not open to life. You are altering the sex act in a way that the only way life can be created is by the contraception failing. Adding on to that the fact that a woman can be fertile and then you have sex during this time you are absolutely saying that you are not open to life. You are taking away any procreative aspect out of sex by using the woman’s peak fertile time to have sex but to use an artificial way of avoiding pregnancy.

With NFP, you must make a choice. You must say, should we have sex and maybe have a child or should we abstain and avoid? It becomes a time of discernment for the couple and a time to reflect on what God may desire for them at that time. This decision is taken away completely with contraception. The question with contraception becomes, should we have sex or should we have sex? There is none. Someone who uses NFP understands that whenever they have sex there could be life created.

Now here’s the main issue. Someone can use NFP as a way to avoid having children and may not be open to life. They’ll say, this is natural contraception and my desire is to not have children no matter what. This is where you stray into sin. When you use NFP there has to be a procreative aspect to it. That means that while you may be trying to avoid pregnancy, your desire has to be that if it occurs then you will accept it with joy as you put your trust in God. Additionally, NFP shouldn’t be a way to perpetually avoid pregnancy.

 

[Rico_S]

The main difference between NFP and artificial contraception is quite simple.

Openness to life.

I

I really think the whole “openness to life” argument is misplayed on this topic–it happens over and over again. The couple who uses conservative NFP to avoid b/c a pregnancy taken to term will likely result in the death of the mother is no more open to life than a couple in the same position who uses ABC. Both want to enjoy sex with their spouse and both are committed to not getting pregnant…(read "closed to life There is a difference between NFP and ABC, but it isn’t “openness to life.” I think this line of reasoning just confuses people more.

 

[LJN21]

I really think the whole “openness to life” argument is misplayed on this topic–it happens over and over again. The couple who uses conservative NFP to avoid b/c a pregnancy taken to term will likely result in the death of the mother is no more open to life than a couple in the same position who uses ABC. Both want to enjoy sex with their spouse and both are committed to not getting pregnant…(read "closed to life There is a difference between NFP and ABC, but it isn’t “openness to life.” I think this line of reasoning just confuses people more.

Thats not what being “open to life” means. It has nothing to do with the attitude of the couple using a method and everything to do with the actions involved. Contraception fails to be open to life because you make a positive action that make the marriage act sterile. With NPF you are simply not having relations, which is not an action at all.

A more helpful way to think about it may be that each act must be "ordered toward life’, natural fertility is not a part of the equation.

BTW if death is really on the line your only safe method is complete abstinence… there is no way (even with contraception ) to have “safe” sex. And NFP is perfectly licit for any serious/just reason not just danger of death reasons…

 

[PennyinCanada]

I really think the whole “openness to life” argument is misplayed on this topic–it happens over and over again. The couple who uses conservative NFP to avoid b/c a pregnancy taken to term will likely result in the death of the mother is no more open to life than a couple in the same position who uses ABC. Both want to enjoy sex with their spouse and both are committed to not getting pregnant…(read "closed to life There is a difference between NFP and ABC, but it isn’t “openness to life.” I think this line of reasoning just confuses people more.

Confusing people more isn’t what we want to do. lol

 

[LJN21]

Now here’s the main issue. Someone can use NFP as a way to avoid having children and may not be open to life. They’ll say, this is natural contraception and my desire is to not have children no matter what. This is where you stray into sin. When you use NFP there has to be a procreative aspect to it. That means that while you may be trying to avoid pregnancy, your desire has to be that if it occurs then you will accept it with joy as you put your trust in God. Additionally, NFP shouldn’t be a way to perpetually avoid pregnancy.

I disagree with the premiss you can use NFP in a way that is not “open to life” unless you are employing other contraceptive means during the fertile time. Again NFP’s ‘openness for life’ has nothing to do with the users intentions but the physical reality that the unitive and procreative elements of the act are not divorced from each other. All methods of contraception and barriers are intrinsically evil not because of the intention to avoid birth but because they divorce the unitive and the procreative form the marital act. It is not logical to say that its possible to use NFP by its self contraceptively because you are not making any action that is counter to conception, you are simply not acting.

Now if your intentions are selfish, you may be acting… selfishly… which can be sinful. The sin then would be selfishness … not not having sex.

 

[Rico_S]

Thats not what being “open to life” means. It has nothing to do with the attitude of the couple using a method and everything to do with the actions involved. .

We can quibble over what the meaning behind each action or “inaction” is, but I think you will find that you lose people when you say that using a condom is not open to life, but monitoring fertility signs so that you can engage in sex when the possibility of creating new life is zero, is open to life.

Note, I am not saying the 2 approaches are equivalent, but trying to define one action as open to life and the other closed takes some verbal and mental gymnastics that is going to be a tough sell.

 

[GangGreen]

I disagree with the premiss you can use NFP in a way that is not “open to life” unless you are employing other contraceptive means during the fertile time. Again NFP’s ‘openness for life’ has nothing to do with the users intentions but the physical reality that the unitive and procreative elements of the act are not divorced from each other. All methods of contraception and barriers are intrinsically evil not because of the intention to avoid birth but because they divorce the unitive and the procreative form the marital act. It is not logical to say that its possible to use NFP by its self contraceptively because you are not making any action that is counter to conception, you are simply not acting.

Now if your intentions are selfish, you may be acting… selfishly… which can be sinful. The sin then would be selfishness … not not having sex.

That’s what I’m getting at though. You can use NFP in a selfish way. A couple who has one child and then uses NFP to perfection for the rest of the woman’s fertile life while having the means to have more children is being selfish. I would say that this is an evil means to using NFP. Only God knows what’s inside a person’s mind/heart when they do these things.

 

[LJN21]

We can quibble over what the meaning behind each action or “inaction” is, but I think you will find that you lose people when you say that using a condom is not open to life, but monitoring fertility signs so that you can engage in sex when the possibility of creating new life is zero, is open to life.

Note, I am not saying the 2 approaches are equivalent, but trying to define one action as open to life and the other closed takes some verbal and mental gymnastics that is going to be a tough sell.

Its not mental gymnastics, its logic. If someone doesn’t understand the difference between having sex and not having sex, they’ve already failed at logic.

The morality of NFP and condoms has nada to do with effectiveness. You could even argue it has nothing to do with birth control at all. For example, if someone who is naturally infertile wanted to have relations with an intact condom because they liked how it felt, it would still be an intrinsically evil act, because you have divorced the dual nature of the marital act. It is the intentional divorcing of the natures of the marital act the thing determines morality, not the intention to have children or not.

 

[LJN21]

That’s what I’m getting at though. You can use NFP in a selfish way. A couple who has one child and then uses NFP to perfection for the rest of the woman’s fertile life while having the means to have more children is being selfish. I would say that this is an evil means to using NFP. Only God knows what’s inside a person’s mind/heart when they do these things.

I never understood all most necessary caveat when the topic comes up “make sure your not, not having sex in a selfish way now!” I think the realities of giving up relations (read:fasting) to avoid children almost precluded it in fact.

If someones already following the Church teaching on contraception, their hearts are in the right place even if they have not perfected all the virtues yet.