Converting and a Fear of NFP

[Being_Brave]

My first thought was perfectly summed up by GraceDK in this:

I am so blessed through my sisters… I need them in my adult life just as much as I need my parents.

My second thought is about the failure rate of NFP. My hubby and I used it with no issues/“scares” for two years (then we decided to get pregnant). Just like ABC, NFP is 98% effective when used properly. When I was charting we only had to abstain for about 7 days out of a month. Some people say there’s a long period of time you have to be abstinent, but each person is different so don’t let that scare you.

My husband is a serious planner and doesn’t like surprises, so when I first told him I wanted to use NFP he was very suspicious of it and not supportive at all (he’s not Catholic either, btw). When I shared the statistics with him, and we really started learning why certain things are charted and how and when, etc… it just made so much more sense than relying on synthetic hormones. I kinda feel like it’s a “smarter” form of family planning, because you really educate yourself about your body and the way it works.

 

[mark_a]

It always shocks me when my liberal friends brag about their “green” lifestyles…but they use contraceptives. Hormonal methods are abortifacients (you already knew that) but are also linked to breast cancer.

Not to mention the fact that artificial hormones from contraceptives are polluting our rivers and streams to the extent that male fish are becoming female. ncregister.com/site/article/true-fish-tales1/

The strange thing is this: PETA is the only group taking any interest!!

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Sometimes you have to do things not because it is the expedient or popular thing to do, but simply because it is right.

Besides, the worst that can happen is several ooops babies or extended periods of abstinence. Trust me, you’ll survive.

 

[Persuader]

I don’t think you should post articles that contradict Church teaching and pretend they are in any way relevant to a discussion among Catholics.

The article you posted argues that “Because there is no consensus on when pregnancy begins … the two groups end up with opposing beliefs about whether [emergency contraception] is an abortifacient or a form of birth control.”

However, Catholics are NOT confused about when life begins–we don’t worry about the “consensus,” we worry about the truth. Catholics know that life begins at conception. This article argues that if you kill a baby before implantation (about a week before implantation), it is not technically abortion. Sorry, but this article is not relevant to persons who follow the Catholic teaching that life begins at conception, not implantation.

Well, even if you believe that pregnancy begins at fertilization, preventing implantation is only a hypothesized mechanism of action. It is not a fact, like I said. In any case, the overwhelming mechanisms are mechanisms that prevent fertilization. So, even if preventing implantation was a tertiary mechanism, its impact would be very small indeed. All this was contained in the link, so if the person reading are of the opinion that life begins at fertilization – worried/convinced that the hypothesis is true and that there may be a small chance of preventing implantation – they are free to think that the possible risk of preventing implantation is enough to consider hormonal contraception as abortifacient. However, that doesn’t make it a fact, just like I said. Are you actually offended by me saying that? If you are, I apologize. That was not my intention.

I am aware that the Church disagrees with the scientific community as to when life begins. Maybe not every Catholic on this forum knows that. Is it improper or offensive to be made aware of this? If it is, again I apologize.

PS: an estimated 60-80 percent of all fertilized eggs will fail to implant. It seems to me like Catholics and the CC should be supremely interested in funding medical science to save these eggs. Just a suggestion.

Thanks

 

[Persuader]

The link to breast cancer is not weak. The world health organization classifies the pill as a carcinogen. The “studies” that some have done have not included the main risk age…pre-pregnancy. Many of them only over 50. This has greatly skewed and hidden the risks.

It is classified as potentially carcinogenic. As far as I can remember, a causal mechanism and relationship has not been established (in contrast to smoking etc.). It is possible that there is some moderate increase in risk with some forms of hormonal contraception, as stated in the link I gave. However, you will also notice that risk for some other kinds of cancer are lowered.

Thanks

 

[oneplustwo]

…this post p$sses me off. a LOT.

it is NONE OF YOUR BUSSINESS wether OP has one or twenty kids. so BUTT OUT.

I don’t think there was anything wrong with fkjuliano’s point. Seems to me like something important to be thought about: are we really living a Catholic marriage if we value something to such a degree that it prevents us from having children?

 

[ChiRho]

…this post pisses me off. a LOT.

it is NONE OF YOUR BUSSINESS wether OP has one or twenty kids. so BUTT OUT.

You need to find a better way do express your disapproval. Telling someone that their post “pisses you off. a LOT” and then telling them to “BUTT OUT” does nothing to further a discussion. You could reasonably disagree, instead, and tell the poster with whom you disagree so. But having a temper tantrum over the internet is counter productive to your goals, not to mention rude.

 

[agapewolf]

Well, even if you believe that pregnancy begins at fertilization, preventing implantation is only a hypothesized mechanism of action. It is not a fact, like I said. In any case, the overwhelming mechanisms are mechanisms that prevent fertilization. So, even if preventing implantation was a tertiary mechanism, its impact would be very small indeed. All this was contained in the link, so if the person reading are of the opinion that life begins at fertilization – worried/convinced that the hypothesis is true and that there may be a small chance of preventing implantation – they are free to think that the possible risk of preventing implantation is enough to consider hormonal contraception as abortifacient. However, that doesn’t make it a fact, just like I said. Are you actually offended by me saying that? If you are, I apologize. That was not my intention.

I am aware that the Church disagrees with the scientific community as to when life begins. Maybe not every Catholic on this forum knows that. Is it improper or offensive to be made aware of this? If it is, again I apologize.

PS: an estimated 60-80 percent of all fertilized eggs will fail to implant. It seems to me like Catholics and the CC should be supremely interested in funding medical science to save these eggs. Just a suggestion.

Thanks

You are using 2 different terms here…when “pregnancy” begins, and then you say the term life begins.

Obviously, the “scientific” community is all over the place when talking about when life begins.

The “scientific” community changed the definition of the term “pregnancy” to when a fertilized egg is implanted, hence, one is pregnant. Before this happens, there can still be a fertilized egg, but not implanted. Then they can play all sorts of verbal gymnastics defining if it “terminates a pregnancy”

There are 5-7 septic abortions (chemical- from hormonal abc) for every one surgical abortion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I understand and accept the reasons that utilizing birth control is a sin I’m about confused about why condoms and pulling out are…

Any deliberate act which intentionally renders the conjugal act non-procreative is contrary to the will of God, and therefore a sin. Before it was called “contraception” or “birth control” it was called Onanism, named for Onan who was punished for the sin of “pulling out” (cf. Gen 38:8-10).

See
Genesis 38:8-10
Pius XI’s Casti Connubii
Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae

The same conclusion can be proved rationally, but philosophical arguments can be rather complex. I can present the rational argument if you are interested.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Most importantly though is my underlying fear of failure of the NFP method. …Is the only solution to abstain completely from sex? … if I told him we could no longer be physically intimate he would eventually leave me or at least grow to hate me.

Yes. Abstinence is the only morally acceptable method of avoiding pregnancy. However, this does not mean that you can no longer be physically intimate. Furthermore, you should be aware that the NFP method is the most effective method according to many studies.

The Los Angeles Study
Group of 1257 couples
U.S. Departement of Health, Education, and Welfare
100% Method Effectiveness

The Fairfield Study
Five-Nation Study
99% Method Effectiveness

The Roetzer Studies
99% and 100% Method Effectiveness

The Doring Temperature-Only Study
99% and 100% Method Effectiveness

The Vincent Study
99% Method Effectiveness

See:
Marriage Building Effects of NFP
Method Effectiveness of NFP

 

[Bporte00]

Thank you all for your replies. Much of my fear of NFP has been eased thanks to the information provided. I do think that I will have to do some soul searching as to what we need to do with our life, and I’m very appreciative of all the advice.

For the individual who asked if my husband agreed to one child before we married the answer is yes. Although we both have siblings going into our marriage we felt that one was all we need.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I’m still very confused on children and the church… having only one child by choice is obviously a no-go…

It is NOT the doctrine of the Church that you must have more than one child. I think that is a common opinion, but one that is incorrect.

The Church teaches, regarding the morality of birth control…

According to Fr. Gerald Kelly, S.J., there is a moral distinction between NFP and artificial birth control, from his text Medico-Moral Problems (1958):
“The Church teaches that contraception is a sin because it means doing what is evil. It is not the same with [Natural Family Planning (NFP)]. Those who practice [NFP] do nothing evil. They simply omit doing something good — that is, they abstain from intercourse at the time when it might be fertile. Therefore, the morality of using [NFP] must be judged in the same way as other omissions: if the abstinence from intercourse is a neglect of duty, it is sinful; if it does not imply a neglect of duty, it is not sinful.”

How do we determine if abstinence from intercourse is a neglect of duty, and therefore sinful?

According to Venerable John Paul II:

The use of the infertile periods for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind. [John Paul II, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb120.htm”]General Audience address, 5 September 1984

]

John Paul II praises large families in *Familiaris consortio, *but does not require couples to have large families.

Instead, the Church teaches that every couple must discern for themselves what the morally correct level of children is for them, given their particular family’s circumstances, such as state of health, means, good of society and Church, etc.

In other words, couples…

**1) Must have special excusing causes (i.e., just reason) to use periodic abstinence [NFP] to have less than the “morally correct level” of children.

1. *****Need no special excusing causes to use periodic continence if they are simply spacing their children or already have the “morally correct level” of children.

---

With regard to “special excusing causes”, Paul VI’s *Humanae Vitae *used the word translated “serious”, which is in Latin, “iustae”, which literally means “just” reasons. In the volume of post-Vatican II documents edited by Austin Flannery (Vatican Council II : More Postconciliar Documents, Boston : Daughters of St. Paul, c. 1982), iustae is translated as “reasonable” (p. 405). Among other virtues, this issue has something to do with the virtue of “justice”, which is concerned with regard to what is obligatory according to one’s state. It concerns fulfilling a duty. This is important in understanding what John Paul II called the “morally correct level” of children which is conscientiously determine by each married couple.

So, what is just, reasonable? How are we to properly discern if we are ready for more children or not? How do we know what the “morally correct level” is? What is the “characteristic service” which is owed by married couples to meet the demands of justice?

Pius XII, in his Address to Midwives (1951) has framed the “just” reasons with having to do with the obligations of married couples, which is to participate in God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” Lacking a grave reason, the married couple is obliged to procreate, to help provide for the “preservation of mankind.” The preservation of society, the state, the Church itself, depends upon the procreation of children. To what extent is each married couple obliged to preserve mankind? How many children does a single couple need to have to provide for the perseveration of mankind, the State, the Church? Seems this number depends very much on changing societal, family, and Church circumstances.

Paul VI wrote the following, in Gaudium Et Spes:

“They [married couples] will thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which may be foreseen. For this accounting they will reckon with both the material and spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally they will consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself” (no. 50).

So it appears Paul VI agrees that the “morally correct level” very much depends upon prudent judgment of the couple.

 

[KZ2011]

To the Original Poster:

With all due respect, but I think your decision of only having one child must be questioned. By doing that, you and your husband would not even be replacing yourselves; having a single child, by choice, really is doing less than the bare minimum when it comes to God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”. Catholicism makes it hard for a fertile husband and wife to have only one child or no children and that’s a good thing!

I understand, however, that you would face some challenges in raising a larger family, but obviously there are millions of parents who have successfully nurtured a number of children to adulthood by giving it their all and putting their trust in God’s providence. In fact, I would say that the notion a child can only receive the best upbringing when there are no siblings to share in the parents’ dedication (and income) is one of the most baseless and destructive ideas ever to come out of the mind of secular man. Besides, the logical extension of the argument that since raising children is hard, one should only have one child, is that it makes even more sense not to have children at all.

So, I urge you to rethink your plans. Look into your heart and ask yourself: should having a fabulous legal career really be your life’s top priority?

With all due respect fkjuliano should read OP’s posts properly before he/she tries to suggest somebody should rethink their plans. OP never said that she does not want more children eventually. Just not at the same time as she is trying to finish law school and start working.

A young woman from my parish had a baby and decided to study school of pharmacy. As soon as the baby started talking he started started to say “I hate you”. Sometimes it is impossible to do everything at the same time. We should always seek in our hearts what it is that God wants from us. Is is not same for everybody.
God puts good desires into our hearts for a reason. If you have a desire to be a lawyer maybe you should listen to it. I don;t think that it is more holy to have children than to be a lawyer. Only you can discern that. Seek and the door will open.

 

[KZ2011]

Pius XII, in his Address to Midwives (1951) has framed the “just” reasons with having to do with the obligations of married couples, which is to participate in God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” Lacking a grave reason, the married couple is obliged to procreate, to help provide for the “preservation of mankind.” The preservation of society, the state, the Church itself, depends upon the procreation of children. To what extent is each married couple obliged to preserve mankind? How many children does a single couple need to have to provide for the perseveration of mankind, the State, the Church? Seems this number depends very much on changing societal, family, and Church circumstances.

Paul VI wrote the following, in Gaudium Et Spes:

So it appears Paul VI agrees that the “morally correct level” very much depends upon prudent judgment of the couple.

This is a good post. Thanks. I am puzzled by God’s command: be fruitful and multiply. When God said this there was supposedly Adam and Eve. 2 humans. It is 7 billion of us now. I sometimes reflect whether the command “be fruitful and multiply” be valid even after let’s say 100 years when there will be no more space and resources for more humans in our good old Earth.
For example they had a rule in chinese cities: no more than 1 child. I always considered it very reasonable since no nation can expand above its means.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… having a single child, by choice, really is doing less than the bare minimum when it comes to God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”.

No where does the Church teach this.:tsktsk:

On the contrary…

According to Venerable John Paul II:

“…the fruitfulness of conjugal love is not restricted solely to the procreation of children…it is enlarged and enriched by all those fruits of moral, spiritual and supernatural life which the father and mother are called to hand on to their children, and through the children to the Church and to the world.” (*Familiaris Consortio, *no. 28)

According to Contemporary Moral Theology,Vol. II, Marriage Questions, by John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J., (Westminster Maryland: Newman Press, 1964):

On Nov. 26, 1951, a month or so after the Address to the Midwives, Pius XII, addressing a convention of the “Family Front,” referred to the Address to the Midwives, and mentioned that in it he had asserted the legitimacy, within limits, of using periodic continence for the control of births. And he said of these limits (which are equivalently the “grave motives” of the Address) that they are “indeed quite broad” ("… ilimiti–in verita en larghi"), AAS 43 (1951), 855-60, at 859. In his [Pius XII’s] Address to the Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, shortly before his death, he referred once more to the Address to the Midwives, used the phrase “serious proportionate motives,” and said that he had spoken on periodic continence on that occasion "in order to put an end to the anxieties of conscience of many Christians," AAS, 50 (1958), 732-40, at 736." (p. 425-426)

We ought to be very careful about placing additional anxieties on the consciences of Christians apart from what is truly binding according to Church teaching.

According to Fathers Kelly and Ford, from the same text:

“…couples who already have even one child cannot, in our opinion, be accused of a grave dereliction of their affirmative duty if they decide to have no more.” (p. 426)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I am puzzled by God’s command: be fruitful and multiply.

See John Paul II’s commentary quoted in the above post regarding the fuller meaning of the fruitfulness of conjugal love.

Fathers Kelly and Ford provide a detailed discussion in their text. Here are some more excerpts (ibid.):

“Moralist were agreed [in the 1930s and 1940s] that it was permissible to practice periodic continence systematically, that is, with the direct intention of avoiding conception for considerable periods of time: (1) provided that both parties were willing to do so (this meant that they were mutually agreed, that neither party forced the practice on the other); (2) provided that both parties were able to do so (this meant that the practice did not involve either one in the unjustifiable occasion of sin, for instance solitary sin *, or other sins against chastity, etc., and did not expose the marriage to ther unjustifiable dangers); (3) provided that there existed a legitimate reason for avoiding conception.” (ibid., pg. 387-388)

“The theologians were in agreement further that a violation of either of the first two conditions was per se mortally sinful. There was a debate about the gravity of the third condition. A small minority held that to practice periodic continence, as least for a long time, without a legitimate reason, was mortally sinful. But there was no justification for allowing a confessor to impose this view on penitents, when the opposite view, that it was only a venial sin, was so obviously probable and so much more widely held. Consequently, for confessional practice, there should have been common agreement on this point.” (p. 388)

“The institution of marriage has as its primary, intrinsic end, from nature and from God, the procreation of children. Consequently, all those who enter this state are per se obligated to procreate, if they can. Consequently, they are obliged to use their marriage rights * during fertile periods often enough to discharge this obligation. But this obligation is an affirmative one, and individual couples may be excused from it temporarily or permanently for proportionate reasons…” (p. 409)

“The only explicit limits to the duty to procreate stated by the pope [Pius XII] are the various excusing causes…another limit is implicitly determined by the fact that the purpose of the duty is the conservation of the family, the state, the Church, the human race. This seems to mean that one measure of the duty as far as legal justice and piety to the race are concerned is the population need of the time… social scientists seemed to think that fertile couples should have four or five children in order to make provision for the conservation and slight increase of the human race…with increased consciousness of the population problem, this number has been slightly reduced, at least for some countries. For instance, it has been estimated [1956 and 1957 sources cited] that a family of three children would sufficiently provide for the needs of the United States…” (ibid. p. 421) [NOTE: currenty fertility replacement rates for developed countries are around 2.1 children per mother]

“[The basis of the obligation] follows the analogy of other duties, whether to individuals or to society. For instance, on the individual plane, the strict duty of charity to one’s neighbor is measured, not only by one’s ability to help, but also by the neighbor’s need. No one is strictly obliged in charity to give as much as he conveniently can to a neighbor whose needs are satisfied by much less than that. Another analogy, this time in the social sphere, is the duty of paying taxes. No government can justly set up a tax rule that each citizen must give the government as much as he can. The just measure must begin with the society’s need. Once the general need is determined, then the tax is levied on the citizens proportionately, according to norms that include their relative ability to pay.” (ibid. p. 421-422).

“The theory is simply that there is a limit to the duty beyond which no couple is strictly obliged by legal justice or piety to have more children. The theory does not say that all couples have the same obligation as regards the number of children they should have. The excusing causes * sufficiently take care of this need for proportion… [The theory] acknowledges that even the wealthy and the healthy can be acting beyond the call of duty by rearing large families…This theory that the duty to procreate is limited by the population needs seems to us…intrinsically reasonable [and]…has won favor with many theologians; and it certainly merits the status of a solidly probable opinion.” (p. 422)

"[With regard to the gravity of the obligation]…the majority hold that to practice [periodic continence] without a serious justifying motive, at least for a long time, or for the whole of marriage, or at least when no children have already been born, would be a grave sin. But other theologians still maintain that this would be only venially sinful. (p. 423)

“…couples who already have even one child cannot, in our opinion, be accused of a grave dereliction of their affirmative duty if they decide to have no more.” (p. 426)

---

 

[KZ2011]

PS: an estimated 60-80 percent of all fertilized eggs will fail to implant. It seems to me like Catholics and the CC should be supremely interested in funding medical science to save these eggs. Just a suggestion.

Thanks

I would like to ask a question here. There are many chemical pregnancies even without any birth control. In fact it is quite common for the fertilized egg not to implant. It happened to me too If the conception process is so inefficient and quite easily goes down the drain how can we consider it to be a murder to prevent implantation? Then it appears that inefficient implantation is waste of life on God’s part…sorry I am a biologist and I used to do research on mouse oocytes. God created design of life and to me it seems that biology has its own way. We are gifted with mind and free will and therefore we primarily should seek relationship with God than to literally listen to every interpretation of scripture by the Church.

Of course Church wants Catholics to multiply so that they can govern us as their obedient sheep. Completely understandable.

 

[Monica4316]

I read something on these forums, about a way that you can test hormone levels to see if you can get pregnant or not… it helps to practice NFP. It’s not any type of contraceptive… sorry I don’t remember what it’s called, but maybe someone here knows. Apparently it’s more reliable than some other NFP methods.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

I would like to ask a question here. There are many chemical pregnancies even without any birth control. In fact it is quite common for the fertilized egg not to implant. It happened to me too If the conception process is so inefficient and quite easily goes down the drain how can we consider it to be a murder to prevent implantation? Then it appears that inefficient implantation is waste of life on God’s part…sorry I am a biologist and I used to do research on mouse oocytes. God created design of life and to me it seems that biology has its own way. We are gifted with mind and free will and therefore we primarily should seek relationship with God than to literally listen to every interpretation of scripture by the Church.

Of course Church wants Catholics to multiply so that they can govern us as their obedient sheep. Completely understandable.

the reasoning behind the Church teaching is that

a) life starts at the moment of fertilization, and

b) sex needs to be both procreative and unitive, otherwise it’s not how God intended, and is sin.

contraception goes against b), and abortion and birth control that causes early abortion goes again a).

It happens in nature that a child is miscarried, etc, - but the point is that we should not play God and we don’t get to decide if someone lives or dies. He gets to decide that.

God bless

 

[KZ2011]

Dave, these are great posts. Explains a lot. Also I think to OP. Thank you!