Converting and a Fear of NFP

[KZ2011]

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

I think you mean ovulation prediction kits (pee sticks). They predict your ovulation on basis of your hormonal levels. You can also use a fertility monitor (measures both estrogen and luteinizing hormone). Mostly used to help conceive but I guess can but used for opposite reason too!

 

[KZ2011]

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

Makes sense. Thanks.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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.

Well, as a biologist, you’re no doubt aware that the “reproductive system” is named “reproductive” for a reason. It is not the “entertainment system,” as some seem to think.

All of the physiology of the reproductive system has a singular goal in mind, biologically speaking, and that is procreation. Humans are created with a built-in system for procreation, and when it is used, it is intended by our Creator for procreation. In philosophical terms, the “objective” or “goal” of the sexual act, as intended by our physiology, is procreation. When we enter into every sexual act, we have the inherent objective of procreation. To willfully choose sexual activity means that we at least tacitly choose procreation.

Now, it often happens that naturally, procreation does not occur. This is not “immoral” as the only willful human acts are the subject of morality or ethics.

When a zygote dies without human willful action it is much like an infant dying without human willful action, it is neither morally good nor morally evil. It may certainly be heartbreaking, but it is not morally evil.

It is only intentional human acts which are the subject of ethics.

Consequently, whenever a human deliberately does something which renders sexual acts intentionally non-procreative, they act immorally, contrary to the very objective of the reproductive system. Philosophically speaking, when we use our reproductive system, we inherently “will” to procreate. When we contracept, we simultaneously choose to procreate and NOT procreate. This is contradictory, therefore irrational, therefore immoral. I’ve skipped a lot of steps in the full philosophical argument, but this is the gist.

The claim that the Church’s motive is to have more people to govern is absurd. A friend of mine made this same claim, and I actually spit out coffee in laughter. He wasn’t kidding. I pointed out the irony that he, as non-Catholic, had four children while I only have two. The argument is unconvincing because as stated above, the Church has never stated how many children I ought to have, and certainly has never demanded that I have as many children as biologically possible. This is a myth born of ignorance.

I am perfectly faithful in having two children, one, or none, depending upon the proportionate reasons, and the Church leaves that decision to me. God will certainly judge me if my motives are selfish, but the Church is not worried about how many people they have to govern. However, no matter the proportionate reasons, I may not use immoral means even for a justifiable end.

The Church instead has constantly taught the truth on this matter, which indeed can be discovered through natural reason, but is also revealed supernaturally through Scripture and Tradition.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I don’t think you should overstate the issues related to hormonal contraception. It is simply not a fact that hormonal contraception is abortifacient. You may be interested in this article: religioustolerance.org/abo_emer2.htm

From the Yasmin (birth control pill) insert berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/fhc/Yasmin_PI.pdf?WT.mc_id=www.berlex.com

**

**
PHARMACODYNAMICS

Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the
primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in
the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the
endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation).

---

If the BC pill was 100% effective in doing the first two items, then yeah odds are it wouldn’t get a chance to prevent implantation, but we do know some percentage of women on the pill will get pregnant, which means that despite the hormones to inhibit ovulation and make it more difficul for the sperm to enter the uterus, it can still happen, and so if it does, they have added the hormones to reduce the likelihood of implantation, so even if there aren’t any studies out there to tell us how many times this might happen, they have designed the pill for it to happen.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Thanks. I dissented with the Church for decades on this issue, until I actually threw myself into an in-depth study of the what and why of this teaching. Turned out, the Church was right!

 

[Morwenna]

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.

Well …


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees with you, Persuader. From the link:

How Birth Control Pills Work

Birth control pills contain hormones that prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary). These hormones also cause other changes in the body that help prevent pregnancy. The mucus in the cervix thickens, which makes it hard for sperm to enter the uterus. The lining of the uterus thins, making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it. Together, these events make it unlikely that pregnancy will occur.

No mention of “we think …” or “this may happen” or “our best hypothesis at this time is …” Nope. :nope: Just a straight-out, factual paragraph. :yup:

Well, as a biologist, you’re no doubt aware that the “reproductive system” is named “reproductive” for a reason. It is not the “entertainment system,” as some seem to think.

Post of the week!

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

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:

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.

**2) **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:

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

Some of this is not necessarily the Church’s view but someone’s interpretation. There isn’t a number a family can arrive at where they no longer have to have “excusing”/just/serious reasons to avoid, even the Catechism clearly states that just reasons are necessary for spacing children, it doesn’t suggest in any way that we can reach a point where they are no longer necessary (although we can find ourselves in a situation where we have reasons to avoid for the rest of our fertile years):

For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.

Likewise Pope Pius XII didn’t exactly say that the number of children depend on the amount needed to preserve mankind, but it seems like he was saying that the function of preserving mankind was imposed on married couples (which makes sense, who else could this function be “imposed” on, single people? people called to virginity? obviously not.)

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

 

[Bporte00]

.

I can’t thank you enough for providing me with all the information you did. Not only did you clarify mean misunderstandings on my part but you also greatly increased my knowledge of the Church and Her teachings.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I can’t thank you enough for providing me with all the information you did. Not only did you clarify mean misunderstandings on my part but you also greatly increased my knowledge of the Church and Her teachings.

You’re welcome. And welcome to our Catholic family. We’re like many families, we may like to argue, and sometimes we say pretty stupid things, but we still love one another.

 

[Being_Brave]

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.
Thanks

Just thinking; I’m pregnant right now with my first, so I’m doing a lot of reading and learning about my baby and his/her development. What strikes me as a little off about this comment is that my doctor (I think he has some background in science…no?) and all of the pregnancy resources I’ve been given not only consider my baby to be in it’s 10th week of development, meaning 10th week of the existence of it’s life, but adds two weeks prior to actual implantation because the cells were already splitting and forming this future human being from the date of conception.

Maybe not every Catholic knows that either…then again I guess a lot of people aren’t aware of it regardless of their faith. Oviously it’s not as simple as “the Church disagrees with the scientific community” (which is not true on many levels); it’s that some people who say they are scientists choose to ignore when the processes that develop a human actually begin.

 

[Augusta_Sans]

my doctor (I think he has some background in science…no?) and all of the pregnancy resources I’ve been given not only consider my baby to be in it’s 10th week of development, meaning 10th week of the existence of it’s life, but adds two weeks prior to actual implantation because the cells were already splitting and forming this future human being from the date of conception.

Yes, the medical community traditionally dates pregnancy from the last menstrual period, approximately two weeks prior to the actual conception date (and approximately three weeks prior to the actual fertilization date). However, that is not because life began two weeks prior to conception, but because very few women actually know when they ovulated. Your baby’s gestational age is always approximately two weeks behind the traditional “X weeks along” age. For example, I’m 7 weeks pregnant, but the baby’s gestational age is approximately 5 weeks. As you already know, you’re 10 weeks pregnant, but the baby is only 8 weeks old.

You are 100% right that cells were forming our future humans from the date of conception. Congratulations on your pregnancy!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I am aware that the Church disagrees with the scientific community as to when life begins.

I disgree. The Church holds that life begins at fertilization. So do embryologists.

According to Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D

[D]etails can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library…and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally… scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced. When do Human Beings Begin? Scientific Myths and Scientific Facts]

This is the same conclusion of Ronan O’Rahilly [1] “the human embryologist who developed the classic Carnegie stages of human embryological development. He also sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be used in human embryology textbooks internationally)” (ibid.)

O’Rahilly’s states that “The commonly used term, “fertilized egg,” is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a “fertilized egg” is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being.” (ibid.)

According to Moore and Persaud [2]:

“Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
[1] Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994).

[2] Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998)
In what way does the Church disagree with this?

 

[Persuader]

No mention of “we think …” or “this may happen” or “our best hypothesis at this time is …” Nope. :nope: Just a straight-out, factual paragraph. :yup:

Well, unless an experiment has been undertaken to show that fertilized eggs do not attach due to hormonal contraception, it remains a hypothesis. As far I know, an experiment has not been undertaken. I might be wrong, in which case you would just have to point to such an experiment.

PS: make sure to inform Wikipedia, since their relevant entry doesn’t include it.

itsjustdave1988:

I disgree. The Church holds that life begins at fertilization. So do embryologists.

Not exactly. Life is, in a way, continuous. The precursors to the fertilized egg is alive, so the general statement that life begins at conception is not specific enough. When the precursors meet, it is certainly true that a different kind of life is established. A new mix of DNA-code is created. Is it human life? I don’t think the scientific community think so. For instance, consider that the fertilized egg can split and become two identical twins. Similarly, two fertilized eggs can fuse and become a chimera. In these early stages, it seems to me like the life-form in question is simply too malleable to be considered an individual or unique human life. For those who believe in souls, it seems to make more sense to assume that it enters after the life-form is more cemented. I stress to point out that this kind of conversation is somewhat different from the conversation about abortifacents. In any case, I think the OP got her answers.

To the OP: If you’re interested in effectiveness, you should buy a fertility monitor (LadyComp). You can see how it compares here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table

Clearly the most effective of the fertility awareness methods.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Is it human life? I don’t think the scientific community think so.

Yet, I just quoted several scientists who have published texts in embryology which explicitly state the opposite.

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being"

"What is being called a ‘fertilized egg’ …is a human being"

Have you published a textbook on embryology? The article by professor and research biochemist/biologist Dr. Dianne Irving contends against your opinion, presenting with supporting documentation what she contends is “the actual international consensus of human embryologists.”

It seems to me that it is more correct to say you are in disgreement with this community of scientists than to the claim that the the Church and this community of scientists are in disagreement on the matter. The Church agrees with the “actual international consensus of human embrylogists” with regard to when human life begins.

 

[Persuader]

Yet, I just quoted several scientists who have published texts in embryology which explicitly state the opposite.

I don’t know exactly where you’ve found these quotes, but I think you might be conflating the different meanings of saying something is a human life. Of course, a fertilized egg is a human life in the sense that it is living and has human DNA. But as you could see from what I wrote, things are not that simple. In your quote from Dianne N. Irving, we actually see what amounts to a factual mistake. She claims that an individual has been assembled when the egg gets fertilized. Given the fact of identical twins and chimeras, we have one of these two possibilities:

(1) An individual can be split into two or fused with another while remaining an individual.
(2) A fertilized egg is not an individual

As it happens, “individual” means “indivisible”, in which case an individual cannot be divided. A fertilized egg can be split or divided (identical twins). Therefore (1) cannot be true, and a fertilized egg is not an individual.

I would agree that there is consensus about the fact that a new mix of human DNA is created at fertilization, and that this is a human life in that sense. That can be the only consensus Dianne is referring to unless she thinks scientists think that an actual human being is divisible.

In this case, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. When governments have turned to the scientific community for counsel on stem cell research, for instance, the response has been to go for it. Clearly, the scientific community doesn’t think a fertilized egg is a human being, unless you think scientists are fine with killing human beings.

Thanks

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t know exactly where you’ve found these quotes

I cited the references above.

I think you might be conflating the different meanings of saying something is a human life.

No, I’m disputing your claim that the Church is in disagreement with the scientific community regarding when life, particularly when human life begins. You made that claim, and yet I don’t see how you’ve supported it in any way. If that was just your opinion, that’s fine. Everyone has one of those, but this one in particular lack supporing evidence and is unconvincing.

Human life begins at fertilization. This is what the Church agrees with, and this is what the scientific community clearly states, as the “the actual international consensus of human embryologists,” claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Clearly, the scientific community doesn’t think a fertilized egg is a human being

This isn’t clear at all. In fact, it is apparent from the published consensus of human embryologists, that the opposite is true. If a fertilized egg is a human being as is claimed by the consensus of embryologists worldwide, then it is worthy of the inalienable rights bestowed all human beings by their Creator. The consensus of published embryologist is compelling with regard to the evidence of when human life begins.

… unless you think scientists are fine with killing human beings.

Yes, sadly, history is filled with scientists who are fine with killing human beings. Thank God not all scientists hold such an immoral view.

 

[Bporte00]

I realize this thread turned into a debate more than anything, but I figured I would update for anyone who was interested or may stumble on this thread later with similar concerns. After a few candid discussions with my husband he has agree to learn NFP with me. We also have decided that if God were to bless us with another child it would be just that, a blessing, but we won’t be TTC any time soon.

The biggest struggle was trusting God and facing the issue head on instead of wallowing in the fear.

Thank you everyone again for all the help.

 

[BrokenFortress]

I just want to say welcome to the Catholic Church, as a fellow convert (although I converted over 4 years ago now)

NFP can be hard, it’s trusting something other than science. I don’t know why people have such trust in science, I know many people who got pregnant while trying to avoid with various BC methods. So for whatever reason, trusting your body and God is harder. But I do think NFP is a blessing. It allows you to figure out your body and work with it, not against it. It can open communication with your spouse. And some people say it really put a strain on their marriage, but really, it kind of is an indicator of other issues in your marriage. It really can be a blessing from God.

Anyways, we got pregnant on our wedding night, so I don’t have a ton of advice about NFP (although I did learn it before the wedding, and knew we could get pregnant) but I think that when you start living your life with God in mind, He does reward you and you will be better off in the end, even if it seems harder now.

 

[convert38]

NFP is hard and isn’t for every couple at the end of the day you really need to do what you and your spouse are comfortable with. My husband and I use condoms because NFP just didn’t work for us and if we get pg we are willing to except that. This is as hard topic however I’m surprised this was brought up In your RCIA class. Mine didn’t touch on any of these issues!

 

[BrokenFortress]

NFP is hard and isn’t for every couple at the end of the day you really need to do what you and your spouse are comfortable with. My husband and I use condoms because NFP just didn’t work for us and if we get pg we are willing to except that. This is as hard topic however I’m surprised this was brought up In your RCIA class. Mine didn’t touch on any of these issues!

That may work for your husband and yourself, but it is against Catholic teaching.